Estimated Time to Read: 6 minutes
Despite rhetoric about fiscal responsibility and small government, Texas lawmakers have overseen an ever-expanding state government that continues to grow at an alarming rate. Now, Senate Bill 5 (SB 5), authored by State Sen. Joan Huffman (R-Houston), and House Bill 5 (HB 5), authored by State Rep. Tom Craddick (R-Midland), are pushing yet another massive, taxpayer-funded initiative—the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.
While dementia research is an important issue and affects a large number of Texans and their families, this legislation creates yet another bloated bureaucracy, mirroring the failed Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT)—which was embroiled in scandal and mismanagement almost from the start. Instead of learning from past mistakes, lawmakers are doubling down on a proven formula for government waste, inefficiency, and cronyism.
A Massive Bureaucratic Expansion at Taxpayer Expense
Texas is already home to world-class research institutions and medical centers, funded through private investment, universities, and nonprofits. Yet, SB 5 and HB 5 seek to insert the state government into an area where it has no rightful place.
The bill establishes an entirely new state-run institute, complete with an oversight committee, peer review committee, and program integration committee. It also grants the ability to distribute millions in taxpayer-funded grants to research institutions and private entities—creating yet another bureaucratic monstrosity with little accountability or guarantees of success.
At a time when Texas taxpayers are already on the hook for billions in government programs, why should they be forced to fund another massive experiment in government-managed research?
No Limit on the Costs – A Blank Check for Bureaucracy
One of the most troubling aspects of SB 5 and HB 5 is the open-ended financial commitment it creates. The bill establishes a special fund—the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund—which can be continuously replenished with taxpayer money, federal grants, and private donations.
Yet, nowhere does the bill impose clear spending limits. Instead, it grants broad discretion for the institute to allocate funds without meaningful legislative oversight. If history has taught us anything, it’s that government programs rarely shrink over time—they expand, consume more resources, and become permanent fixtures of wasteful spending.
The proposed Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (DPRIT) is set to receive an initial allocation of $3 billion from the state’s general revenue, contingent upon voter approval of a constitutional amendment. This funding is intended to support the institute’s operations over the next decade. While this initial funding is substantial, the legislation does not explicitly cap future appropriations or limit the total amount of state funds that could be allocated to DPRIT beyond this initial transfer. This absence of explicit spending limits means that, after the initial $3 billion is utilized, the institute could potentially receive additional funding through future legislative appropriations, depending on the priorities and decisions of subsequent legislatures.
Texas taxpayers deserve transparency and accountability, yet this bill offers neither.
Déjà Vu: The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) Scandal
If this all sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve seen this play out before. In 2007, Texas voters approved $3 billion in state funding for the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT), which promised to advance cancer research while being fiscally responsible.
What happened next? Corruption, mismanagement, and cronyism.
By 2012, CPRIT was engulfed in scandal, with state auditors discovering that millions of dollars were awarded to companies without proper peer review. One high-profile case revealed that an $11 million grant was given to a company that had not even undergone scientific review—a blatant abuse of taxpayer trust. Multiple executives resigned, and the state was forced to freeze funding while investigating the program’s failures.
SB 5 and HB 5 follow the same dangerous path, creating a new government-run medical research program ripe for mismanagement. Given Texas’ track record, what guarantees do taxpayers have that this won’t become another CPRIT-style disaster?
DPRIT vs. CPRIT: A Dangerous Expansion of a Failed Model
While both programs are state-run research initiatives, there are critical differences that make DPRIT an even greater risk than CPRIT:
| Category | CPRIT (Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas) | DPRIT (Dementia Prevention & Research Institute of Texas) |
|---|---|---|
| Funding Source | $3 billion in voter-approved state bonds | No spending cap; ongoing state appropriations |
| Voter Control | Yes, voters had to approve bond funding | No, legislature controls funding with no cap |
| Research Scope | Cancer research & prevention, well-established pathways | Dementia prevention & research, broad and ambiguous scope |
| Bureaucracy | One oversight board with scientific review council | Three layers of bureaucracy, increasing inefficiency |
| Oversight | Had early scandals and corruption issues, later reformed | Even more political appointees, more prone to cronyism |
| Accountability | One oversight board with a scientific review council | No, the legislature controls funding with no cap |
Key Takeaways
- DPRIT has no spending cap, making it a bigger long-term financial risk for taxpayers.
- Dementia research is broader and less defined than cancer research, making it easier for grants to be spent on questionable projects.
- DPRIT’s oversight structure is even more bloated than CPRIT, increasing the risk of inefficiency, waste, and political favoritism.
- If CPRIT—despite voter-approved limits—became a scandal-ridden money pit, DPRIT is even more dangerous because it lacks those guardrails.
Political Appointments and Potential for Cronyism
Like CPRIT before it, this bill relies on political appointees to oversee grant distributions. The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the House each appoint members to the oversight committee, giving them the power to control who receives millions in research funding.
This raises major concerns about:
- Conflicts of interest – Will grants be awarded based on merit or political connections?
- Lack of accountability – Who ensures that taxpayer money isn’t being wasted or misused?
- Cronyism – Will politically favored institutions and individuals benefit the most?
Texas taxpayers should not be asked to bankroll a research slush fund controlled by political appointees.
A Legislative Priority for Texas Leadership
The establishment of DPRIT is prominently featured among the top legislative priorities of both Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick (R) and House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R), given the legislation’s low bill numbers, underscoring its significance in the current legislative session.
The Texas Legislature Should Say No to This Costly Overreach
For all the talk of fiscal conservatism, Texas lawmakers continue to grow government at an alarming rate. Instead of exercising discipline and restraint, they are pushing yet another taxpayer-funded bureaucracy with unlimited spending power and little oversight.
SB 5 and HB 5 are fundamentally flawed because they expand government control over medical research, which should remain in the private sector; they create a massive new spending commitment without clear limits or accountability; they mirror the failings of CPRIT, which wasted millions in taxpayer money before facing scandal.
The Texas Legislature must reject this expensive, unnecessary, and deeply flawed initiative. If lawmakers are serious about addressing dementia, they should let the free market lead the way—not burden taxpayers with another doomed government experiment.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
