Bill Overview
Title: PRO–LIFE Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes new, and modifies existing, programs related to maternal and child health, tax credits and other benefits for parents and caregivers, and support for childcare infrastructure. The bill requires multi-agency efforts to improve maternal health and reduce maternal mortality, particularly among racial and ethnic minority groups, veterans, and other vulnerable populations, by addressing both health-related factors and the social determinants of health (i.e., nonmedical factors that influence health outcomes, such as housing, food security, transportation, and environmental conditions). Additionally, the bill permanently extends the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and related measures. Further, the bill (1) sets up a family medical leave insurance benefit that entitles employees to a monthly benefit payment for a period of qualified caregiving; and (2) imposes a tax on employers, employees, and self-employed individuals to fund the benefits. The bill also increases the amount of the child tax credit and makes the credit fully refundable and payable in advance on a monthly basis. In addition, the Department of Labor must carry out a program to certify and recognize employers that implement family-friendly workplace programs (e.g., providing paid family and sick leave or subsidizing childcare). The bill also requires support for childcare infrastructure, for example by establishing grants for childcare facilities and scholarship and loan repayment programs for childcare educators.
Sponsors: Rep. Phillips, Dean [D-MN-3]
Target Audience
Population: People who are caregivers, parents, minority mothers, vulnerable populations, employers, and employees
Estimated Size: 180000000
- The bill affects pregnant women and mothers, who will benefit from improved maternal health programs.
- Racial and ethnic minority groups are specifically targeted for improved healthcare outcomes, thus are directly impacted.
- Vulnerable populations, including low-income families, benefit from extended CHIP and other support measures.
- Caregivers and parents will be affected due to enhanced tax credits and family medical leave insurance benefit.
- Family and childcare infrastructure improvements target families needing childcare, particularly those requiring subsidies.
- Employers and employees will be impacted by the new tax to fund family leave benefits.
- Program for childcare educators will impact those in or entering this profession.
Reasoning
- I considered a diverse group of interviewees that cover women and mothers benefiting from maternal health programs, caregivers and parents who would gain from enhanced tax credits and leave benefits, racial and ethnic minorities who are targeted for improved healthcare, and those impacted by changes in childcare infrastructure.
- Considering the US demographic distribution, I chose interviewees from both urban and rural settings to reflect varying access and needs regarding health and childcare services.
- I estimated the potential impact on the Cantril self-reported wellbeing scale by reflecting on the direct benefits individuals might receive and how these changes might affect their long-term wellbeing.
- I assumed that not everyone experiences the same level of benefit from policy options due to their varied initial circumstances, such as employment status and income level.
- The budget and program size suggest that a significant number of people, particularly in vulnerable groups, would be targeted, so I included these groups prominently.
Simulated Interviews
nurse (New York City, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems like it could really help people like me, especially with family leave and the child tax credits.
- I'm concerned about how quickly the benefits can be rolled out and whether my employer will be supportive.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
small business owner (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The tax increase may strain my business, but the benefits could lead to a happier and more stable workforce.
- I appreciate the recognition for employers who are family-friendly.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
student (Rural Iowa)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be a game changer, especially with access to healthcare and maternal programs.
- Support for childcare infrastructure would be amazing as I'm planning to return to school.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
software engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Support for LGBTQ families is often overlooked, so systemic improvements are essential.
- Increased child tax credits are helpful but more direct support for special needs is required.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
retired teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good to see that young families are receiving support, but as retirees, we often feel left out of new benefits.
- The shift in focus from older citizens' welfare to maternity and childcare is noticeable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
childcare worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Scholarships and loan repayments would really help.
- The childcare industry needs this support to survive and thrive.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
construction worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the tax increase, but improving CHIP and access to healthcare is crucial for us.
- My job doesn't provide family leave, so benefits like these would make a big difference.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
stay-at-home parent (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Family support and extended credits could finally give us a chance to save a little.
- I really like the idea of recognizing family-friendly employers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
HR Manager (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen firsthand the struggles families face and am glad policies support them more holistically.
- Implementing such changes at work can be complex but beneficial long term.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
unemployed (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any measures to stabilize family and child welfare could provide hope and security.
- The issue is accessing benefits and knowing they exist.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000000 (Low: $45000000000, High: $55000000000)
Year 2: $52000000000 (Low: $47000000000, High: $57000000000)
Year 3: $54000000000 (Low: $49000000000, High: $59000000000)
Year 5: $58000000000 (Low: $53000000000, High: $63000000000)
Year 10: $64000000000 (Low: $58000000000, High: $69000000000)
Year 100: $100000000000 (Low: $90000000000, High: $110000000000)
Key Considerations
- Population reaction to increased taxes versus benefits received through family medical leave and childcare infrastructure.
- Potential economic stimulation from improved child health and parental workforce participation.
- State contributions towards healthcare expansions under CHIP could lead to budget reallocations at state levels.
- Implementation time and effects of new family-friendly workplace programs will affect overall impact timelines.