2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB541
HB541 expands Texas's direct-primary-care framework into a broader direct-patient-care framework.
Official caption: Relating to the provision of direct patient care by physicians and health care practitioners.
Official report lists House author(s): Shaheen. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
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.
- HB541 expands Texas's direct-primary-care framework into a broader direct-patient-care framework.
- A signed direct-patient-care agreement exchanges specified health services for a direct fee over a period of time.
- State agencies, insurers, health maintenance organizations and covered health providers cannot penalize or interfere with a practitioner or payer solely because they provide or pay for direct care.
What does it do?
HB541 expands Texas’s direct-primary-care framework into a broader direct-patient-care framework. It covers physicians and other health professionals licensed or otherwise authorized under Occupations Code Title 3, and health services beyond primary care, including medical or psychological diagnosis, treatment and advice. It expressly includes qualifying telemedicine and telehealth. A direct fee can be a membership, retainer, subscription or payment for a visit or episode of care. The governor signed the bill June 20, 2025, and it took effect that day. Only agreements entered into on or after that date are governed by these changes; earlier agreements remain under the prior law. Final law; history.
A signed direct-patient-care agreement exchanges specified health services for a direct fee over a period of time. It is not health or accident insurance, and the practitioner does not need an insurance certificate of authority for this arrangement. The practitioner must disclose in writing or electronically, before the agreement, that it is not insurance. A provider may not also bill an insurer or health maintenance organization for direct care paid under the agreement. The framework does not apply to workers’ compensation insurance coverage.
State agencies, insurers, health maintenance organizations and covered health providers cannot penalize or interfere with a practitioner or payer solely because they provide or pay for direct care. That “solely because” protection is not immunity from ordinary professional standards or a new license to practice outside an authorized profession. The law also carries forward the provision that furnishing this direct care does not violate the cited insurance rule on deductible/copayment responsibility. Referenced insurance provision; telehealth definitions.
What changed along the way?
The bill moves the prior physician-focused rules from Occupations Code Chapter 162, Subchapter F, into new Chapter 117 and broadens their terminology and reach. These changes were in the introduced bill; they were not added by a later floor amendment. All five indexed versions have identical operative provisions, both committees reported it without amendments, and the amendment index reports none. Introduced text; version index; amendment index.
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, employers paying on their behalf, and a wider range of practitioners gain a clearer legal path to direct-pay arrangements. Patients still owe the agreed fees and must understand which services are included: buying such an agreement does not itself insure them against hospital bills or other care outside it. Practitioners must provide the disclosure and avoid billing insurance for care already paid under the agreement. Actual affordability or access gains depend on pricing and the agreement, not a statutory promise.
The Legislative Budget Board anticipated no significant state or local fiscal impact and said the Texas Medical Board could implement the law with existing resources. It did not estimate patient savings, enrollment or providers’ business costs. Engrossed fiscal note, May 20, 2025.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.