LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 76th Regular Session
March 3, 1999
TO: Honorable Patricia Gray, Chair, House Committee on Public
Health
FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: HB1503 by Gray (Relating to the continuation and
functions of the Interagency Council on Early Childhood
Intervention), As Introduced
**************************************************************************
* Estimated Two-Year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for *
* HB1503, As Introduced: positive 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 (Cost) Probable Savings from Federal *
* Year from Federal Funds Funds *
* 0555 0555 *
* 2000 $(50,000) $2,464,000 *
* 2001 0 2,464,000 *
* 2002 0 2,464,000 *
* 2003 0 2,464,000 *
* 2004 0 2,464,000 *
***************************************************************************
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would continue the Interagency Council on Early Childhood
Intervention (ECI) and set a new sunset date of September 1, 2007. The
bill would require ECI to determine the cost-effectiveness of the Texas
Rehabilitation Commission's (TRC) automated systems to plan, manage, and
maintain records of client services, not later that March 1, 2000.
The bill would require ECI to select providers and renew provider
contracts on a "best value" basis. It also would require the agency and
the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to review the ECI
funding system to maximize federal, private and local funding.
According to the Sunset Advisory Commission (SAC), these requirements
would generate savings and revenues for the agency and its contractors
to fund services for additional children and their families.
Methodology
According to ECI, consultant services would be needed to comply with the
requirements of the bill to determine the cost-effectiveness of using the
automated systems of TRC to plan, manage and maintain records of client
services. It is assumed that 500 hours of consultant services are needed
to review the cost-effectiveness of the council's use of the TRC
systems. The fee for consultant services is estimated at $100 per hour (
500 hours X $100 per hour = $50,000).
According to the SAC, selection of providers and renewal of provider
contracts based on "best value", and the maximization of federal, private
and local funding, could result in total savings estimated at $2,464,000
for each fiscal year, 2000-2004. Based on ECI's Contract Performance
Measures for fiscal year 1998 report, the average cost per child was
$6,617. Thirty-two of the agency's 70 contractors had total costs per
child that were above the statewide average. It is assumed that if these
providers were funded at no more than the statewide average through
competitive procurement strategies, an additional $3.4 million would be
available to fund services. SAC estimates that approximately $1,564,000
in savings could be realized from competitive procurement in each of
fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
According to SAC, maximizing Medicaid reimbursements for eligible ECI
services could result in an additional $900,000 in each of the fiscal
years 2000 and 2001. It is assumed that ECI Medicaid reimbursements to
providers would increase by 10 percent each fiscal year.
Total savings per fiscal year would be $2,464,000. It is assumed the
savings would be from federal funds due to a federal grant award
requirement that the State would maintain its level of effort in state
spending.
Local Government Impact
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is
anticipated.
Source Agencies:
LBB Staff: JK, TP, AZ, RM