LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE, 76th Regular Session February 23, 1999 TO: Honorable Patricia Gray, Chair, House Committee on Public Health FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE: HB110 by Maxey (Relating to public access to certain information regarding medical practitioners), As Introduced ************************************************************************** * Estimated Two-Year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for * * HB110, As Introduced: impact of $0 through the biennium ending * * August 31, 2001. * * * * The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal * * basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of * * the bill. * ************************************************************************** General Revenue-Related Funds, Five-Year Impact: **************************************************** * Fiscal Year Probable Net Positive/(Negative) * * Impact to General Revenue Related * * Funds * * 2000 $0 * * 2001 0 * * 2002 0 * * 2003 0 * * 2004 0 * **************************************************** All Funds, Five-Year Impact: ************************************************************************** *Fiscal Probable Probable Revenue Change in Number of * * Year Savings/(Cost) from Gain/(Loss) from State Employees from * * General Revenue Fund General Revenue Fund FY 1999 * * 0001 0001 * * 2000 $(1,109,255) $1,109,255 3.0 * * 2001 (598,403) 598,403 3.0 * * 2002 (107,829) 107,829 3.0 * * 2003 (107,829) 107,829 3.0 * * 2004 (107,829) 107,829 3.0 * ************************************************************************** Technology Impact The bill would require consultant costs of $260,000 and programming costs of $230,000 in the first year; and programming costs of $365,000 in the second year. Fiscal Analysis The bill would amend the Medical Practice Act by requiring the Board of Medical Examiners (BME) to create a professional profile of licensed physicians. The profile would be annually updated, available to the public and more comprehensive than the profile currently maintained by the BME. The bill would require the BME to raise fees for each licensed physician to cover the costs of administering the bill. The increase in fees could not exceed $15 per fiscal year in the 2000-2001 biennium and $10 per year in the 2002-2003 biennium. The BME would adopt rules necessary to implement the provisions of the bill. In addition, the bill would require the Board of Chiropractic Examiners, the Board of Dental Examiners, the Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners, the Optometry Board, the Board of Pharmacy, the Board of Physical Therapy Examiners, the Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners, and the Board of Examiners of Psychologists to provide a cost estimate for establishing and administrating a similar profile program for persons licensed or regulated by each agency, to the presiding officer of each house of the 77th Legislature no later than January 1, 2000. Methodology The BME estimates increased workload created by the bill would require 3 FTEs for the development and maintenance of the profile and would require $759,426 in programming costs, operating costs, and computer hardware and software upgrades in the first year. In addition, $508,574 in similar costs would be required in 2001. In subsequent years the cost of operation, including salaries, would be reduced to $107,829 per year. It is assumed that the BME would raise fees by an amount necessary to cover the increased costs. In addition, a total cost of $260,000 would be realized by the state in fiscal year 2000 for providing a cost estimate for establishing and administrating a profile program for persons licensed or regulated by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners, the Board of Dental Examiners, the Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners, the Optometry Board, the Board of Pharmacy, the Board of Physical Therapy Examiners, the Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners, and the Board of Examiners of Psychologists similar to the program established by the BME. It is assumed that these agencies would raise fees by an amount necessary to cover the increased costs. Local Government Impact No fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated. Source Agencies: LBB Staff: JK, TP, MW, RT