The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 3327·119th Congress·Introduced May 13, 2025

Public Safety Retirees Healthcare Protection Act of 2025

IntroducedTaxationSubstantive
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]
Committees
Ways and Means Committee (primary)
Last action
May 13, 2025

Bottom line

The bill doubles the tax exclusion for health and long-term care insurance premiums paid by retired public safety officers from their governmental retirement plans, providing a tax benefit to this specific group.

What it actually does

This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount that retired public safety officers can exclude from their gross income for health and long-term care insurance premiums. Specifically, it doubles the exclusion limit from $3,000 to $6,000 for distributions made directly from a governmental retirement plan to pay for these insurance premiums. This change would apply to distributions in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that this bill provides much-needed financial relief to retired public safety officers, recognizing their dedicated service and the often hazardous nature of their careers. They contend that increasing this tax exclusion helps offset the rising costs of healthcare and long-term care, making it easier for these retirees to afford essential insurance coverage in their later years. It is seen as a way to honor their contributions and ensure their well-being post-retirement.

Opponents contend

Critics may argue that while the intent is laudable, this bill creates a specific tax carve-out for one profession, which could lead to calls for similar exclusions for other deserving groups, potentially complicating the tax code and increasing overall tax expenditures. Opponents might also contend that a tax exclusion is not the most efficient or equitable way to address healthcare affordability, preferring broader, more universal healthcare reforms or targeted subsidies that are not tied to specific retirement plan distributions.

The bill is exceptionally short and straightforward, making it very easy to read and understand its core impact within a minute, far less than the time typically given for legislative review.

Section 2(a)

Increase in Tax Exclusion for Public Safety Officer Insurance Premiums

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision directly amends Section 402(l)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It changes the maximum amount that retired public safety officers can exclude from their gross income for health and long-term care insurance premiums, from $3,000 to $6,000. This exclusion applies when the premiums are paid directly from a governmental retirement plan. The effect is to reduce the taxable income for eligible retirees by an additional $3,000, thereby lowering their tax liability.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupRetired public safety officersImpactFinancial benefit through reduced taxable incomeMechanismIncreased tax exclusion for health and long-term care insurance premiums paid from governmental retirement plans.ScaleIndividual tax savings of up to the tax rate multiplied by $3,000 annually.
GroupFederal governmentImpactReduced tax revenueMechanismExpansion of a tax exclusion, leading to less income subject to federal taxation.ScaleLikely a modest reduction in total federal tax receipts, dependent on the number of eligible retirees utilizing the exclusion.

Supporters argue

Proponents argue that doubling this exclusion provides meaningful financial relief to retired public safety officers, who often face significant healthcare costs after careers that can take a toll on their health. They assert that this tax benefit acknowledges their service and helps ensure they can afford crucial health and long-term care insurance, which is a vital component of retirement security.

Critics contend

Opponents might argue that while supporting public safety officers is important, expanding tax exclusions creates a more complex tax code and represents a targeted tax expenditure that benefits a specific group, rather than addressing broader issues of healthcare affordability or retirement security. They may also point to the potential for increased federal deficit due to reduced tax revenue.

Tradeoffs

The primary tradeoff is between providing targeted financial support to a deserving group of retirees and the impact on federal tax revenue. While it offers a clear benefit to public safety officers, it also adds to the list of tax expenditures, which can be seen as less transparent than direct spending and may invite similar requests from other professions, creating equity concerns and further complicating the tax system.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
Ask Ledger AI about this