Advisory committee approves behavioral‑health I&O weight, moves final report to staff for email sign‑off

The Health‑Related Institutions Formula Advisory Committee approved a recommended I&O (instruction and operations) formula weight for graduate behavioral‑health programs and agreed to finalize its draft report by email later this month.

Committee Chair Kristen Mace (Texas A&M Health Science Center) opened discussion of charge 2b — the work to set appropriate I&O formula weights for new specialty programs including behavioral health and optometry — and turned the item over to the work‑group lead for details. Melita of the coordinating staff reported that responses were received from institutions and that “the estimated cost would be 8,700,000.0.” The committee was told six health‑related institutions provided behavioral‑health hours used in the estimate.

Why it matters: I&O formula weights affect how state formula funding allocates per‑student or per‑hour amounts to institutions; raising a program’s weight shifts dollars toward institutions that offer that program. The committee framed the behavioral‑health recommendation as aligning the new specialty with recently updated graduate nursing and allied‑health rates.

Work‑group methodology and recommendation Mister Tremontae, presenting the work group’s methodology, said the group started from recent cost studies used for graduate nursing and allied health, compared institutional cost data (the presentation referenced institutional submissions, including data from UT Health Houston) and then applied the same cost‑coverage ratios to behavioral health to back into a weight. “I believe it was 2.075, was recommended,” he said.

The committee debated the extent to which the estimate represents new state funding versus reallocation of hours previously attributed to other programs; presenters said some hours were shifted from allied health or nursing into behavioral health when institutions reported program changes. Melita said she did not receive the granular program counts for every institution but listed institutions that reported behavioral‑health hours, including UT Southwestern, UT Houston, UT San Antonio, Texas A&M, UNT and Texas Tech.

Formal action and minutes A committee member moved to approve updated minutes from the Dec. 3 meeting that included a clarification; the revised language — read into the record — stated, “Recommendations were approved with note to consider hold harmless language in the final report as it pertained to mission specific funding for performance based research.” Maureen Hill moved to approve the minutes with that change; the motion was seconded and approved.

On charge 2b, the committee voted to accept the work‑group recommendation to adopt the behavioral‑health weight (recommended value 2.075). The motion was seconded and carried.

Final report, edits and next steps Chair Kristen Mace said a draft of the final report was distributed Dec. 19 and noted that several data points drawn from the AAMC and the U.S. Census Bureau may be updated before the committee must submit the report later this month. Committee members asked that percentage changes in the report be rounded to a single decimal place for readability; they agreed coordinating‑board staff could make non‑substantive edits and formatting adjustments for publication.

Members agreed to finalize the report by email rather than reconvening unless significant issues arise. Mace asked members to return any edits promptly and suggested a deadline of the 14th to allow time for compilation; the group also penciled a placeholder meeting for Jan. 20 or 21 (10 a.m.–noon) if further discussion proves necessary.

The meeting adjourned after a motion to close the session.

What was not decided The committee accepted the behavioral‑health weight recommendation and approved the minutes; it did not formally adopt any new optometry funding changes at the meeting. Chair reported she had contacted the GAI committee chair about the optometry recommendation but had not yet received a response. The committee left open the possibility of an additional meeting if substantive edits or objections are filed during the email approval process.

Next procedural step: coordinating‑board staff will incorporate minor edits and circulate a final draft by email for the committee’s vote; members asked that substantive objections be explained in reply‑all so the committee can track dissent.