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 and search results

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB26

HB26 lets Texas Medicaid managed-care contracts permit nutrition counseling and instruction as an alternative to other covered state-plan services.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to authorizing Medicaid managed care organizations to offer nutrition support services in lieu of other state Medicaid plan services.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Hull, Rose, Isaac, Manuel, 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?

HB26 lets Texas Medicaid managed-care contracts permit nutrition counseling and instruction as an alternative to other covered state-plan services. It also authorizes—but does not require—the state to establish a separate nutrition-support pilot for certain pregnant Medicaid recipients. It does not create a general entitlement to free groceries or home-delivered meals for everyone on Medicaid. Final law; official history.

The regular contract pathway is limited. The alternative services must be medically appropriate, cost-effective and evidence-based, approved by the state Medicaid managed-care advisory committee, and included in the contract. Contracts must permit the option; the law does not require every managed-care organization to offer every service. Recipients cannot be required to take a listed substitute instead of the state-plan service. For the ordinary nutrition list, only counseling and instruction may be included: home-delivered meals, food prescriptions and grocery support are excluded. Existing mental-health/substance-use alternatives remain in the provision, while the state-plan services that can be replaced are no longer described solely as mental-health/substance-use services. Section 1.

The Health and Human Services Commission must report annually how often listed alternatives are used and consider their actual cost and use when setting a managed-care organization’s capitation rates—the payments the state makes to the plan under its contract. These reporting and rate-setting duties existed before HB26; the revised service framework now falls within them. Section 1.

A separate, optional pregnancy pilot can go further. The commission may establish a pilot for Medicaid recipients who are pregnant and have a diagnosed chronic condition or disease that could contribute to a high-risk pregnancy or birth complications. The statute gives gestational diabetes, hypertension and obesity as examples, not an exhaustive list. Under that pilot, plans may offer counseling and instruction, medically tailored meals together with counseling/instruction, and other evidence-based nutrition support chosen by the commission to improve maternal and infant health. A medically tailored meal must be designed by a registered dietitian as part of a treatment plan. The pilot is an express exception to the ordinary counseling-only limitation. Section 2.

If the pilot is established, the commission must collect and analyze participation/compliance, pregnancy outcomes, changes in chronic-condition symptoms, and newborn/infant outcomes. After the pilot ends, it must report outcomes and recommendations to the legislature as soon as practicable. The pilot ends August 31, 2030; its authorizing section expires September 1, 2031, leaving time for follow-up reporting. Authorization is not proof that the pilot has launched or that a particular plan offers meals. Section 2.

Timing and federal approval matter. The contract changes apply to contracts entered into or renewed on or after September 1, 2025. Earlier contracts remain governed by the prior law until the applicable transition. If a state agency determines federal permission is necessary for a provision, it must request that permission and may delay that provision until approval is granted. This is not an automatic September 1 start date for every nutrition service. Sections 3–5.

What changed along the way?

The introduced and House committee texts limited ordinary nutrition alternatives to counseling and instruction. The substantive texts matched; there was no House committee substitute changing that policy. Introduced text; House committee text.

All three listed floor amendments were reviewed:

  • House amendment 1, Hull and Oliverson — adopted April 22: broadened the ordinary list to include other nutrition support for a limited duration alongside counseling. That broader statewide approach appeared in the engrossed House bill, but did not survive the Senate committee substitute. Adoption alone did not make it final law. Amendment; engrossed text.
  • Senate amendment 1, Kolkhorst — adopted May 26: added the separate optional pregnancy pilot, its eligibility and meal/counseling conditions, data/reporting requirements and end dates. Its text survives in final Section 2. Amendment.
  • Senate amendment 2, Johnson — withdrawn May 26: sought to restore the broader ordinary nutrition-support list removed by the Senate committee. It was not enacted. Amendment.

The Senate committee substitute restored the counseling-only ordinary pathway and its explicit meal/food-prescription/grocery exclusions. The later pregnancy pilot is a narrower exception, not a restoration of the House’s broad approach. The House concurred with the Senate changes on May 29; no conference report is listed. Senate committee text; amendment index; all versions.

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?

Medicaid patients may gain a clinically appropriate counseling option without being forced to accept it instead of a covered service. Certain pregnant patients could receive more substantial nutrition help if the pilot is established and their plan participates. The law does not promise enrollment, a meal delivery, improved health or a particular household saving.

Managed-care organizations and the state must handle contract, claims, provider-enrollment and payment-rate administration. A pilot would also require data collection and evaluation. Nutrition professionals may have opportunities to provide approved services, but the statute does not set their reimbursement rate or guarantee a contract.

The May 28, 2025 Legislative Budget Board fiscal note anticipated no significant state or local-government fiscal impact, assuming claims/provider-enrollment changes, pilot costs and other implementation work could be covered with existing resources. It did not estimate a dollar saving from avoided hospital care or guarantee the pilot would pay for itself. HB26 contains no appropriation. Earlier notes lacked the final pilot description; the latest note expressly includes it. Latest fiscal note.

Review boundary: All five enacted sections, all five versions, all three amendment texts/dispositions, all five listed fiscal-note records and the pre-effective-date contract provision were checked. This is an explanation of legal authority and limits, not verification of a current plan’s benefits or federal approval of a particular implementation.

Official sources

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