Republicans want to expand regulations for accounts intended to pay medical costs, which also serve as a retirement planning tool that can offer wealthier households an advantage, while they decide how far to go with funding cuts and more limitations for low-income healthcare coverage.
Despite being hundreds of pages long, the tax plan that passed the House Ways and Means Committee this week includes provisions pertaining to health-savings accounts.
According to the bill, working seniors would have more time to contribute and people may deposit more money into these tax-advantaged accounts. Among other things, it would allow users to pay for their gym memberships using account funds and expand the range of healthcare insurance that can use these accounts.
“If passed, it could help higher-income clients shelter more income and give younger families and small-business owners more room to save aggressively for (inevitable) future healthcare costs,” writes Craig Toberman, a partner at Toberman Becker Wealth in St. Louis.
In a phone interview with MarketWatch, Toberman also said that the GOP’s tax measure is “taking one of the most tax-efficient retirement-planning vehicles and just jump-starting it even further.”
Devenir, a supplier of investment solutions for HSA accounts, reported that by the end of last year, the assets in over 39 million HSA accounts totaled about $147 billion. According to Devenir data, the 2024 collective asset balance increased by over 19% from the previous year.
However, one of the most recent twists in the ongoing tale of growing healthcare expenditures in the United States is the possible modifications to HSAs.
By no means is the Republican tax and spending plan finalized. The ongoing discussion about Medicaid funding and eligibility rules is one of the causes. Republicans argue that the program’s expenses must be brought under control, while Democrats and other opponents claim that millions of Americans would unjustly lose their health insurance.
Additionally, Republicans don’t appear to be interested in extending higher tax breaks for health insurance plans purchased through the exchange established by the Affordable Care Act. In the meantime, insurance rates continue to rise; according to KFF, the average yearly cost for family coverage through a job went up 7% to $25,572 last year.
Therefore, it is difficult to say if potential reforms to HSAs would improve America’s healthcare system or address its affordability issues. According to Jake Spiegel, senior research associate at the Employee help Research Institute, a think tank that studies the financial, health, and retirement benefits that Americans receive via their work, the bill’s provisions could still help those who have HSA accounts.
Spiegel pointed out that the numerous improvements being suggested for HSAs are hardly “radical departures.” “That being said, even at the margins, this could be pretty useful for some folks.”
HSA’s “triple play”
HSAs are utilized in conjunction with high-deductible health plans, which are insurance policies with deductibles that exceed a specific amount. The barrier is $3,300 for family coverage and $1,650 for individual insurance this year.
According to some healthcare professionals, health-savings accounts are meant to provide consumers with a tax-efficient method of paying for medical care. Financial experts like Toberman also praise the accounts as a “triple play” to reduce an individual’s long-term tax liability.
Payroll contributions made to an HSA are pretax, and those who fund an account outside of their place of employment are eligible for a deduction. HSA money can be invested in the stock market, similar to a 401(k) account for retirement, or they can remain in cash.
When the funds are utilized for approved medical costs, both the growth and dividends are tax-free. (Expenses unrelated to medical care are subject to a 20% penalty.) Distributions for nonmedical expenses continue to be considered ordinary income even after the penalty expires at age 65.
The tax bill’s largest effect would be higher contribution caps. Individual and family coverage limits this year are $4,300 and $8,550, respectively, with an additional $1,000 available to account holders 55 and older.
The contribution amounts would be doubled under the law. The bill would establish an income limitation for those who are eligible to add the additional $4,300/$8,550 inflation-indexed component to an HSA, even though there are now no financial restrictions on who is eligible to contribute. For individuals with self-only coverage, the phase-out starts at $75,000 adjusted gross income, and for those with family coverage, it starts at $150,000.
One feature of the current GOP measure is income-based phaseouts.
Other significant changes included allowing seniors over 65 to participate in Medicare Part A and continue to make contributions to their HSA, something that is currently prohibited, according to Spiegel. According to him, older workers who are facing or anticipate significant medical costs in the future may benefit from the more time to contribute and the additional amounts permitted.
According to Toberman, one of the most important financial factors is determining how much money to save for future medical expenses. He projects the future financial requirements of his clients, and typically, “healthcare costs become the biggest expense category.”
While trying to cover medical expenses out of pocket, Toberman advises clients to make contributions to their employer’s 401(k) match and use the remaining funds for long-term investments in the HSA.
“Given the staggering growth rate of healthcare costs,” he noted, there is little prospect that consumers are overfunding an HSA.
Spiegel refers to this save-and-hold plan as “the wealth-maximizing strategy” for HSAs. However, he continued, the majority of HSA users don’t treat them that way.
According to him, less than 15% of account holders make contributions toward the statutory maximum. The majority of customers continue to take withdrawals from their accounts even when their HSA money are invested rather than cash, “which does not conform to that wealth-maximizing strategy.”
“Second-level” assistance?
Higher contribution caps and other possible changes to HSAs in the GOP tax bill are “well intentioned,” according to Michael Cannon, director of health-policy research at the libertarian-leaning think tank Cato Institute.
The measure also suggests allowing HSA funds to be used for “qualified sports and fitness expenses.” “It’s an example of how taxes distort and complicate healthcare,” Cannon said, referring to the bill’s $500 cap on permitted expenses for a single filer and $1,000 cap for a combined return.
“How much more is Congress going to expand the definition over time to include sneakers and so forth?” Cannon uttered those words. “It’s just silly because this is about medical care.”
Cannon said the GOP’s measure does not address the obvious problems in healthcare, even though he favors some of the ideas connected to HSA.
Cannon went on to say, “Overall, this bill is wildly irresponsible,” as it falls short in reducing the expenses and national obligations associated with programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Senior policy officer Katherine Hempstead of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a public health philanthropic group, is worried that the US is “going to take a great leap back on coverage.”
“A symptom of excessive complexity of our systems,” she remarked, are HSAs. There is benefit in financial planning with these accounts if it helps people avoid selling their house and belongings or ending up in “a Medicaid-financed nursing home.”
However, more general guidelines for HSAs offer “second-level help,” according to Hempstead, “where the problem is we are still living in a world where not everyone has affordable health coverage.”
Which personal finance topics do you hope MarketWatch will cover? We want to know what readers think about their financial choices and inquiries. You can contact us by email at readerstories@marketwatch.com or by completing this form. To find out more, a reporter might get in contact. Without your consent, MarketWatch will not personally identify you based on your responses.
