Relating to the required approval of certain hospital visits as a condition of release on parole or to mandatory supervision for certain releasees and to the hospital's liability for damages resulting from those visits.
Summary
HB 2854, known as the Pokuaa-Flowers Act, adds a new condition to parole or mandatory supervision for certain high-risk releasees who are subject to electronic monitoring. For people released for offenses listed in Article 42A.054 or with certain affirmative findings in the judgment, the bill generally bars hospital visits for non-medical purposes unless the supervising parole officer approves the visit in advance. A releasee must request approval by giving the date, time, and reason for the visit, and if approved, the parole officer must notify the hospital’s chief law enforcement officer or the local law enforcement agency before the visit.
The bill also directs the Texas Department of State Health Services to create and maintain an electronic database of contact information for each general hospital’s chief law enforcement officer, or the relevant local law enforcement agency if the hospital has no peace officers. DSHS must update and distribute that database annually to the parole department. The bill applies only to people released on or after September 1, 2025, and takes effect on that date.
Impact
HB 2854 amends Chapter 508, Government Code, by creating Section 508.193 and adding a new parole condition for certain monitored releasees. It affects the Texas Department of Criminal Justice/parole system, parole officers, the Department of State Health Services, general hospitals, and law enforcement agencies that receive notice of approved hospital visits. The bill also limits liability exposure by providing that the department is not liable if the officer attempted notice using the required database, and that hospitals are generally not liable for damages from such visits except in cases of gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct, while preserving claims under Chapter 74, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and moved through the Legislature with strong bipartisan approval. It passed the House and Senate overwhelmingly, including a 31-0 Senate vote and a 143-0 House third-reading vote, with later House concurrence in Senate amendments also passing by comfortable margins. The voting pattern suggests general agreement with the bill’s public-safety purpose and its effort to formalize notice procedures for hospital visits by certain parolees.
Contention
There is little evidence of major opposition in the available record, but the bill’s main policy tension is between public safety and access to hospitals. Supporters likely viewed the measure as a way to reduce risk and improve coordination between parole officers and hospitals, while the liability provisions appear designed to protect hospitals and the state from lawsuits arising from approved visits. Any concern would likely center on whether the new restrictions could complicate access to non-treatment hospital visits for supervised releasees and whether hospitals and law enforcement can reliably implement the notice system, but the recorded votes show limited visible contention.
Identical
Relating to the required approval of certain hospital visits as a condition of release on parole or to mandatory supervision for certain releasees and to the hospital's liability for damages resulting from those visits.