Bill Overview
Title: Healthy Homes Act
Description: This bill expands the low-income housing tax credit to include an additional credit amount for healthcare-oriented housing (e.g., low-income buildings that meet certain requirements, e.g., healthcare screening available on building premises, adequate space for physicians to conduct screenings, and telehealth capacity). The bill directs the Governmental Accountability Office to study the utilization of the low-income housing tax credit with respect to healthcare-oriented housing.
Sponsors: Rep. Sewell, Terri A. [D-AL-7]
Target Audience
Population: Low-income individuals who are potential residents of healthcare-oriented housing
Estimated Size: 38000000
- The bill targets low-income individuals who are potential residents of low-income housing.
- Residents of low-income housing who would benefit from integrated healthcare services will be impacted by this legislation.
- The bill emphasizes healthcare-oriented housing, which suggests the target population includes those in need of healthcare services but who may have limited access, particularly low-income populations.
- There is a significant global population that could benefit from enhanced access to healthcare through housing, reflecting broader trends in income inequality and access to healthcare.
- According to global statistics, over 1 billion individuals live in low-income or informal settlements, indicating a large global target population for integrated services such as those proposed in the bill.
Reasoning
- The Healthy Homes Act is specifically aimed at low-income individuals living in low-income housing who could benefit from integrated healthcare services. Thus, individuals interviewed should mostly be from diverse low-income backgrounds.
- Given the policy's focus, I will aim to include individuals who represent a wide range of urban and rural environments, as the access to healthcare and types of housing differ in these areas.
- The funding levels and target population suggest the program is expected to serve a substantial portion of the low-income population, but not all, so the distribution of impact (none, low, medium, high) reflects this.
- Some individuals will not be affected directly due to various factors such as already having access to healthcare services or living in areas not covered by this policy.
Simulated Interviews
Factory worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I struggle with accessing healthcare, usually because of time and money constraints.
- Having a clinic or at least screenings available where I live would be very helpful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Agricultural worker (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to healthcare is a challenge in rural areas, this sounds like a great idea for people like me.
- I hope this policy will extend to rural areas, not just big cities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Home health aide (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to more frequent health screenings is necessary for managing my diabetes.
- The set-up seems ideal but needs to consider quality healthcare workers and facilities.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired teacher (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I sometimes miss my doctor visits due to the travel distance.
- Improving access within my living space would be greatly beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Service worker (New York, NY)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it would provide more stable healthcare options for people our age living in budget housing.
- Having accessible screenings would make life easier, especially with our work hours.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Unemployed (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could significantly improve our quality of life by reducing unnoticed health problems.
- Having healthcare in the building could reduce my transport costs significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Barista (Seattle, WA)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly in a low-income housing situation right now but have been before.
- More seamless healthcare access would be essential, especially for diverse communities.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retail worker (El Paso, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this could be life-changing for families like ours, who are worry about both rent and medical costs.
- We're mostly in areas that may not get this immediately, which is barely concerning.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Part-time security guard (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being able to get more healthcare right where we live would be a godsend.
- We have some community healthcare access, but it's not enough.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Cleaning staff (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's hard to get time off to see a doctor with my shift hours, so building-integrated care sounds helpful.
- I would be more likely to catch health problems early this way.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 2: $2550000000 (Low: $2050000000, High: $3050000000)
Year 3: $2600000000 (Low: $2100000000, High: $3100000000)
Year 5: $2700000000 (Low: $2200000000, High: $3200000000)
Year 10: $3000000000 (Low: $2500000000, High: $3500000000)
Year 100: $4000000000 (Low: $3500000000, High: $4500000000)
Key Considerations
- The scope of healthcare services provided on-site in housing units that qualify for credits.
- Rate of uptake by developers and integration into existing low-income housing projects.
- Unintended costs or administrative burdens associated with compliance and monitoring of tax credit usage.