Infertility Treatment Affordability Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Carey, Mike [R-OH-15]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to significantly reduce the financial burden of infertility treatments for eligible individuals and couples by providing a federal income tax credit, including a refundable component for lower-income taxpayers.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new federal income tax credit for 50% of qualified infertility treatment expenses, up to a lifetime dollar limit and subject to income phase-outs. It defines qualified expenses to include treatments for diagnosed infertility and fertility preservation procedures undertaken before medical treatments that may cause infertility, explicitly excluding elective sterilization procedures. A portion of the credit, up to $5,000, is refundable and indexed for inflation.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that infertility treatments are often prohibitively expensive and frequently not covered by insurance, creating immense financial and emotional strain on families. This credit would alleviate a substantial portion of these costs, making family building more accessible and recognizing infertility as a legitimate medical condition deserving of federal tax relief.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that while well-intentioned, a tax credit primarily benefits those who can afford the high upfront costs of treatment, even with a refundable portion. Concerns could also be raised about the potential cost to federal revenue and whether a tax credit is the most efficient or equitable mechanism for addressing healthcare affordability compared to direct subsidies or broader insurance mandates.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, allowing an informed reader to quickly grasp its core provisions and implications.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 23A(a)
New Income Tax Credit for Infertility Treatments
This provision establishes a new federal income tax credit for eligible individuals, allowing them to claim an amount equal to 50% of their qualified infertility treatment expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year. This credit directly reduces an individual's federal income tax liability, aiming to make costly infertility treatments more financially accessible.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this credit directly addresses the high out-of-pocket costs of infertility treatments, which can be a major barrier for many families. It acknowledges the medical necessity of these treatments and provides tangible financial support to those seeking to build families.
Critics contend
Some critics might argue that a 50% credit, while helpful, still requires individuals to pay a substantial upfront cost, potentially limiting its benefit to those who can already afford a significant portion of the treatment.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to make infertility treatments more affordable with the need to manage the overall fiscal impact on federal revenue.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 23A(b) and (c)
Credit Limitations and Refundability
The credit is subject to a lifetime dollar limitation (referenced from the adoption credit), an income phase-out for higher earners, and rules preventing double benefits from other deductions or insurance reimbursements. A crucial aspect is that up to $5,000 of the credit is refundable, meaning individuals can receive it even if they have no tax liability, with this amount indexed for inflation after 2025. Any unused non-refundable credit can be carried forward for up to five succeeding taxable years.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 23A(d) and (e)
Scope of Covered Treatments and Eligibility
The bill defines 'qualified infertility treatment expenses' as costs for treatments provided by licensed U.S. medical practitioners following a diagnosis of infertility by a licensed U.S. physician. Crucially, it expands this to include fertility preservation procedures for individuals undergoing medical treatments (such as chemotherapy or radiation) that may cause involuntary infertility, even if they have not yet received an infertility diagnosis. It explicitly excludes expenses for procedures designed to result in infertility or sterilization. An 'eligible individual' is someone diagnosed with infertility or facing medically-induced infertility.
The dollar limitation and income phase-out thresholds for the infertility treatment credit are not explicitly stated as fixed dollar amounts within this bill. Instead, they refer to 'the dollar amount in effect under section 23(b)(1)' and 'the dollar amount in effect under clause (i) of section 23(b)(2)(A)' for the taxable year, which are provisions related to the Adoption Credit.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 23A(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A)(i)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for consistency across the tax code and to allow for automatic inflation adjustments without needing to amend this bill separately, streamlining the tax code.
Case for: Using existing tax code references simplifies drafting and ensures that the infertility credit's limits are automatically updated with inflation, mirroring other family-related tax benefits and maintaining their real value over time.
Case against: A casual reader would not immediately know the specific dollar limits without looking up Section 23 of the Internal Revenue Code, potentially obscuring the full scope of the benefit and requiring additional research.
Estimated impact: For 2024, the adoption credit limit is $16,840, and the AGI phase-out begins at $252,520. These amounts would apply to the infertility credit, significantly impacting the maximum benefit and eligibility for higher earners.
The $5,000 refundable portion of the credit is subject to inflation adjustments for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025. The adjustment uses the cost-of-living adjustment formula from section 1(f)(3) of the IRC, with a base year of 2024.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 23A(b)(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard practice for tax provisions to maintain their real value over time, preventing the benefit from being eroded by inflation.
Case for: Ensures the refundable portion of the credit retains its purchasing power over time, providing consistent and meaningful financial support to families in future years.
Case against: The technical nature of the indexing formula might not be immediately clear to all readers, potentially leading to an underestimation of the long-term value preservation of the refundable credit.
Estimated impact: Prevents the $5,000 refundable amount from being eroded by inflation, ensuring its continued relevance and financial impact for future recipients.