According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 2696 cannot be determined because the potential certified population is unknown. As a result, LBB could not estimate the additional workload for the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation or the additional General Revenue that could be generated from fees. The bill would require TDLR to administer a new certificate program for cosmetic injections, including certificate administration, review of continuing education courses, fee collection, and enforcement activity.

LBB states that the key uncertainty is the number of individuals who would apply for the new certificate. Because that population is unknown, the workload tied to certification, customer service, inspections, and enforcement cannot be estimated. The revenue impact is likewise indeterminate because fee collections would depend on the number of applicants and certificate holders.

TDLR reported that, at a minimum, it would need at least two additional Program Specialist full-time-equivalent positions to vet training courses, review continuing education courses, and assist other agency divisions with technical information related to the new certificate type. LBB reports that those positions would cost $207,104 in the first year and $192,272 in each subsequent year, making the identified staffing costs recurring rather than one-time.

The bill would take effect September 1, 2025, but TDLR would not have to adopt rules until December 1, 2025, approve education and training until March 1, 2026, and require certificates until September 1, 2026. LBB anticipates no fiscal implications for local governments.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2696 unless amended as described below. SB 2696 addresses a legitimate public-safety concern in the cosmetic injection and med spa market, but it does so by creating a new state occupational certificate administered by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. The bill would prohibit a person from performing or offering to perform cosmetic injections unless the person holds the new certificate, and it would allow a physician to delegate cosmetic injections only to a certificate holder. That structure grows the scope of government by moving this activity into a new state credentialing framework with agency-administered applications, fees, training approval, continuing education approval, background checks, renewals, and enforcement.

The bill also increases the regulatory burden on individuals and businesses. A person seeking to perform cosmetic injections would have to complete 40 hours of TDLR-approved foundational training, perform at least 50 cosmetic injection procedures under direct supervision, submit certified procedure logs through TDLR’s website, pay a certificate fee, undergo a criminal history record information check, and renew the certificate every two years with at least eight hours of continuing education and a renewal fee. For med spas, cosmetic practices, training providers, and supervising professionals, the bill creates new compliance duties and may affect staffing, delegation, training timelines, and business operations.

The bill creates taxpayer and fiscal concerns as well. The LBB states that the fiscal implications cannot be determined because the potential certified population is unknown. LBB could not estimate the additional TDLR workload or the additional General Revenue from fees. TDLR reported that, at a minimum, it would need two additional Program Specialist full-time-equivalent positions to vet training courses, review continuing education courses, and assist with technical implementation, at a cost of $207,104 in the first year and $192,272 in each subsequent year. Although the bill authorizes fees, the agency workload and revenue effects remain assumption-dependent, and the state would assume responsibility for a new recurring regulatory program.

The Committee Substitute improves the filed bill in some respects. It replaces the broader “advanced cosmetic procedure license” and examination model with a narrower “cosmetic injector certificate,” exempts physicians, dentists, and licensed health care professionals acting under physician delegation, and creates a temporary pathway for certain experienced practitioners to obtain a certificate without the standard training requirement. Those changes reduce some barriers to entry, but they do not resolve the central limited-government problem: the bill still creates a new occupational permission slip and gives TDLR broad discretion over forms, fees, training approval, continuing education approval, background checks, and enforcement.

SB 2696 should be amended to narrow the state’s role and reduce the regulatory burden. Amendments should replace the certificate mandate with a narrower registration, disclosure, or physician-attestation model where feasible; cap fees in statute; limit background-check review to offenses directly related to client safety or fraud; add a sunset date and reporting requirement; and prohibit TDLR from expanding the certificate by rule into broader aesthetic, wellness, or device-based services not expressly listed in statute. The bill may be aimed at improving consumer safety, but without these structural limits it expands government authority, increases compliance costs, creates uncertain recurring fiscal exposure, and establishes a precedent for additional occupational licensing in cosmetic services.

The bill imposes a new occupational barrier in the cosmetic services market. Applicants must complete 40 hours of approved training, perform at least 50 supervised procedures, pay a certificate fee, submit documentation through TDLR, and renew every two years with continuing education and a renewal fee. These requirements may be manageable for established med spas or larger practices, but they increase entry costs and compliance burdens for workers, small businesses, and new market entrants.

The bill does not directly regulate land use, authorize takings, restrict ownership of real property, or impose compliance obligations tied to land. Its property-rights effects are indirect, through the regulation of business activity, equipment use, and the ability of practitioners or businesses to use their assets to provide cosmetic injection services. For that reason, the bill has a comparatively limited direct impact on private property rights.

The bill shifts responsibility away from private judgment by consumers, physicians, employers, insurers, and practitioners and toward state credentialing. Rather than relying primarily on informed consent, private training, physician oversight, liability, or market reputation, the bill requires TDLR-approved training, certified procedure logs, continuing education, and agency-administered renewal. This reduces reliance on individual and professional responsibility in favor of state-supervised qualification standards.

The bill substantially expands the scope of state regulation by creating a new TDLR-administered certificate program. It requires TDLR to enforce the new chapter, approve training and continuing education providers, process applications and renewals, collect fees, conduct background checks, and support enforcement. The Legislative Budget Board found the fiscal implications indeterminate because the potential certified population is unknown, while TDLR estimated it would need at least two additional full-time-equivalent positions, costing $207,104 in the first year and $192,272 in each subsequent year. Because it creates a new recurring regulatory program with uncertain fiscal effects and broad administrative discretion, the bill scores poorly on Limited Government.

The bill restricts individual occupational choice by prohibiting a person from performing or offering to perform cosmetic injections unless the person holds a state-issued certificate. It also requires applicants to undergo a criminal history record information check. The bill is less restrictive than a total prohibition because it creates a pathway to certification and exempts physicians, dentists, and certain licensed health care professionals, but it still conditions lawful work on state permission.