According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 2891 reflect a modest but ongoing cost to the state’s General Revenue Fund. According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the bill would result in a projected negative fiscal impact of approximately $2.87 million over the 2026–2027 biennium. These expenses are associated with the creation and operation of the newly established Health Professions Workforce Coordinating Council within the Department of State Health Services (DSHS)​.

To implement the bill’s requirements, DSHS would require nine additional full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. These include four Research Specialist V roles to analyze workforce trends and education outcomes, four Data Analyst V roles to manage and interpret large health workforce datasets, and one Director II to oversee strategic planning and operations of the council. The estimated cost for these positions is $1.27 million in FY2026 and $1.6 million annually thereafter. The initial year’s cost is lower due to an assumed phased hiring schedule.

The bill does not appropriate funds directly but provides the legal foundation for future appropriations. Additionally, other affected state agencies—such as the Attorney General’s Office, the Office of Court Administration, and the Health and Human Services Commission—indicated that any responsibilities stemming from the bill could be absorbed within existing resources. The Comptroller of Public Accounts anticipates no significant impact on state revenue collections, and there are no expected fiscal implications for local governments.

Overall, while the bill introduces ongoing costs, they are relatively limited in scope and are primarily directed toward staffing and administrative support for enhanced workforce data analysis and strategic planning functions within DSHS.

SB 2891 presents a well-meaning but ultimately problematic reorganization of Texas’s healthcare workforce planning infrastructure. While the bill aims to improve coordination across state agencies and address health professional shortages through a centralized strategic approach, it does so by expanding the size and scope of government in ways that raise principled concerns. Specifically, the creation of the Health Professions Workforce Coordinating Council—along with the establishment of new planning duties, a permanent workgroup, and an advisory nursing committee—represents a significant state-led intervention in what has traditionally been a market-influenced sector.

From a limited government perspective, SB 2891 introduces nine new full-time government positions at the Department of State Health Services, funded entirely by General Revenue. These include data analysts, research specialists, and a director, at a cost of approximately $2.87 million for the initial 2026–2027 biennium and over $1.6 million annually thereafter. While these roles are designed to enhance workforce planning, the cost is not offset by clear, measurable savings elsewhere in state government. For lawmakers concerned about fiscal restraint and administrative efficiency, this increased spending, without a defined sunset or cost-sharing mechanism, may be seen as unjustified and unsustainable over time.

Moreover, although the bill eliminates two entities (the Statewide Health Coordinating Council and its Nursing Advisory Committee), it does not reduce bureaucracy. Rather, it reconstitutes their roles under a broader, more expansive umbrella. The new council brings together representatives from at least 15 agencies and assigns them long-term strategic and planning tasks, with biennial reporting requirements and a broader purview than the structures it replaces. This shift may be viewed not as consolidation, but as bureaucratic reshaping that enlarges the government’s footprint in workforce policy without direct accountability to the public or private sector stakeholders who bear the downstream effects.

Importantly, the bill also reflects a central planning mindset that may be at odds with free market principles. By directing workforce strategies through a state council, rather than allowing schools, employers, and professionals to respond organically to labor market demands, it risks skewing supply and demand signals and encouraging top-down resource allocation. Even though SB 2891 is advisory in nature and does not impose new regulations, its centralized planning structure could establish a precedent for future interventions that constrain the autonomy of educational institutions and healthcare providers.

Finally, while the bill does not impose any new regulatory burdens on individuals or private businesses, its long-term implications could open the door to increased state influence over education pipelines, licensure prioritization, or funding distributions. For lawmakers concerned about creeping regulatory frameworks, the establishment of such a centralized strategic authority, even with no current enforcement power, warrants caution.

In conclusion, although SB 2891 is framed as a modernization effort, it expands government staffing, requires new taxpayer funding, centralizes decision-making, and invites future mission creep. These factors outweigh the potential benefits of improved coordination. For those committed to limiting the growth of state government, protecting free enterprise, and avoiding unfunded administrative expansion, Texas Policy Research encourages lawmakers to vote NO on SB 2891.

• Individual Liberty: The bill's stated aim—to improve the strategic planning of the healthcare workforce in Texas—could support individual liberty by helping ensure that Texans have access to a robust and geographically distributed health provider network. In theory, more doctors, nurses, and other practitioners mean better access to care and greater freedom of choice. However, this benefit is indirect and hinges on the effectiveness of government planning, which historically has had mixed results. Moreover, centralizing decisions about workforce priorities could eventually limit the autonomy of health professionals or institutions through indirect state influence over program funding or credentialing priorities.
• Personal Responsibility: By promoting data-driven policy and coordination among educational and workforce entities, the bill may improve transparency around labor market trends. That, in turn, could help students and professionals make better-informed career decisions, reinforcing personal responsibility. However, because the bill does not mandate individual behavior or shift responsibility away from individuals, its impact on this principle is positive but limited.
• Free Enterprise: The bill introduces a centralized state planning body to assess and forecast workforce needs, which risks distorting labor market signals. While not directly regulatory, it effectively places the state in a quasi-managerial role over workforce development, territory traditionally governed by employer demand and individual career choice. This is antithetical to free enterprise, where voluntary transactions and decentralized responses to demand determine labor flows. The council's outputs could lead to top-down program expansions or funding allocations that outpace or misalign with actual market needs, creating inefficiencies or unintended disincentives.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not impact or infringe upon private property rights. It neither authorizes the taking nor regulation of private property nor interferes with property-based transactions. The council’s work is advisory and informational, with no enforcement power that could encroach on property ownership or control.
• Limited Government: This principle is where the bill most clearly falls short. SB 2891 expands the administrative state by establishing a new, broad-scope council and creating nine new state positions—funded by General Revenue at nearly $3 million over the first biennium. While it eliminates two existing bodies, it replaces them with a more expansive and permanent infrastructure, without a defined sunset clause or cost controls. For those who believe government should perform only essential, constitutionally authorized functions, this expansion, especially into workforce planning, goes beyond limited governance.

• HB 3801 (Same As)