Texas House Bill HB1689

Texas 2013 - 83rd Regular

Caption

Relating to pay-for-performance contracts for certain Health and Human Services Enterprise programs and services.

Impact

The implementation of HB 1689 is expected to have significant implications for how health services are contracted in Texas. It aims to streamline service provision by tying funding to performance, potentially leading to improved health outcomes as only effective programs receive financial backing. Conversely, this performance-based approach may create pressure on service providers to achieve specific metrics, raising concerns about the adequacy of funding for certain necessary services that might not meet the set performance criteria yet are essential for vulnerable populations.

Summary

House Bill 1689 seeks to introduce pay-for-performance contracts for specific programs and services within the Health and Human Services Enterprise in Texas. The bill mandates the establishment of a program to evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of these contracts, which are designed to improve health outcomes and prevent health ailments. Payments to contractors will depend on their success in meeting defined performance criteria and the state's return on investment, emphasizing accountability and efficiency in public health programs.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1689 reflects both optimism and concern. Proponents argue that the measure fosters accountability among contractors while providing an incentive to improve service quality and efficiency. However, critics express worries that reliance on performance metrics may sideline important services that do not yield immediate quantifiable results, particularly affecting marginalized communities who may already be at risk of inadequate healthcare access.

Contention

A notable point of contention related to HB 1689 is the method for determining a contractor's success and the state's return on investment. The bill outlines a complex methodology that considers state revenue, costs avoided, and the performance of services, which may prompt debate over the criteria used for such evaluations. Additionally, the effective establishment and management of the advisory committee to oversee this process could also be a focal point for stakeholders concerned about transparency and representation in health service contracting.