The fiscal impact of SB 627 is expected to be minimal, with no significant costs anticipated for the state. According to the Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note, any expenses associated with implementing the bill's provisions, such as changes to licensing regulations and enforcement, can be absorbed within existing resources.

Additionally, there is no expected financial impact on local government entities, meaning counties or municipalities will not incur costs due to this legislation. Relevant state agencies, including the Department of Information Resources, the State Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Department of Licensing and Regulation, have not identified any substantial budgetary concerns related to the bill's implementation​.

SB 627 seeks to remove outdated statutory references to provisional licensed dietitians (PLD), a designation that the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) ceased issuing in 2017. While the bill aligns licensing statutes with current agency practices and removes vague "fitness" requirements that could lead to subjective denials, it fails to address the broader impact of eliminating the provisional licensing pathway altogether. By formally removing PLD from statute, this bill solidifies a more restrictive licensing structure, preventing future flexibility for entry-level professionals who may benefit from a supervised, transitional licensing status.

From a liberty perspective, this bill negatively affects free enterprise by limiting workforce entry and reducing competition in the dietetics profession. It also expands government control over licensing rather than reducing unnecessary barriers. While the removal of arbitrary "fitness" requirements is a positive step toward individual liberty, it does not outweigh the workforce restrictions imposed by eliminating provisional licensing.

To better align with principles of free enterprise and limited government, SB 627 should be amended to reinstate a structured provisional licensing pathway. Without such an amendment, this bill should be opposed for reinforcing barriers to employment without clear public safety or consumer protection benefits.