Bill Overview
Title: HELPS Retirees Improvement Act of 2022
Description: This bill increases from $3,000 to $6,000 the amount of the exclusion from gross income of distributions from a tax-exempt retirement plan for health and long-term care insurance for public safety officers. It also eliminates the requirement that insurance premiums must be paid directly to the provider of the accident or health plan or long-term care insurance contract as a condition of eligibility for the tax exclusion.
Sponsors: Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH-1]
Target Audience
Population: Retired public safety officers
Estimated Size: 250000
- The bill specifically targets retired public safety officers by providing tax benefits for their health-related expenses.
- Public safety officers include law enforcement officers, firefighters, ambulance personnel, rescue workers, and others involved in emergency response activities.
- The legislation impacts retirees who receive distributions from tax-exempt retirement plans and use those funds for health and long-term care insurance.
- Globally, the number of retirees in similar public safety roles would be a subset of all retirees involved in emergency services across various countries.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically targets retired public safety officers by providing tax-exempt benefits for health-related expenses. This group includes professionals such as retired law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other emergency responders.
- The policy does not directly impact the majority of the population, as it is tailored to retired public safety officers using distributions from tax-exempt retirement plans for health-related expenses.
- The size of the target group is relatively small compared to the total population, with an estimated 250,000 retired public safety officers potentially benefiting from the policy.
- Given the constraints and focus of the policy, the simulation interviews will help understand the perspective and wellbeing changes in both the directly impacted retired public safety officers and a representation of uninvolved individuals for comparison.
Simulated Interviews
Retired Firefighter (Tulsa, OK)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this new policy can really help me manage my healthcare expenses better.
- Previously, coordinating payment directly to the insurer was a hassle.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Police Officer (Boise, ID)
Age: 71 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This kind of support is exactly what many of us retirees need to make ends meet.
- Health insurance premiums have been eating into my savings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retired EMS Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's nice to have some relief on insurance payments, especially after just retiring.
- I can use the extra savings to travel or for emergencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Rescue Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm grateful for the new bill. It will ease some financial burdens.
- Managing our budget has been increasingly difficult.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Retired Volunteer Firefighter (Charleston, SC)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Volunteering didn't come with the perks of a large pension, so this is a significant help.
- The extra income exclusion could relieve my monthly costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired Sheriff (Albany, NY)
Age: 73 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a nice-to-have but not necessary for me.
- I've been fortunate with my financial planning and investment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Paramedic (Seattle, WA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is good, but I don't see a major impact considering I have other sources of support.
- Could benefit new retirees more significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Corrections Officer (Nashville, TN)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The flexibility provided by this act appreciates the retirees' needs.
- It simplifies managing premium payments for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired Federal Agent (Houston, TX)
Age: 64 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy couldn't have come at a better time, given my recent health challenges.
- Allows better utilization of my pension benefits for health needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Community Safety Director (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 57 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though I am not currently retired, understanding future benefits is crucial.
- Looking forward to retirement with policies like these in place.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $510000000 (Low: $410000000, High: $610000000)
Year 3: $520000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $620000000)
Year 5: $540000000 (Low: $440000000, High: $640000000)
Year 10: $580000000 (Low: $480000000, High: $680000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Key Considerations
- The annual federal revenue loss corresponds directly with the tax benefit provided to the retirees, as more retirees claim exclusions and higher amounts.
- The target group is limited to retired public safety officers, making the overall economic scale of the policy relatively focused and small.
- Changes to the eligibility requirements could potentially increase participation, but real-world uptake may vary based on retiree awareness and individual insurance dynamics.