According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of  SB 30 are minimal at both the state and local levels, according to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB). The LBB anticipates that any costs associated with implementing the bill—such as adjustments in court procedures or administrative handling of new affidavit standards—could be absorbed within the current resources of the relevant state agencies, such as the Office of Court Administration​.

Because the bill streamlines the process for challenging the reasonableness and necessity of medical charges in civil litigation (e.g., replacing counter-affidavits with a notice of intent to controvert), it may actually reduce the time and resources required to process some cases. However, these operational efficiencies are not expected to translate into measurable budget savings or new costs for state courts or agencies involved in civil litigation.

Similarly, no significant fiscal impact is expected for local governments. County courts and district courts, which handle most civil litigation involving personal injury and healthcare claims, may experience procedural shifts but will not incur new obligations or funding needs that would materially affect local budgets.

Overall, SB 30 is viewed as having a negligible financial footprint, enabling reforms to civil procedure without requiring new appropriations or creating unfunded mandates.

SB 30 seeks to address longstanding concerns in Texas civil litigation related to inflated medical billing and subjective, speculative awards of noneconomic damages. By replacing the current counter-affidavit requirement with a notice-based system and tightening the standards for what constitutes admissible evidence of medical charges and pain and suffering, the bill enhances transparency and procedural fairness. It aligns with important goals of personal responsibility and judicial efficiency by discouraging the manipulation of damage figures and by providing clearer statutory guidance to juries and courts.

However, while the bill pursues legitimate reform objectives, it also raises concerns about access to justice for injured individuals—particularly those who are uninsured or low-income. The strict evidentiary thresholds, including new disclosure requirements and affidavit limitations, could inadvertently prevent some plaintiffs from presenting valid claims. Additionally, the bill imposes rigid constraints on how noneconomic damages are introduced and awarded, potentially limiting a jury’s ability to respond to the unique human impact of an injury or death.

Suggested Amendments:

• Preserve Judicial Discretion in Affidavit Challenges: Prevents bad actors from being shielded by rigid procedural protections while preserving fairness for both parties.

• Protect Access to Justice for Uninsured and Low-Income Plaintiffs: Ensures that low-income plaintiffs who lack traditional insurance are not unfairly penalized.

• Modify Disclosure Requirements to Limit Attorney-Client Burden: Balances transparency with the protection of privileged or burdensome disclosures that may chill legal access.

• Restore Flexibility in Proving Causation: Prevents over-restriction of how causation may be shown in valid cases.

• Refine Noneconomic Damages Guidance Without Arbitrary Caps: Maintains the intent to prevent excessive verdicts while allowing case-by-case assessment based on real harm.

• Clarify Applicability and Transition Provisions: Avoids retroactive harm and protects due process in ongoing litigation.

Given its merits and its alignment with liberty principles like limited government, personal responsibility, and fairness in the civil system, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 30 but also strongly suggests that targeted amendments, as mentioned above, are essential to preserve individual liberty and ensure equal access to civil remedies.

• Individual Liberty: The bill enhances fairness by curbing exaggerated claims and requiring more objective proof in civil trials, which supports due process for all litigants. However, the bill may restrict access to justice for plaintiffs—particularly the uninsured or low-income—who rely on alternative payment methods such as letters of protection. Strict documentation and billing requirements may prevent valid claims from being heard, potentially limiting the liberty of injured individuals to seek full redress for harm. Amendments are needed to protect this principle more fully.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces personal responsibility by requiring all parties—especially plaintiffs and their healthcare providers—to maintain accurate, substantiated, and timely records of treatment and charges. Defendants must also respond promptly if they intend to contest medical bills. This promotes accountability and discourages misuse of the legal process for inflated recoveries.
• Free Enterprise: By deterring inflated medical billing and curbing litigation abuse, the bill improves the predictability and efficiency of the civil justice system, which benefits insurers, healthcare providers, and businesses. Reducing excessive or arbitrary damage awards helps stabilize liability insurance markets and supports a more competitive business environment, free from the economic distortions of runaway verdicts.
• Private Property Rights: Although the bill does not directly alter property law, it upholds procedural protections for defendants’ financial resources. By tightening standards for awarding damages, it helps ensure that judgments against individuals or businesses are based on verified harm and not inflated or speculative claims. This protection against excessive liability aligns with the principle of safeguarding one’s property from unjust deprivation.
• Limited Government: The bill advances limited government by reducing reliance on subjective and inconsistent jury outcomes and replacing them with clearer statutory standards. However, some provisions—like rigid caps and disclosure mandates—could veer toward government overreach into private contractual arrangements between patients, attorneys, and providers. Thoughtful amendments could better balance these reforms with deference to the courts and private decision-making.

• HB 4806 (Same As)