LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
                                   Austin, Texas
         
                                   FISCAL NOTE
                               75th Regular Session
         
                                  April 7, 1997
         
         
      TO: Honorable Judith Zaffirini, Chair            IN RE:  Senate Bill No. 1159, Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
          Committee on Health & Human Services                              By: Carona
          Senate
          Austin, Texas
         
         
         
         
         FROM:  John Keel, Director    
         
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB1159 ( Relating 
to regulating personal care facilities; providing for a civil 
penalty) this office has detemined the following:
         
         Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB1159-Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
         
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net 
positive impact of $6,428 to General Revenue Related Funds through 
the biennium ending August 31, 1999.
         
The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal 
basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions 
of the bill.
         
 
Fiscal Analysis
 
The bill would authorize the Department of Human Services (DHS) 
to seek a temporary restraining order when a personal care facility 
is operating without a license and there is no immediate threat 
to the health or safety of residents.  Current law only authorizes 
DHS to seek a temporary restraining order for unlicensed activity 
when there is an immediate threat.

The bill would increase 
the minimum civil penalty for unlicensed activity by a personal 
care home from $100 to $1,000 per day.  It would allow the higher 
minimum civil penalty to be imposed for violations that accompany 
the unlicensed activity violation.  It would also specify that 
penalties deposited in the General Revenue fund may only be 
appropriated to DHS to administer and enforce the licensing 
statute.

The bill would require DHS to refer civil penalty 
cases to the local district attorney, county attorney, or civil 
attorney if the Attorney General fails to take action within 
30 days of referral.  It would also require the local attorneys 
to file suit in a district court to collect and retain the penalty.
 

The bill would require the Department of Protective and Regulatory 
Services by rule to adopt a memorandum of understanding with 
DHS and the Attorney General that: 1) defines responsibilities 
and coordinates activities concerning personal care home facilities, 
2) delineates coordinated procedures for responding to complaints 
about resident abuse or neglect, substandard conditions, and 
unlicensed activity, 3) identifies each agency's need for access 
to information on facilities that are under investigation or 
a plan of correction, and 4) provides a plan for correcting 
violations when appropriate.

The effective date of the bill 
would be September 1, 1997.
 
Methodolgy
 
It is assumed that implementation of the bill's provisions would 
require DHS to investigate 300 additional complaints against 
unlicensed personal care facilities in 1998, and 200 additional 
complaints in each subsequent year.  It is also assumed that 
each investigation would require 12 hours of staff time.  The 
department would need 2.3 FTE positions in 1998 and 1.5 FTE 
positions in subsequent years to accommodate the additional 
workload.

It is assumed that: 1) the minimum civil penalty 
of $1,000 would be assessed against 95% of the facilities investigated 
each year, 2) 50% of the assessed penalties would be collected, 
3) 100% of the collected penalties would be deposited in the 
General Revenue fund, and 4) there would be a six-month lag 
between the imposition and assessment of penalties.

It is 
assumed that implementation of the bill's provision requiring 
the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services to participate 
in the memorandum of understanding between DHS and the Attorney 
General would have no significant fiscal impact.
The probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions 
of the bill during each of the first five years following passage 
is estimated as follows:
 
Five Year Impact:
 
Fiscal Year Probable           Probable Revenue   Change in Number   
            Savings/(Cost)     Gain/(Loss) from   of State                                                
            from General       General Revenue    Employees from                                          
            Revenue Fund       Fund               FY 1997                                                 
            0001               0001                                                                        
       1998        ($116,971)           $71,250               2.3                                    
       1998          (66,601)           118,750               1.5                                    
       2000          (72,291)            95,000               1.5                                    
       2001          (72,291)            95,000               1.5                                    
       2002          (72,291)            95,000               1.5                                    
 
 
         Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
 
The probable fiscal implication to General Revenue related funds 
during each of the first five years is estimated as follows:
 
              Fiscal Year      Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
                               General Revenue Related Funds
                                             Funds
               1998            ($45,721)
               1999               52,149
               2000               22,709
               2001               22,709
               2002               22,709
 
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as 
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
          
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government 
is anticipated.  The provision requiring DHS to refer civil 
penalty cases to the local district attorney, county attorney, 
or city attorney when the Attorney General fails to take action 
within 30 days could slightly increase local government revenues 
since the local attorneys would be required to file suit in 
a district court to collect and retain the penalties.
          
   Source:            Agencies:   304   Comptroller of Public Accounts
                                         302   Office of the Attorney General
                                         
                      LBB Staff:   JK ,BB ,NM