LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 76th Regular Session
March 29, 1999
TO: Honorable Jane Nelson, Chair, Senate Committee on Health
Services
FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: SB1340 by Carona (Relating to the regulation of
anesthesia in certain out patient settings; providing
administrative and civil penalties.), As Introduced
**************************************************************************
* Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for *
* SB1340, As Introduced: positive impact of $92,000 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 $39,000 *
* 2001 53,000 *
* 2002 53,000 *
* 2003 53,000 *
* 2004 53,000 *
****************************************************
All Funds, Five-Year Impact:
***************************************************************************
*Fiscal Probable Revenue Gain/(Loss) Probable Savings/(Cost) from *
* Year from General Revenue Fund General Revenue Fund *
* 0001 0001 *
* 2000 $72,750 $(33,750) *
* 2001 98,000 (45,000) *
* 2002 98,000 (45,000) *
* 2003 98,000 (45,000) *
* 2004 98,000 (45,000) *
***************************************************************************
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would amend the Medical Practice Act to require the Board of
Medical Examiners (BME) to regulate the use of anesthesia for in-office
procedures and would take effect September 1, 1999. The bill would
require physicians to comply with rules adopted by the board for
administration of the bill's provisions, to annually register with the
board, and to pay a fee of up to $300, as set by the board. The bill
would require the BME to adopt rules to administer the bill's provisions
by January 7, 2000, and would allow the BME to stagger and phase in
registrations over a one year period so that all affected physicians
would be in compliance by September 1, 2001. Under the bill's
provisions, failure to comply would be grounds for disciplinary action as
defined in current statute.
In addition, the bill would also authorize the BME to inspect office
sites, and related documents, of physicians who use anesthesia for
in-office procedures and it would allow the affected physicians to
request an inspection from the BME to receive an advisory opinion
regarding their compliance with the provisions of the bill. The bill
would allow the BME to use its discretion in conducting requested
compliance inspections and to establish a fee for providing that
service.
Methodology
The BME estimates 530 physicians will be affected by the requirements of
the bill and that a $100 registration fee will be assessed to those
physicians. It is assumed that the BME would adopt rules necessary to
administer the bill's provisions by January 7, 2000, and would stagger
and phase in registrations over a one-year period so that all affected
physicians would be in compliance by September 1, 2001. Accordingly, the
BME anticipates generating $39,000 in fee revenues by registering 390
affected physicians in fiscal year 2000, and $53,000 in fiscal year 2001,
with all 530 affected physicians registering annually.
In addition, the BME estimates that a total of $33,750 in operating and
travel costs would be realized by the state for providing compliance
inspections in fiscal year 2000, and that $45,000 would be realized in
each following year. The BME estimates conducting 54 inspections in
fiscal year 2000 and 72 inspections in each subsequent year with each
inspections costing approximately $625. It is assumed that the BME
would adopt rules and establish fees necessary to cover the cost of
providing this service in accordance with the provisions of the bill.
Local Government Impact
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is
anticipated.
Source Agencies:
LBB Staff: JK, TP, RT, MW