Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill creates a new 25% tax credit (section 45BB) for taxpayer expenses necessary for translational research on neurodegenerative diseases and psychiatric conditions. It establishes annual national aggregate caps ( $1B in 2026, $2B annually 2027–2030, $1B in 2031), an application and allocation process administered by Treasury in consultation with HHS, FDA, and NIH, and rules emphasizing scientific merit, full research continuum, CNS therapeutics/devices, repurposing standards, and public-private partnerships.
Liberals emphasize public-health benefits and access protections.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive tax-law change that is moderately well-constructed: it defines the credit, caps, and key legal interactions, and delegates necessary operational rules to Treasury while identifying interagency consultation partners.
This bill creates a new 25% tax credit (section 45BB) for taxpayer expenses necessary for translational research on neurodegenerative diseases and psychiatric conditions.
It establishes annual national aggregate caps ( $1B in 2026, $2B annually 2027–2030, $1B in 2031), an application and allocation process administered by Treasury in consultation with HHS, FDA, and NIH, and rules emphasizing scientific merit, full research continuum, CNS therapeutics/devices, repurposing standards, and public-private partnerships.
Tax-exempt entities may elect to transfer credits to eligible project partners; expenses claimed here cannot also be claimed under the Section 41 R&D credit.
Policy is broadly noncontroversial and technical, aiding passage prospects, but multi‑billion cost, no offsets, and Senate procedures lower overall likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive tax-law change that is moderately well-constructed: it defines the credit, caps, and key legal interactions, and delegates necessary operational rules to Treasury while identifying interagency consultation partners. The bill is explicit about many core elements but leaves significant administrative, definitional, and oversight detail to future regulations.
Liberals emphasize public-health benefits and access protections.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize public-health benefits and access protections.
Generally supportive because the bill directs federal incentives toward mental health and neurodegenerative research, areas of unmet public health need.
Concerned about ensuring public benefit from public-private partnerships and preserving access and affordability of resulting therapies.
Cautiously favorable: provides targeted, time-limited incentives for high-priority research while including allocation caps and interagency consultation.
Wants clearer implementation rules, cost control, and safeguards against gaming.
Skeptical: supports R&D incentives in principle but worries about federal allocation, fiscal cost, and government picking winners through centrally allocated caps.
Concerned public-private partnership terms could distort markets.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Policy is broadly noncontroversial and technical, aiding passage prospects, but multi‑billion cost, no offsets, and Senate procedures lower overall likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize public-health benefits and access protections.
Policy is broadly noncontroversial and technical, aiding passage prospects, but multi‑billion cost, no offsets, and Senate procedures lower…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive tax-law change that is moderately well-constructed: it defines the credit, caps, and key legal interactions, and delegates necessary operational rule…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.