HEALTH Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Webster, Daniel [R-FL-11]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 20, 2025
Bottom line
The bill incentivizes physicians to provide charity care to low-income patients through tax deductions and liability protections, while specifically excluding gender-affirming care and certain reproductive health services from these benefits.
What it actually does
This bill creates a new federal income tax deduction for physicians who provide unreimbursed charity care to individuals enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP, valuing this care at Medicare rates. It also establishes civil liability protections for physicians and attending medical personnel providing such care, shielding them from lawsuits unless their actions were intentional, knowing, reckless, or grossly negligent. Crucially, the bill explicitly excludes gender reassignment surgeries, hormone treatments for gender alteration, and certain reproductive health services from qualifying for these benefits.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this legislation will expand access to healthcare for vulnerable populations by reducing the financial and legal burdens on physicians who provide pro bono services. They contend that by offering a tax deduction and limiting liability, more doctors will be encouraged to offer care to Medicaid and CHIP patients, thereby filling critical gaps in the healthcare system. The exclusions are framed as aligning with specific policy priorities regarding the types of care the federal government should incentivize.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the tax deduction primarily benefits higher-income physicians and may not significantly increase access to care for low-income individuals. They strongly criticize the explicit exclusion of gender-affirming care and certain reproductive health services as discriminatory and harmful, arguing it politicizes healthcare and limits access to medically necessary services for specific vulnerable groups. Concerns are also raised that the broad liability protections could erode patient safety and accountability for medical negligence.
The bill is concise and its core provisions are clearly stated, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its implications within a short timeframe.
Section 2, amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
New Tax Deduction for Qualified Charity Care
This provision establishes a new tax deduction for physicians equal to the 'unreimbursed Medicare-based value' of qualified charity care they furnish. This value is determined by the Medicare physician fee schedule. The deduction is available to all taxpayers, including those who do not itemize deductions, making it broadly accessible to physicians who provide free services to eligible patients.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this deduction incentivizes physicians to offer pro bono services to low-income patients, thereby expanding access to care for those who might otherwise struggle to receive it. They contend it recognizes the value of charity care and offsets some of the financial burden on physicians.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the deduction primarily benefits higher-income physicians and may not be a strong enough incentive to significantly increase access to care for Medicaid/CHIP patients. They could also suggest it creates a tax loophole rather than a direct solution to healthcare access issues.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire to incentivize charity care with potential revenue loss for the federal government and the question of whether tax deductions are the most effective mechanism for increasing healthcare access.
Section 2(c), amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
Exclusions from Qualified Charity Care
This provision defines 'qualified charity care' but explicitly excludes several types of services from qualifying for the tax deduction. These exclusions include services for which funding is prohibited under specific appropriations acts (typically related to abortion), sex reassignment surgeries, and hormone treatments furnished for the purpose of gender alteration of a transgender individual.
Section 3, inserting new Section 224A into the Public Health Service Act
Civil Liability Protection for Charity Care Providers
This provision grants civil liability protection to physicians and attending medical personnel for harm caused by acts or omissions while furnishing 'qualified charity care.' They cannot be held liable under Federal or State law unless the act or omission was intentional, knowing, reckless, or grossly negligent. This provision also preempts inconsistent state laws unless those laws provide greater protection from liability.
The bill defines 'physician' by referencing section 1861(r) of the Social Security Act and 'physicians' services' by referencing section 1861(q) of the Social Security Act. These external definitions specify who qualifies for the deduction and what types of services are covered.
Section 2(a), new IRC Section 226(a) and 226(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure consistency across federal programs and avoid re-writing lengthy definitions already established in federal law.
Case for: Referencing existing definitions ensures consistency across federal programs and avoids creating new, potentially conflicting definitions, streamlining legislative drafting.
Case against: Requires additional research for a full understanding, potentially obscuring the precise scope of the bill for a casual reader who may not be familiar with the referenced Social Security Act sections.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the eligible providers and services for the tax deduction and liability protection, impacting all medical professionals considering providing charity care under this bill.
Excludes from 'qualified charity care' services for which funding is prohibited under sections 506 and 507 of title V of division D of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024. These sections typically relate to abortion funding restrictions (similar to the Hyde Amendment).
Section 2(c)(2)(A), new IRC Section 226(c)(2)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for incorporating existing funding restrictions without re-stating them. However, it can obscure the specific types of care being excluded, which are often politically sensitive.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures consistency with existing federal funding prohibitions, preventing the new tax deduction from indirectly supporting services that are otherwise federally restricted.
Case against: Opponents would argue that incorporating such broad prohibitions by reference can make it difficult for the public to understand the full scope of excluded services without extensive legal research, potentially obscuring politically sensitive exclusions.
Estimated impact: Limits the types of charitable care eligible for the deduction, specifically excluding certain reproductive health services, thereby impacting physicians providing these services and patients seeking them.