Relating to periodic health screenings for firefighters.
Summary
HB 198, known as the Wade Cannon Act, requires political subdivisions that employ firefighters to offer occupational cancer screenings at no cost to firefighters. The screening must be provided in the fifth year of employment and annually thereafter, and it must be confidential. The required screening includes testing such as urine tests, pulmonary function tests, electrocardiograms, infectious disease screening, breast cancer screening, blood tests, and a chest x-ray no more than once every five years.
The bill also directs the Texas Commission on Fire Protection to adopt minimum screening standards based on standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association. A local government may avoid the separate screening mandate if it already offers an annual occupational medical examination under a physician-endorsed plan submitted to the commission by February 1 each year, so long as the plan substantially complies with NFPA standards. The act takes effect June 1, 2026.
Impact
HB 198 amends Chapter 180 of the Local Government Code by adding a new Section 180.011, creating a statewide screening requirement for firefighter employers that are political subdivisions. It imposes a new local-government obligation to provide and pay for periodic cancer-related occupational health screenings, while also establishing rulemaking authority for the Texas Commission on Fire Protection and tying compliance to NFPA standards. The bill affects firefighters, local public employers, and the commission, and it may be satisfied by existing annual occupational medical programs that meet the bill’s criteria.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little opposition. It passed the House overwhelmingly, 148-1, and passed the Senate unanimously, indicating strong agreement that firefighter cancer screening is a worthwhile occupational health measure. The absence of committee transcript material suggests no recorded public controversy in the provided materials.
Contention
The main policy question is how much flexibility local political subdivisions should have in meeting the screening requirement. The bill allows an exemption for employers that already provide an annual occupational medical examination under a physician-endorsed plan, which suggests some concern about duplicative mandates and administrative burden. Any potential contention would likely center on cost to local governments, the scope of required tests, and whether the NFPA-based standards and commission rules are sufficiently clear and workable, but the voting record shows these issues did not generate significant opposition.