Print 🖨

The committee met to take up and consider the bills listed below.
 
 
Chairman Charles Schwertner intends to leave bills pending on the day they are heard and to adopt them the next week; this will allow Senators to have ample time to understand the bills
 
CSSB 97 – Hinojosa, Relating to regulation of the sale, distribution, possession, use, and advertising of vapor products; authorizing a fee; creating offenses.

  • Deals with the regulation and prohibition of selling e-cigarettes to minors
  • There are potential harmful effects that are caused by e-cigarettes; they contain nicotine which is a highly addictive drug
  • Nicotine can have harmful effects on brain development
  • The legislation bans selling e-cigarettes to anyone under the age of 18
  • Changes made in substitute:
    • Tightened the definition of a vapor product
    • Dropped Section 19 and 20; 39 and 40
  • Will prohibit sale of e-cigarettes to minors; prohibit minors from possessing, consuming or accepting e-cigarettes as well
  • Creates an offense for possessing e-cigarettes in school
  • Includes a vending machine ban
  • Will allow cities to treat e-cigarettes the same as conventional cigarettes for bans and such
  • Sen. Carlos Uresti noted he has a bill being drafted that is very similar; money being spent on health care costs will continue to increase if prevention is not addressed; this is a step in the right direction
  • Sen. Judith Zaffirini noted she believes the bill basically adds e-cigarettes to the current cigarette laws; would like to sign on
  • Sen. Van Taylor asked about substitute changes; what about the fee in the caption
    • The caption will be changed because e-cigarettes have been removed from the outdoor advertising fee
  • Committee substitute adopted

 
Public Testimony
 
Shell Hammel, Owner, The Vapor Bar

  • Appreciates the changes made in the substitute and supports the bill with the changes

 
Dylan Thompson, Vapor Essence

  • Is now in favor of the bill in its current form
  • Any responsible vapor chop in the state is against selling products to minors

 
Shawn Pettit, All About Vapor

  • Thanked the Senate for the changes made
  • Strongly in favor of banning sale to minors
  • Regulating e-cigarettes just as tobacco somewhat undermines its appeal as an alternative to smoking
  • Concerned about the requirement for an adult signature upon delivery of the product; puts a large financial burden on the businesses shipping out product and places a burden on the consumer if they must be present to receive a shipment

 
Andrew Westercom, Texas E-Cigarette and Vaping Association

  • Neutral on the bill
  • Association members are very supportive of the idea of the bill
  • Prefer the term “vapor product” because it is inclusive of the entire gamut of products
  • Believe that restrictions in the Health and Safety Code should have their own section away from cigarette regulations
  • Believe the state should have sole authority to regulate the products, not individual cities
  • Do not believe it is appropriate to have a study on how to reduce the use of vapor products
  • Sen Lois Kolkhorst asked what the harm to health is from vapor products
    • None has been proven
  • Kolkhorst asked if vapor products are used as a stair step to decrease use of nicotine
    • Absolutely; a user can taper the amount of nicotine in the product to eventually have none at all
  • Kolkhorst asked if without this bill there would be a way to prevent sale to minors
    • Many stores have their own policies to not sell to minors but at the same time these stores would like the state to ban the sale vapor products to minors
  • Sen. Charles Perry asked if nicotine is addictive
    • Yes
  • Perry asked if nicotine is a carcinogen
    • No it is not a known carcinogen
  • Kolkhorst asked what annual sales are for vapor products
    • A store in Austin alone generated $3.1 million in gross sales last year alone
  • Kolkhorst asked how many states have enacted similar laws
    • Not sure
  • Taylor asked how many stores are in the state
    • Hundreds
  • Zaffirini asked if the definition for vapor product in the bill is adequate and covers everything it should
    • Yes

 
Bill left pending.
 
SB 133 – Schwertner, Relating to mental health first aid training for school district employees and school resource officers.

  • Would expand mental health first aid training programs to non-educator employees of school districts
  • So far mental health first aid training has been provided to numerous educators at no cost to themselves
  • Those trained are already having an impact on the lives of students
  • It is vital to expand the training programs to other employees
  • Committee substitute makes 3 changes:
    • Changes definition of school district employee to include many more positions
    • Creates a new statutory funding cap to expand flexibility
    • Changes reporting requirement dates to match fiscal years

 
Public Testimony
 
Janet Paleo, Texas Council of Community Centers

  • Support the bill
  • LMHAs have trained 7,734 educators; applaud expanding the program to more positions in school districts
  • People who come in contact with children must have the tools to be the one person who can make a difference in a child’s life

 
Lee Spiller, Citizens Commission on Human Rights

  • Oppose the bill
  • Creates stigmatizing labels for children
  • If a child is determined to have mental health issues the parent needs to be involved
  • Mental health professionals have years of training and the second a child is thought to have an issue a professional should get involved

 
Josette Saxton, Texans Care for Children

  • Support the bill
  • There are no labels given, diagnoses or treatment involved in the training; just helps to identify problems

 
Jill Switzer, Mental Health America of Texas

  • Support the bill
  • Supports substitute language as well
  • Public awareness programs are crucial to communities
  • There is no diagnosis aspect to the bill or parent exclusion

 
Substitute adopted. Bill left pending.
 
SB 197 – Schwertner, Relating to the financial self-sufficiency of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.

  • Requires CPRIT to develop a plan to become financially self-sufficient before their 2021 Sunset date
  • Expended over 1/3 of their $3 billion bonding authority so far
  • It is prudent for the institute to prepare to rely on other funding sources
  • Requires CPRIT to submit a plan to the legislature by 2016 detailing other funds beside state funds that will be pursued
  • Rodriguez noted the American Cancer Society is concerned the purpose of the bill is to shut down the agency
    • Schwertner noted CPRIT funding was voter approved; there needs to be an action plan for what to do in the next phase
  • Sen. Donna Campbell noted it is better to take care of this now as opposed to waiting for their Sunset review

 
Resource Witness
 
Wayne Roberts, CEO, CPRIT

  • Schwertner asked the witness to reiterate what he told the Finance Committee recently
    • It is good public policy to plan for the future; CPRIT has awarded over 1/3 of the authorized $3 billion; will likely cross the 50% stage this biennium; without this bill a planning process will begin regardless

 
Public Testimony
 
Cam Scott, American Cancer Society

  • Organization does not receive any funding from CPRIT
  • CPRIT has made Texas a leader in cancer research and prevention
  • Many advances would never be made without public funding
  • Conducted a poll of likely voters in Texas who believe it is more important to continue funding through taxpayer dollars than to cut funding and save taxpayer dollars
  • Concerned about the date certain at which state funding will cease in the bill

 
Angela McClure, American Lung Association of Texas

  • Recent polling has shown tremendous public support for continuing CPRIT and cancer research
  • Must continue to invest in finding a cure and early detection
  • All funding options should be considered along with potentially continuing state funding
  • Campbell noted it is good public policy to ensure there is a plan for spending; asked who paid for the poll that shows support for CPRIT
    • The American Cancer Society; it was a scientific study
  • Campbell noted polling has not cured any cancer

 
Dorothy Gibbons, The Rose

  • CPRIT funds The Rose which works toward cancer prevention
  • Have moved into 35 counties and are now poised to move further upon further CPRIT funding
  • In the world of breast cancer, there is no funding that can replace what CPRIT provides
  • The Legislature must find ways to find new funding for CPRIT
  • Zaffirini asked why the witnesses registered “on” the bill; was it to be polite
    • Understand the bill as saying the legislature is looking for ways to keep CPRIT alive
    • Scott noted he is unsure what the intent of the bill is in the long term; since it seems to only be asking for a plan the group is not against it

 
Gary Thompson, Self

  • Wife passed away from cancer
  • She was able to survive for 11 years past her diagnosis because of cancer research
  • Cancer research must continue to be a strong priority in Texas

 
Bill left pending.
 
SB 424 – Schwertner, Relating to the licensing and regulation of hospitals in this state; increasing the amount of administrative penalties assessed or imposed against certain hospitals.

  • Will give the state additional tools to protect hospital patients
  • Last year a physician who owned a chain of rural hospitals was found guilty of fraudulent billing; ultimately led to the closing of 3 rural hospitals
  • Closures unnecessarily limit the ability for rural patients to get care
  • Allows ­­­DSHS to request appointment of trustees
  • Requires hospitals to be inspected every three years
  • Allows the Department to order the emergency suspension of a license
  • Increases hospital ownership disclosure requirements
  • Allows coordination and sharing of data regarding licensees
  • Increases the maximum penalty for licensure violations
  • A majority of hospitals are run correctly however there must be tools in place for the state to protect communities from bad actors
  • Hospitals are concerned with a few of the provisions and a substitute is being developed
  • Rodriguez asked about the inspection frequency going from 5 years to 3 years; how will that affect resources of rural hospitals
    • There is no specific timeline for DSHS currently to inspect hospitals; working with THA and TORCH to determine the proper frequency for inspections
  • Rodriguez asked about the surety bond requirement; will the rural hospitals be able to handle that
    • Looking at ways to modify the provision to allow for a tiered structure
    • Also looking at changing the penalties to coincide with size of facilities
  • Sen. Charles Perry asked about surveys; sometimes the standards are applied differently for different reasons; may need some education for the inspectors; may need to coincide Medicaid inspections so that the hospitals can prepare for one inspection instead of multiple
  • Campbell noted she appreciates that the OIG is being brought in at the front of the process
  • Perry noted he doesn’t believe there is a surety bond product to fit this bill; will need to work with the bond board

 
Resource Witness
 
Katherine Perkins, DSHS
Patrick Walden, DSHS

  • Schwertner asked about the problem being addressed with this bill
    • Perkins replied that the doctor referenced earlier set up six separate corporations for his six hospitals; it is believed that he started out with the intention to defraud; he was not taking care of his hospitals; complaints were submitted, problems were found, problems would be corrected, then another facility was brought forward with issues; DSHS could not determine for quite some time that the hospitals were connected; there was significant community support for the hospitals so the trustee provisions are beneficial to communities; have seen other issues where hospitals close and delete records as well; patients need to be able to access their records; would not ever use emergency suspension lightly; DSHS has emergency suspension authority over many programs, there are times when the situation is so bad that in order to protect the public emergency suspension needs to take place
  • Kolkhorst asked about raising the penalty; there have been bills in the past attempting to do the same thing but they were never able to get out of committee; seen any problems yet?
    • Schwertner replied that THA is coming around with the tiered structure being discussed
  • Perry noted he would be appreciative if the penalty structure would allow for the hospital to correct the problem before a huge penalty is assessed

 
Public Testimony
 
Darren Whitehurst, Texas Medical Association

  • In support of the concept of the legislation as it is being ironed out
  • Closing hospitals is never good for communities

 
Charles Bailey, Texas Hospital Association

  • Testifying on the bill
  • Support and oppose various provisions
  • Surety bond requirement is new for hospitals; trying to assess whether they can get coverage for that type of risk
  • One option may be to set a cap which may make it easier for underwriters to assess the risk and set a premium
  • THA opposes the three year survey of hospitals; 88% of hospitals in Texas are accredited by a national hospital association
  • Supportive of the administrative penalty increase
  • The provision regarding trustees poses a problem in cases when the board of a hospital has elected members
  • Campbell noted that in situations where there are dangerous circumstances quick action is required
  • Schwertner noted he heard only about 2/3 of hospitals were credited; asked if hospitals are required to send accreditation surveys to DSHS
    • There is a lot of information only some places show about 88% some show about 77%
    • Perkins returned and replied that DSHS is not required to submit surveys to the Department
  • Schwertner noted accreditation and regulation serve two different purposes
    • Mostly concerned about the additional state survey because of the time and effort it takes to respond
  • Perry noted he believes DSHS needs to evaluate what information is being requested on the surveys as well as to understand that if a hospital is accredited it may not require as extensive of an external review
  • Perry asked, excluding resource allocation issues, is there a scheduled review for every hospital over a certain time period
    • There is no statutory or regulatory requirement to review every hospital
  • Perkins noted, as far as enforcement goes, a plan of correction is the default procedure if a hospital is found to have an issue during a review; if that doesn’t solve the problem enforcement occurs

 
Don McBeth, Texas Association of Rural and Community Hospitals

  • Appreciates efforts to work with large and rural hospitals in fine tuning the bill
  • Agree that the penalty should be raised; concerned that a $25,000 penalty could easily put a small hospital out of business and on the other hand, a very large hospital could easily pay $25,000 and not address the problem
  • Not sure a survey every three years versus five years is the necessary tool that would help DSHS move on a problem hospital
  • Kolkhorst asked if the penalty applies to ambulatory entities as well
    • Perkins responded that it only applies to general hospitals
  • Rodriguez asked what tools DSHS may need to address a scenario that a survey or inspection wouldn’t address
    • Perkins replied that most of those tools are included in this bill

 

  • Schwertner noted this bill is intended to protect patients and communities; he understands there are burdensome aspects of this bill and he hopes to work with stakeholders to create a piece of legislation that all can agree on

 
Bill left pending. Next hearing will be February 25.