According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 636 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The analysis concludes that any costs associated with implementing the bill’s provisions—including extending mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) parity requirements across state health benefit plans—could be absorbed within existing agency resources. This suggests that the financial and administrative infrastructure currently in place at relevant state agencies, such as the Teacher Retirement System (TRS), Employees Retirement System (ERS), and university health systems, is sufficient to meet the bill’s compliance mandates without the need for new appropriations or staffing increases​.

Additionally, the fiscal note affirms that there would be no fiscal implications for local government units. Since the bill pertains only to state-administered health benefit plans, local entities—including counties, municipalities, and independent school districts—would not incur any new responsibilities or financial burdens under the legislation.

This analysis reflects confidence in the scalability of existing systems to integrate the bill's changes, particularly those involving compliance monitoring, plan evaluation, and adjustments to benefit structures for parity. The absence of a projected fiscal impact may also reflect the federal parity mandates that many plans are already partially complying with, meaning the bill would align Texas statute more closely with existing federal law without requiring significant operational changes.

SB 636 seeks to close a longstanding gap in mental health parity for public servants in Texas by requiring government-operated health plans to meet the same standards for mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) coverage as those required of private insurance plans regulated by the Texas Department of Insurance. Specifically, the bill extends parity requirements to plans administered by the Teacher Retirement System (TRS), Employees Retirement System (ERS), and university systems (Chapters 1551, 1575, 1579, and 1601 of the Insurance Code). This means those plans must evaluate and structure their MH/SUD coverage with the same treatment limitations and financial requirements as they do for physical illnesses.

This effort addresses a disparity that has existed despite the passage of previous parity laws—both federal and state—by including a broader scope of Texas residents who receive health insurance through public employment. Mental health parity is not just a policy enhancement; it is a necessary reform that respects the dignity and health needs of state employees, retirees, teachers, and university staff who have, until now, received less comprehensive behavioral health coverage than their private-sector counterparts.

From a liberty-oriented framework, SB 636 scores positively on several fronts. First, it advances Individual Liberty by removing artificial and unequal barriers to mental health care for public employees. Individuals covered under these plans will now have access to a broader set of health services without unjust discrimination against behavioral health needs.

The bill also promotes Personal Responsibility by empowering public servants to take charge of their mental wellness. People cannot be expected to manage their health responsibly if their insurance plans discourage or fail to cover the necessary care. By ensuring that mental health treatment is available under fair terms, this legislation reinforces a culture of proactive health management.

SB 636 reflects the value of Limited Government. The bill does not expand state bureaucracy, create new agencies, or introduce new regulatory frameworks. Instead, it assigns compliance and enforcement responsibilities to existing administrative structures (such as the ERS and TRS boards of trustees), which already have oversight over these health plans. This ensures that the bill’s goals are met efficiently, without creating new governmental layers or mandates beyond the scope of current institutions.

Although the bill does not directly touch the private sector, it supports Free Enterprise by leveling the playing field between state-sponsored and private health insurance. Public plans will now adhere to the same standards already expected of private carriers. This discourages a potential race to the bottom in benefit design and promotes consistent standards in health coverage across markets.

SB 636 does not grow government. It expands the scope of current responsibilities within existing administrative entities but does not create new offices, departments, or regulatory bodies. The rulemaking authority remains unchanged, and enforcement is conducted through existing governance channels. It also does not expand social welfare programs. This legislation does not create new entitlements or subsidies. Instead, it adjusts employment-based insurance plans—benefits earned by public workers as part of their compensation packages—to ensure they meet modern healthcare standards. It is a matter of benefit design and equity, not public assistance expansion.

Critically, SB 636 does not increase the burden on Texas taxpayers. According to the Legislative Budget Board’s fiscal analysis, there is no significant fiscal implication to the state. The relevant agencies report that any costs incurred through implementation can be absorbed within existing resources. Additionally, there is no financial impact on local governments, meaning no risk of increased local taxes or service cuts​.

SB 636 delivers a well-targeted, fiscally responsible reform that protects liberty, promotes equity in healthcare, and improves the quality of public employment benefits. It ensures that Texas public employees, including teachers, retirees, and university workers, receive MH/SUD coverage on par with physical healthcare, without burdening taxpayers or growing government. The bill advances the state’s interest in efficient governance and workforce health while respecting core conservative and liberty-based principles. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 636.

• Individual Liberty: The bill directly supports individual liberty by ensuring public employees, including teachers, retirees, and university staff, are not denied equitable access to mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) care. By mandating parity between behavioral health and physical health coverage in state-sponsored health plans, the bill removes outdated and discriminatory limitations that infringe on individuals' freedom to seek necessary medical treatment. This affirms the principle that individuals should have control over their own healthcare decisions and the right to access care without undue restriction or systemic bias.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes personal responsibility by making it more feasible for individuals to seek and maintain treatment for mental health and substance use disorders. By ensuring MH/SUD coverage is on par with physical health benefits, individuals are better equipped to take proactive steps in managing their mental and emotional well-being. This creates a structure that supports people who are trying to do the right thing—seek help, follow medical guidance, and improve their health—without being punished by restrictive or inadequate insurance coverage.
• Free Enterprise: While this legislation applies solely to government-operated plans, it upholds the broader ethos of free enterprise by encouraging fair competition between public and private plans. Public health plans should not be allowed to offer substandard coverage compared to the private market. Requiring parity helps ensure that public plans do not undermine private-sector innovation or market expectations by offering cheaper but less comprehensive benefits.
• Private Property Rights: The bill has no effect on private property rights. It does not regulate or seize private assets, nor does it impose mandates on private individuals, employers, or businesses outside the scope of public employee health plans.
• Limited Government: Importantly, the bill respects the principle of limited government. It does not create new agencies, regulatory schemes, or entitlement programs. Instead, it works within existing administrative structures—namely, the governing boards of the TRS, ERS, and university systems. These entities are already responsible for managing and overseeing state employee health plans, and this bill simply expands their role to include compliance with parity standards. The bill also refrains from adding new rulemaking authority or expanding the scope of state power beyond the health plans it directly manages.

• HB 1142 (Same As)
• HB 1396 (Similar To)