Back to the Drawing Board: DPS rewriting Driver Responsibility rules

Thanks to Paul Watkins and Rebekah Hibbs for allowing me to participate yesterday in the DPS working group on the Driver Responsibility rules regarding indigency, amnesty and incentive programs. The discussion centered mostly on concepts; they didn't get down to drafting language. But if the rules that ultimately go to the Public Safety Commission (PSC) follow our discussion yesterday, they'll be a dramatic improvement IMO over what was discussed at the public hearing.

Without going into details that would violate the spirit of open participation at such a meeting, there was a consensus on adding amnesty and incentive programs to the indigency program suggested previously, as well as on simplifying the indigency application process modeled on methods commonly used in courts and hospitals.

"Amnesty" won't mean a full-blown waiver of fees, but paying some amount - I hope they settle on $250 with a payment plan option, so it's actually affordable - to allow people to get their driver's license reinstated and become reinsured. Much higher and I suspect you'd significantly lower the participation rate.

There was some discussion regarding whether DWIs should be included in amnesty and incentive programs, and I don't know which way the agency will go. Drunk drivers are unpopular and no politician ever lost an election larding extra punishments onto them. But from a practical perspective, the teaching hospital representative agreed, if that drunk continues to drive anyway, it's better if they're insured so if they're in an accident the hospital costs will be covered. Disallowing drunk drivers from the program would maximize the risk that harms they cause won't be covered by insurance. By contrast, letting them secure amnesty gives drunk drivers incentives for compliance with auto-insurance mandates. We're only talking about a small portion of those affected by the DRP: About 3% of surcharges are for DWI.

Another interesting discussion related to timing. Ms. Hibbs said that most defaulted drivers who pay off their fees do so between February and April each year, when people receive their tax refunds (which is kind of sad, when you think about it). Assuming rewritten rules go to the Public Safety Commission by July, which would be the earliest feasible date, DPS conceivably could roll out these programs by the end of the year. That would be perfect timing to do a public-ed program to market amnesty, in particular, to the 1.2 million defaulted drivers who owe back surcharges just as tax season arrives and they're most likely to pay. The vendor handling collections for DPS already is spending massive sums to contact drivers owing surcharges by mail and phone. If they use those tools to market the amnesty program, the state and trauma hospitals might actually see a significant one-time revenue boost next spring.

It pleased me greatly that hospital reps came to the meeting seemingly cognizant that the program had serious problems and ready to seek solutions. Ironically, enacting these rules could actually save the program if legislators who previously demanded its abolition think the agency fixed its problems. So there's an element of enlightened self-interest going on with their position, but however it came about I'm glad for it. Neither the representative from the Texas Hospital Association nor the teaching hospitals expressed opposition to the direction being discussed for the rules. The THA rep said her group would be taking a formal position on the subject in July.

We may learn more how DPS intends to implement these concepts when staff briefs the commission at their meeting later this week (see the agenda). My sense from yesterday's discussion was that revised rules will likely go back to the PSC sometime this summer.