According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 913 will have no significant fiscal implications to the State. LBB assumes any costs associated with the bill could be absorbed using existing resources.

The main potential cost driver is the bill’s requirement that each state hospital employ a superintendent, along with any administrative implementation needed to update facility names and management structure. However, the fiscal note does not identify any new appropriation, staffing cost, or recurring state fiscal obligation beyond what existing resources can cover.

For local governments, LBB likewise anticipates no significant fiscal implications. The fiscal note identifies the Health and Human Services Commission as the relevant state agency and does not indicate any direct fiscal burden on counties, municipalities, or other local units of government.

Texas Policy Research remains NEUTRAL on HB 913 as it is primarily an administrative and statutory-cleanup measure rather than a bill that substantially advances or restricts liberty principles. The bill updates the statutory names and listings of state hospital facilities, adds the Panhandle State Hospital and Lubbock Psychiatric Center to the state code, and requires each state hospital to employ a superintendent. The bill is framed as a way to improve oversight and clarify which state hospital regulations apply to current and newly constructed facilities.

The bill presents limited fiscal and regulatory risk. The LBB anticipates no significant fiscal implications to the State, assumes any associated costs can be absorbed with existing resources, and finds no significant fiscal implications for local governments. The bill also does not impose new requirements on private citizens, businesses, or property owners.

At the same time, HB 913 does not meaningfully reduce government authority, spending, regulation, or bureaucracy. It expressly grants rulemaking authority to the executive commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission to require each state hospital to employ a superintendent, which modestly formalizes administrative structure within an existing state-run institutional system.

For these reasons, a Neutral position reflects that the bill is low-risk and largely technical, but not materially liberty-enhancing. It may improve state hospital management and statutory clarity, but it neither meaningfully limits government nor imposes a significant new burden warranting opposition.