Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 223 to allow both spouses who are eligible individuals and where either spouse has family HDHP coverage to include each spouse's age‑55+ catch-up contribution amounts in the family HSA contribution limitation and divide that limit between them. The change permits both spouses (if both are age 55 or older) to make catch-up contributions to the same Health Savings Account.
Progressives emphasize regressivity and wants offsets
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, well‑targeted statutory amendment that clearly specifies how spouses may divide family HSA contribution limits and how additional (age‑55+) catch‑up amounts are treated.
This bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 223 to allow both spouses who are eligible individuals and where either spouse has family HDHP coverage to include each spouse's age‑55+ catch-up contribution amounts in the family HSA contribution limitation and divide that limit between them.
The change permits both spouses (if both are age 55 or older) to make catch-up contributions to the same Health Savings Account.
The amendment applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Substantively minor and noncontroversial, but lacks offsets and must clear Senate procedures or be attached to larger legislation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, well‑targeted statutory amendment that clearly specifies how spouses may divide family HSA contribution limits and how additional (age‑55+) catch‑up amounts are treated. It integrates directly into the existing Internal Revenue Code and includes an effective date.
Progressives emphasize regressivity and wants offsets
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize regressivity and wants offsets
Generally sees the bill as a narrow technical expansion of HSA contribution rules that helps older married couples save for health costs.
Will be sympathetic to the immediate consumer benefit but concerned tax-advantaged savings primarily benefit higher-income people and the bill lacks offsets or targeting.
Views the bill as a technocratic, modest correction to HSA rules that addresses an administrative quirk and helps older married couples save.
Likes the simplicity but wants clarity on budgetary cost and implementation details from CBO and IRS.
Likely supportive as a pro‑saver, small‑government change that expands individual flexibility without creating new spending programs.
Sees it as a reasonable technical fix enabling married couples to maximize tax‑advantaged health savings.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantively minor and noncontroversial, but lacks offsets and must clear Senate procedures or be attached to larger legislation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize regressivity and wants offsets
Substantively minor and noncontroversial, but lacks offsets and must clear Senate procedures or be attached to larger legislation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, well‑targeted statutory amendment that clearly specifies how spouses may divide family HSA contribution limits and how additional (age‑55+) catch‑up amo…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.