90th Texas Legislature • Regular Session 2027
The Texas Educator Benefits Expansion Act would let Texas public school employers voluntarily join the same health benefits program that already covers state employees. No mandate. No new state agency. No new appropriation.
Add Your Endorsement What the Act DoesWhen TRS-ActiveCare was created in 2001, the combined state and district contribution of $225 a month could cover the entire premium for an employee-only plan. That is no longer close to true.
Health care costs have risen roughly 5 percent a year for two decades. The statutory contribution has risen zero percent. The state still pays $75 per employee per month. Districts are still required to add only $150. Everything above that combined $225 comes out of an educator's paycheck.
The gap between those two lines is the entire problem, and it widens every plan year.
These figures use Education Service Center Region 10, which covers the Dallas area, for the 2025–26 plan year. They show the maximum an educator pays when a district contributes only the statutory minimum. Many districts contribute more, so actual payroll deductions are often lower.
| Coverage | Annual cost to the educator | Share of the $63,749 average Texas teacher salary |
|---|---|---|
| Employee only — Texas, minimum-contribution district | $3,972 | 6.2% |
| Employee only — national teacher benchmark | $1,399 | 2.2% |
| Family — Texas, minimum-contribution district | $19,992 | 31.4% |
| Family — national teacher benchmark | $9,987 | 15.7% |
Sources: TRS-ActiveCare Region 10 Plan Highlights 2025–26; KFF 2025 Employer Health Benefits Survey; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits in the United States, March 2025; NEA Rankings & Estimates 2025.
A Texas educator covering a family in a district that contributes only the state minimum can pay roughly double the national benchmark for comparable coverage. Nearly a third of the average salary, before taxes, before a mortgage, before groceries.
| Plan year | Lowest-cost employee-only premium | State contribution |
|---|---|---|
| 2018–19 | $367 | $75 |
| 2019–20 | $378 | $75 |
| 2022–23 | $410 | $75 |
| 2023–24 | $450 | $75 |
| 2024–25 | $501 | $75 |
| 2025–26 | $556 | $75 |
Monthly premiums. 2018–19 and 2019–20 are statewide snapshots; 2022–23 forward are Region 10 figures under regional rating. Source: TRS-ActiveCare plan highlights, various years.
Meanwhile, the average Texas teacher earns $63,749 against a national average of $74,177 — a gap of more than $10,000. Premium increases land harder here than in most states, because there is less salary to absorb them.
In 2025 the Legislature appropriated $369 million to TRS-ActiveCare, and that infusion is what held average premium growth below 10 percent. A program that needs extraordinary rescue funding to avoid a double-digit increase is telling you something structural.
It adds one option to the menu. That is the whole bill.
Texas runs two separate health benefit systems: one through the Employees Retirement System of Texas for state employees, and one through TRS-ActiveCare for public school employees. Under current law, a school district generally cannot choose the ERS program even if it would serve its people better.
The Texas Educator Benefits Expansion Act amends Chapter 1551 of the Insurance Code to let eligible public school employers voluntarily elect to participate in the ERS Group Benefits Program, subject to actuarial review.
Independent school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and regional education service centers. The Senate draft also extends eligibility to public junior colleges.
The locally elected school board. Not the state, not TEA, not ERS. A board must hold a public meeting, review the actuarial and financial analysis, and approve participation by majority vote.
No district has to do anything. A district that keeps its current arrangement continues exactly as it does today, with no change whatsoever.
ERS must obtain an actuarial analysis first. If it shows a material adverse financial impact on existing state employee participants, participation cannot be approved.
Participation is not a revolving door. A district that opts in stays for a minimum of three plan years, and withdrawal requires twelve months of written notice. ERS may set reserve requirements, waiting periods, and minimum participation thresholds to keep the pool stable. Every year, ERS must publish a cost comparison covering employer costs, employee premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums, prescription drug benefits, network availability, and administrative costs — and must report participation levels, premium trends, and actuarial impacts to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker, and Legislative Budget Board by December 1 each year.
If enacted, the Act takes effect September 1, 2027, and ERS adopts initial rules by January 1, 2028.
Most opposition to this bill is opposition to something it does not contain. Here is the honest list.
The same policy reaches three groups for three different reasons.
This is about what lands in your bank account. Teachers, bus drivers, custodians, cafeteria staff, paraprofessionals, counselors, campus administrators, school nurses, and everyone else who keeps a district running pays the same widening gap out of the same paycheck.
Veteran educators leave the profession over this. Health care affordability is one of the most commonly cited reasons experienced teachers retire early or walk away entirely, and when they go, decades of institutional knowledge go with them. An additional option will not fix every problem in the profession, but it gives your board a lever it does not currently have.
This is a tool, not an obligation. You gain the authority to evaluate whether ERS participation would serve your employees and your taxpayers better than what you have now, and you keep full authority to decide it would not.
Small and rural districts stand to gain the most. A district without the enrollment base to negotiate favorable terms alone would get access to a large, diversified statewide risk pool, which is purchasing leverage it has never had. Urban districts competing against private-sector employers for mid-career talent get a more compelling total compensation offer. And a larger, more diversified pool is structurally less vulnerable to the claims volatility that produces sudden premium spikes in smaller plans.
There is an administrative dividend as well. Participating in an established statewide program reduces the internal burden of managing a standalone district health plan.
Teacher turnover is expensive and it is bad for children. Every vacancy costs a district advertising, screening, interviewing, onboarding, mentoring, and substitute coverage, and every mid-year departure costs a classroom of students their teacher. Districts that retain experienced staff spend less replacing people and more teaching.
This proposal pursues that outcome without a tax increase, a new agency, or a new state program. If it works, taxpayers benefit from lower turnover costs and stronger purchasing power. If a district's board concludes it would not work locally, the district simply does not participate and nothing changes.
A teacher who leaves over the cost of covering their own family takes years of experience with them, and the district pays to advertise, screen, interview, onboard, and mentor a replacement. Retention is the cheapest workforce strategy there is.
No school board can fix the statutory contribution, and no district can join the ERS program on its own. Both require the Legislature to act — which is exactly what this bill asks it to do.
This is not a sudden crisis. It is twenty-five years of a fixed contribution meeting a rising cost curve.
The Commonwealth Fund's 2025 Scorecard on State Health System Performance ranks Texas last among all 50 states and the District of Columbia for health care access and affordability, and second to last on overall health system performance. Pair that with teacher salaries more than $10,000 below the national average, and Texas educators face one of the least forgiving combinations in the country: high cost of care, low relative pay, and a state contribution frozen at 2001 levels.
Source: Commonwealth Fund 2025 Scorecard on State Health System Performance; NEA Rankings & Estimates 2025. State health system performance is a proxy for the environment educators navigate, not a direct ranking of teacher benefit plans.
The fair criticisms, answered directly.
The bill requests no appropriation and states explicitly that participation does not create an entitlement to additional state funds unless the Legislature expressly authorizes them. Participating employers pay the employer contributions ERS establishes. What the fiscal note ultimately says is up to the Legislative Budget Board, and supporters should expect that analysis to be scrutinized closely.
That is the central risk, and the bill treats it as a precondition rather than an afterthought. ERS must obtain an actuarial analysis before approving any employer, and participation cannot be approved if that analysis demonstrates a material adverse financial impact on existing participants. ERS also retains authority to set reserve requirements, waiting periods, and participation thresholds to protect solvency.
No district is required to leave TRS-ActiveCare, and the program is not repealed or altered by this Act. That said, any voluntary alternative raises a legitimate question about the risk profile of districts that might leave, which is the same concern TRS itself raised during the SB 1444 debate in 2021. The three-year minimum participation period and twelve-month withdrawal notice exist partly to limit that churn. Anyone evaluating this bill should weigh the question seriously.
No, and the bill does not promise one. Larger and more diversified pools generally improve purchasing leverage and reduce claims volatility, but the actual result for any given district depends on its workforce, its region, and the plan design its board selects. That is precisely why the Act requires ERS to publish an annual cost comparison, so boards can decide with real numbers rather than projections.
No, and precision matters here. That figure is the maximum exposure in a district contributing only the statutory minimum of $225 per month. Many districts contribute considerably more, so actual payroll deductions are frequently lower. What the number illustrates is how far the statutory floor has fallen behind actual premiums, and how much of that gap can land on an educator when local contributions are lean.
The House draft covers independent school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and regional education service centers. The Senate draft additionally covers public junior colleges and any further public educational entity that ERS authorizes by rule. Eligibility language is commonly reconciled as a bill moves, so the final scope may differ from either draft.
Because that is when it matters. Prefiling for the 90th Legislature opens November 9, 2026, and the session convenes January 12, 2027. A legislator deciding whether to author this bill wants evidence that constituents want it. Endorsements gathered now are what a prospective author sees before committing.
If you believe Texas school districts should have the option, say so on the record. It takes a minute and costs nothing.
Endorsements are how a proposal stops being a document and becomes a bill with a constituency behind it. Educators, retired educators, school board members, administrators, parents, and community members are all welcome to sign.
Only reviewed and approved endorsements appear here.
“Every teacher in the state of Texas should support this act.”
Every claim on this page comes from these materials. Read them and judge for yourself.
The full policy case: findings, guiding principles, key benefits, and stakeholder analysis.
View DocumentDraft Senate companion language, including the broader eligibility list.
View DocumentPremium data, salary analysis, national comparison, and the full source index.
View DocumentPrefiling for the 90th Texas Legislature opens November 9, 2026, and the session convenes January 12, 2027. The endorsements collected between now and then are the evidence a legislator carries into that building.