LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
 
FISCAL NOTE, 80TH LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
 
May 22, 2007

TO:
Honorable Tom Craddick, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives
 
FROM:
John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
 
IN RE:
HB1297 by Delisi (Relating to the creation of the state employee wellness program.), As Passed 2nd House



Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for HB1297, As Passed 2nd House: a negative impact of ($586,870) through the biennium ending August 31, 2009.

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 Year Probable Net Positive/(Negative) Impact to General Revenue Related Funds
2008 ($240,730)
2009 ($346,140)
2010 ($346,140)
2011 ($346,140)
2012 ($346,140)




Fiscal Year Probable (Cost) from
GENERAL REVENUE FUND
1
Change in Number of State Employees from FY 2007
2008 ($240,730) 3.0
2009 ($346,140) 3.0
2010 ($346,140) 3.0
2011 ($346,140) 3.0
2012 ($346,140) 3.0

Fiscal Analysis

The bill would amend the Government Code Chapter 664 to establish a State Employee Worksite Wellness program.  The bill would create a process to involve employees in wellness activities.  The bill would create a Worksite Wellness Advisory Board as a function of the Department of State Health Services (DSHS). The board would be composed of representatives from areas of government and health organizations. The bill would reimburse non-state employee members for travel expenses, and DSHS employees would provide support to the board.

 

The bill would establish a statewide wellness coordinator at DSHS.  The coordinator would create a program to improve the health and wellness of state employees and establish best practices that state agencies may use to promote wellness among state employees. The coordinator would support state agencies in implementing worksite wellness policies for state employees. The bill would allow the coordinator to assist a state agency in establishing an employee wellness demonstration project. The demonstration project may incorporate best practices to encourage employee participation and implement strategies to optimize the state's return on its investment in wellness.

 

The program may include health education, a health risk survey, and resources to improve the health and wellness of state employees, and employment practices that support the wellness program. The statewide wellness coordinator may establish incentives to encourage participation in the program.

 

The bill would allow each state agency to have a wellness policy that allows each state employee 30 minutes to exercise 3 times per week and allows employees to attend on-site wellness seminars. The bill would allow each state agency to provide 8 hours of leave time to employees who complete a health risk survey and receive a physical exam.  

 

The bill would take effect on September 1, 2007.


Methodology

It is assumed that $357,665 in 2008-09 General Revenue would fund three FTEs at the Department of State Health Services who would coordinate the state employee worksite wellness program, and fulfill the duties of the Worksite Wellness Advisory Board and statewide wellness coordinator.

 

The cost of reimbursing the Worksite Wellness Advisory Board members’ for travel is estimated to be $12,705 for the biennium.

 

It is assumed that it would cost $216,500 in General Revenue in 2008-09 to establish and promote worksite wellness, conduct a demonstration project and collect data and conduct a study on the implementation and participation in the program. If the demonstration project is based on a comprehensive wellness program aimed at reducing direct and indirect costs associated with preventable disease, the pilot would cost $36 per employee per year.   

 

It is assumed that time for employees to exercise and attend on-site wellness seminars would be unpaid time off. The bill would allow each state agency to provide 8 hours of leave time to employees who complete a health risk survey and receive a physical exam. No significant fiscal impact would result from providing leave to employees who meet these criteria.  However, agencies that are required to maintain a specified level of staffing may require additional FTEs or may incur additional overtime costs to provide paid or unpaid leave to employees for wellness program participation.


Local Government Impact

No fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated.


Source Agencies:
LBB Staff:
JOB, MN, JI, DH