According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 645 are projected to result in a net cost of approximately $2.2 million to the General Revenue Fund over the biennium ending August 31, 2027. The primary costs are associated with implementing and operating a statewide co-navigation services program for individuals who are deaf-blind, administered by the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC).

In the fiscal year 2026, the program would incur an estimated cost of $594,731 from General Revenue, rising to $1,603,597 in fiscal year 2027. These expenses include hiring 3.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff members to manage and oversee the program, with costs continuing at similar levels through the fiscal year 2030. Included in these estimates are one-time implementation costs of approximately $39,314, primarily for startup and administrative infrastructure.

An additional $54,444 annually is allocated for the operation of an advisory committee to guide the development and management of the program. Beginning in the fiscal year 2027, client service delivery costs are projected at $1.06 million annually, based on serving 100 clients per month. These figures assume a static caseload, with no projected growth in service recipients over time.

The bill does not impose significant fiscal implications on local governments. However, it provides the legal framework for state appropriations that could expand the program beyond the assumed client base or administrative setup, should demand or legislative support increase in the future.

HB 645 proposes the creation of a new statewide co-navigation services program within the Health and Human Services Commission to support Texans who are deaf-blind. While the bill seeks to address a real and meaningful need—helping individuals with dual sensory loss navigate their environment and make informed decisions—it does so by significantly expanding the scope of government. The program would require the hiring of new state employees, creating a reimbursement system, and providing ongoing training and quality oversight, all of which represent a long-term commitment of taxpayer resources.

The projected fiscal impact exceeds $2.1 million in the first biennium and continues with annual costs of over $1.6 million, placing a new and ongoing burden on the General Revenue Fund. While the bill encourages the development of alternative funding sources, there are no guarantees that these would offset the state's fiscal responsibility. Additionally, this new government-run program enters a space that could be better served by private enterprises, nonprofits, and community-based initiatives—entities that are often more efficient, flexible, and better positioned to innovate.

From a limited government and free enterprise perspective, this bill represents a step in the wrong direction. Rather than creating a permanent, state-run program, the Legislature could pursue alternatives such as expanding access through existing Medicaid waivers or facilitating partnerships with nonprofits. For these reasons, and to remain consistent with principles of restrained government, fiscal responsibility, and private-sector leadership, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 645.

• Individual Liberty: The bill aims to enhance individual autonomy for deaf-blind Texans by helping them access their environments and communicate through trained co-navigators. This could enable individuals to live more independently, make informed decisions, and participate in society more fully—advancing the principle of individual liberty. However, some critics might argue that government-delivered services, even when well-intentioned, can lead to greater dependency on the state, which over time may undermine the broader goal of liberty as self-reliance.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill neither penalizes nor particularly incentivizes personal responsibility. It provides services to individuals whose physical limitations inherently reduce their capacity to function independently—so the bill isn’t about replacing self-sufficiency but rather enabling independence where it’s otherwise physically inaccessible. Still, the delivery of services through a state-administered program rather than community-based or voluntary systems could dilute the ethos of mutual aid and civic responsibility, which some would see as more appropriate in this context.
• Free Enterprise: By creating a state-operated reimbursement and service delivery system, the bill risks crowding out private solutions, disincentivizing innovation in a niche sector that could be addressed by nonprofits or mission-driven enterprises. It creates a framework where the state—not private actors—sets training standards, controls funding flows, and defines service eligibility. This could stifle the organic development of market-based or charitable alternatives in the co-navigation space.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not impact ownership, use, or control of private property and does not authorize any form of eminent domain, regulation, or restriction on property rights.
• Limited Government: The bill clearly expands the size, scope, and spending footprint of state government. It establishes a new program, allocates new funding, authorizes rulemaking, and creates ongoing obligations for service delivery and quality assurance. Although it includes language encouraging efficiency and the pursuit of non-state funding, the reality is a permanent increase in government responsibility and fiscal burden, inconsistent with the principle of limited government.