89th Legislature Regular Session

SB 2857

Overall Vote Recommendation
No
Principle Criteria
Free Enterprise
Property Rights
Personal Responsibility
Limited Government
Individual Liberty
Digest

SB 2857 creates Chapter 446 of the Texas Health and Safety Code to establish a Prescription Drug Purchasing Pool administered by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC). The bill authorizes health benefit plan issuers and both public and private employers to voluntarily participate in a state-facilitated program that negotiates prescription drug prices on behalf of its members. Eligible public employers include political subdivisions such as counties, municipalities, school districts, and higher education institutions. Qualified private employers must be self-insured entities conducting business in Texas.

The bill is structured to enhance purchasing power through group negotiation without forming a risk pool. Each participant remains individually responsible for the cost of prescription drugs under its health plan. The HHSC is tasked with setting administrative rules, including eligibility criteria, enrollment and disenrollment procedures, contribution methods, and terms of participation. Importantly, the HHSC may also offer participants the option to purchase stop-loss coverage, negotiated with private insurers, to help manage catastrophic claims exposure.

SB 2857 also allows for multi-employer purchasing arrangements, meaning multiple participants can jointly procure prescription drugs under the pool without triggering legal definitions of a multiple-employer welfare arrangement (MEWA), which are heavily regulated under insurance law. The bill emphasizes voluntary participation and is contingent upon legislative appropriation, thereby limiting its fiscal impact unless specifically funded by the state budget. This model aims to strike a balance between enabling collective bargaining for better drug prices and preserving autonomy and financial responsibility among private and public sector employers.

The Committee Substitute for SB 2857 introduces several notable changes from the originally filed version, primarily shifting administrative responsibilities and adding fiscal safeguards. The most prominent revision is the transfer of the program’s oversight from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts to the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC). While the original bill tasked the comptroller with establishing and managing the prescription drug purchasing pool, the substitute vests that responsibility in HHSC, a more appropriate agency given its existing role in administering healthcare services in the state. This change ensures the program is operated by an entity with deeper experience in healthcare systems and vendor negotiations related to prescription drugs.

In line with the agency shift, the rulemaking authority is also transferred from the comptroller to the executive commissioner of HHSC. The committee substitute clarifies and expands on the administrative duties, including procedures for enrollment, eligibility duration, contribution methods, and disenrollment. These refinements offer clearer guidance and greater flexibility for implementation, which would be important for a voluntary program that must accommodate a diverse range of public and private participants.

Another key difference is the addition of a funding contingency clause. The Committee Substitute explicitly states that the HHSC is required to implement the program only if the Legislature appropriates funds for that purpose. This provision was not in the original bill and represents a clear legislative safeguard against unfunded mandates. It aligns with principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility, addressing concerns that the program could otherwise create obligations without designated resources.

Finally, while the core components of the policy—voluntary participation, stop-loss insurance options, and legal treatment of joint employer arrangements—remain intact, the Committee Substitute reflects improved statutory drafting. These edits enhance clarity, compliance, and administrative feasibility, increasing the likelihood of successful program implementation while maintaining the original bill's intent.

Author
Cesar Blanco
Co-Author
Borris Miles
Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 2857 project a negative net impact of approximately $3.4 million to General Revenue for the 2026–2027 biennium. Over a five-year period (2026–2030), the total cost to the General Revenue Fund is projected to reach nearly $17.5 million. These costs are primarily related to the administrative setup and ongoing operation of the prescription drug purchasing pool, which would be overseen by the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC).

In fiscal year 2026, HHSC would require about $711,657, covering salaries and setup costs for three full-time positions (a Director II, a Director IV, and a Pharmacist II) and related expenses. In 2027, costs increase to nearly $2.7 million, with an additional $2 million earmarked for training and preparation related to the procurement process for vendor negotiation and contract management. Starting in fiscal year 2028, the projected annual cost increases to about $4.68 million per year, assuming full operation and ongoing procurement and training needs.

Importantly, the bill includes a clause that HHSC is required to implement its provisions only if the Legislature specifically appropriates funds for that purpose. This means the financial impact is contingent upon legislative action, and the agency may, but is not obligated to, use existing appropriations otherwise available. This safeguard helps align the bill with fiscal conservatism and prevents unfunded mandates.

No significant fiscal impact is anticipated for local governments, as the bill does not mandate their participation or impose costs on political subdivisions. Overall, while the program's establishment entails a measurable investment by the state, the long-term aim is to lower prescription drug costs for participating employers and insurers, which could yield broader economic benefits over time.

Vote Recommendation Notes

While SB 2857 is well-intentioned in seeking to lower prescription drug costs through a voluntary purchasing pool, it nonetheless expands the size and scope of state government by creating a new program within the Health and Human Services Commission. Even though participation is optional, the program requires public funding, estimated at $3.4 million in the first biennium and nearly $4.7 million annually thereafter, placing an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.

Furthermore, the bill duplicates existing private-sector solutions such as group purchasing organizations and pharmacy benefit managers, which already allow employers to negotiate lower drug prices without government involvement. Establishing a new state-run alternative risks displacing or undermining these market-driven efforts.

Additionally, although the bill is voluntary today, it could serve as a foundation for future mandates or regulatory expansion. For lawmakers committed to limited government, personal responsibility, and fiscal restraint, SB 2857 represents a step in the wrong direction. Lowering drug costs is important, but it should be achieved through private, competitive, and non-governmental means. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2857.

  • Individual Liberty: The bill modestly supports individual liberty by helping employers offer more affordable prescription drugs to employees, retirees, and their families. This could improve health access and economic freedom for some Texans. However, by introducing a state-run framework into what is currently a private-sector function, it risks creating a precedent for increased government involvement in personal healthcare choices, which could erode individual liberty over time.
  • Personal Responsibility: The bill largely preserves personal responsibility by requiring participating employers and insurers to remain financially liable for their own prescription costs. There are no subsidies or guarantees. However, critics may argue that the state’s involvement—even in a voluntary framework—may encourage public reliance on government infrastructure rather than private initiative, slightly undermining the ethos of self-sufficiency and decentralized problem-solving.
  • Free Enterprise: The bill poses a risk to free enterprise by introducing a taxpayer-supported, government-administered purchasing pool into a space already served by private group purchasing organizations and pharmacy benefit managers. Although participation is optional, the state’s involvement could discourage market competition, crowd out private solutions, or create unfair advantages over time, thus blurring the lines between facilitator and competitor in the healthcare economy.
  • Private Property Rights: The bill has a neutral impact on private property rights. It does not compel participation, restrict contracts, or interfere with the use or ownership of private assets. Employers retain full discretion over whether to join the pool and how they structure their benefit plans. There is no coercive regulatory action that would infringe upon property or contractual freedoms.
  • Limited Government: This is where the bill most clearly conflicts with liberty principles. The bill creates a new state program, adds staffing, and requires ongoing appropriations for implementation and administration. While it includes a fiscal trigger that limits execution to years in which funding is appropriated, the program still represents a clear expansion of the state’s role in healthcare markets. For proponents of minimal, constitutionally bounded government, this sets a problematic precedent for creeping government involvement in private sector functions.
Related Legislation
View Bill Text and Status