2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

← Back to bills

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB216

HB216 changes how covered health-care providers deliver itemized bills, especially when a patient cannot be reached through an active online portal.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to itemized billing for health care services and supplies provided by health care providers.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Harris Davila, Frank. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB216 changes how covered health-care providers deliver itemized bills, especially when a patient cannot be reached through an active online portal. It applies to itemized bills issued on or after September 1, 2025; earlier bills remain governed by the former law. Chapter 185’s provider definition covers authorized health-care facilities, including hospitals, but excludes federally qualified health centers. This is not a claim that every individual practitioner or every facility falls within that definition. Final act · Provider definition

A provider using a patient portal must determine, if feasible, whether the patient has an active profile. If the provider determines there is no active portal—or cannot determine whether there is one—it must mail, email or physically provide the itemized bill according to the patient’s chosen method. Posting a bill to a portal of unknown status is therefore not the fallback specified by the final law. Section 1, new Section 185.002(c-1)

The law expressly lists electronic delivery, mailed or common-carrier hard copies, and hard copies obtained by the patient or their designee at the provider’s business. Patients may request another itemized bill after its initial issuance through their chosen authorized method, but that right lasts only until the provider no longer must retain it under applicable retention laws or the provider’s billing-record retention policies and procedures. The act does not promise permanent access. Section 185.002(c)–(d)

The bill changes “alleged cost” to “alleged amount due” for each service or supply. The requirement to send an itemized bill with a payment request, and the deadline of 30 days after final third-party payment, already existed. Other retained provisions require plain-language descriptions, relevant third-party billing codes and amounts, and the amount allegedly owed by the patient; the provider may not pursue debt collection without complying with Section 185.002. Final act, Section 1 · Retained billing requirements

Licensing authorities retain disciplinary enforcement, but HB216 adds an exception for a provider that in good faith mails a hard copy when it is returned as undeliverable or lost, or when the address on file was outdated when mailed. That is an exception to the specified disciplinary provision—not a statement that the bill was received or that the underlying debt automatically becomes collectible. Section 2

The act also repeals the separate hospital-patient statement provisions in Section 311.002(b)–(d), including their discharge-related timing, notice and request rules. It does not repeal the entire hospital-billing section; for example, separate third-party-payer statement provisions remain. Section 3 · Hospital-billing section

What changed along the way?

The filed bill focused on checking whether a patient had created a portal profile and mailing a bill if not. The House committee substitute broadened the measure: it added the amount-due wording, delivery choices, retention limit, a good-faith mailing exception requiring evidence of undeliverability, and repeal of the overlapping hospital provisions. Filed text · House substitute

The House adopted Representative Harris Davila’s amendment May 9. It made the portal check conditional on feasibility, allowed mail, email or physical delivery according to patient preference, and broadened the good-faith mailing exception to lost mail or an outdated address rather than requiring evidence of returned mail. Those changes appear in the House-passed and Senate committee texts. House amendment · House-passed text · Senate report

The Senate adopted Senator Hughes’s amendment May 25. It expressly required the alternative delivery not only when no active portal is found, but also when the provider cannot determine portal status. The final act retains that protection. The official index lists these two adopted amendments. Senate amendment · Amendment index

The House passed HB216 May 10 by 130–0, with two present but not voting; the Senate passed it May 25 by 31–0. The House agreed to the Senate changes May 28 by 130–6, with one present but not voting. The governor signed it June 20. Final certificates · Official history

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Patients without active portals, or whose portal status cannot be established, could gain more reliable access to a readable bill and a better opportunity to question charges. Providers must manage delivery choices and portal checks, while receiving a limited good-faith mailing protection. The retention limit and repeal of the separate hospital-patient rules also change patients’ procedural rights; the act should not be described as only adding protections. Final act

The final fiscal note anticipated no significant state or local fiscal implication and assumed costs could be absorbed within existing state resources. Earlier notes on the filed and House committee versions said state costs were indeterminate because additional complaints and investigations could require resources. The later estimate is the relevant one for the final version; none of these notes quantifies patient savings or all private-provider mailing and administration costs. Final fiscal note · Earlier House committee fiscal note

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.