Assembly Joint Resolution 24 is a nonbinding statement from the California Legislature asking Congress to reauthorize the enhanced premium tax credits (ePTCs) created under recent federal law and urging federal study of bolstering health savings accounts (HSAs) for people with high-deductible plans. The measure frames both steps as tools to reduce premium burden and give families additional means to pay medical expenses.
Why it matters: by formally registering California’s preference, the resolution aims to influence federal conversations about preserving near-term premium assistance while also testing longer-term account-based strategies. The text references federal policy history and directs the Chief Clerk to send copies of the resolution to national leaders so California’s position is on the record for federal lawmakers and administrators.
At a Glance
What It Does
AJR 24 formally calls on Congress to reauthorize the enhanced premium tax credits (ePTCs) and urges Congress to continue exploring mechanisms to bolster health savings accounts for eligible individuals. The resolution specifically mentions targeting HSA support to people with high-deductible plans and income up to 700 percent of the federal poverty line.
Who It Affects
The resolution speaks to Californians who buy coverage on the individual market and those in high-deductible health plans, federal policymakers who set marketplace subsidy and HSA rules, health insurers, and HSA administrators. Because it is nonbinding, the immediate legal effect is nil, but it aims to shape federal policy that would affect these stakeholders.
Why It Matters
The measure links a short-term subsidy tool (ePTCs) with a longer-term, account-based strategy (HSAs), signaling state-level support for pairing premium relief with savings incentives. For professionals tracking subsidy design, the resolution highlights two policy levers—continued premium tax credits and federal HSA contributions—that, if adopted, would change incentive structures in the individual market.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AJR 24 is an Assembly joint resolution that does two things: it urges Congress to extend the enhanced premium tax credits that expanded marketplace subsidies during the COVID-era, and it asks Congress to continue exploring ways to strengthen health savings accounts for people enrolled in high-deductible health plans. The text opens with a series of findings that summarize why the Legislature sees both steps as relevant: rising premiums in the individual market, the role of premium tax credits in lowering out-of-pocket premium costs, and the creation of HSAs in earlier federal reform.
The resolution’s preamble cites historical federal actions—the Affordable Care Act’s premium tax credits, the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act’s temporary enhancements, and the 2003 law that created HSAs—as background for its requests. It notes that enhanced credits have materially reduced premiums for people who receive them and that those enhancements are scheduled to lapse, which, in the Legislature’s view, would raise premiums if not reauthorized.
The HSA discussion in the text is forward-looking: it urges Congress to consider federal contributions to HSAs or similar mechanisms for people with incomes up to 700 percent of the federal poverty line who hold high-deductible plans.Because a joint resolution is nonbinding, AJR 24 does not create state-level entitlement or spending changes; instead it functions as a formal policy position. The resolution finishes by instructing the Chief Clerk to transmit copies to federal leaders—the President, Vice President, congressional leadership, and California’s delegation—so the state’s preferences become part of the congressional record and the surrounding advocacy ecosystem.
Practically, the text leaves the design details to Congress (it urges exploration rather than prescribing contribution amounts, eligibility mechanics, or interactions with existing subsidies).
The Five Things You Need to Know
AJR 24 is a nonbinding joint resolution asking the U.S. Congress to reauthorize the enhanced premium tax credits that expanded marketplace subsidies.
The resolution urges Congress to explore bolstering HSAs specifically for people enrolled in high-deductible health plans with incomes up to 700 percent of the federal poverty line.
The text references federal precedent: it cites the ACA's premium tax credits, the American Rescue Plan Act's expansion of those credits, and the 2003 law that established HSAs.
The Legislature frames the urgency around premium affordability, noting that enhanced credits materially lowered premiums for many beneficiaries and are scheduled to lapse absent Congressional action.
AJR 24 directs the Chief Clerk to transmit copies of the resolution to the President, Vice President, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, California’s congressional delegation, and the author.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Background facts and rationale for the request
The preamble assembles the Legislature’s justification: rising individual-market premiums, the policy role of premium tax credits, the temporary expansion of those credits under the American Rescue Plan, and the 2003 origin of HSAs. This section matters because it establishes the factual frame lawmakers want fed policymakers to consider: that premium assistance and account-based savings together could address affordability and medical cost-management concerns.
Call for reauthorization of enhanced premium tax credits
This clause formally asks Congress to reauthorize the enhanced premium tax credits. It does not prescribe how Congress should do so—no legislative formulas, no state fiscal triggers—so its practical effect is advocacy rather than binding instruction. For stakeholders, this means the resolution signals state-level support for extending federal subsidies without committing California to any implementing action.
Urging study of bolstering HSAs for people up to 700% FPL with HDHPs
The second operative clause urges Congress to continue exploring the concept of strengthening HSAs, and it specifies a target population—people with incomes up to 700 percent of the federal poverty line who have high-deductible health plans. The clause is intentionally broad: it asks for continued exploration rather than defining contribution amounts, implementation methods (direct payments, matches, or tax credits), or administrability—leaving significant design questions to federal lawmakers.
Transmission of the resolution to federal leaders
The final clause requires the Chief Clerk to send copies of the resolution to federal executive and legislative leaders and to California’s congressional delegation. This is procedural but important: it formally communicates the Legislature’s position to specified offices, ensuring the resolution enters the record and can be invoked in advocacy and congressional correspondence.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Individual-market enrollees who currently receive enhanced premium tax credits — if Congress reauthorizes the ePTCs they would keep lower monthly premiums and reduced premium-related churn.
- People enrolled in high-deductible health plans with incomes up to 700% of FPL — if Congress follows the resolution and provides HSA contributions, these households could get new, tax-advantaged funds to cover out-of-pocket costs.
- State consumer-assistance programs and enrollment navigators — preserving marketplace subsidies reduces their caseload volatility and eases outreach and retention efforts.
- Health insurers and marketplaces — continued premium subsidies can stabilize enrollment and revenue streams in the individual market, reducing sudden shifts in risk pools.
Who Bears the Cost
- The federal Treasury — reauthorizing enhanced premium tax credits and making federal HSA contributions would, if enacted, increase federal outlays; direct fiscal impacts are not estimated in the resolution.
- Low-income enrollees lacking liquidity — asking people to rely on HSAs assumes the ability to save or receive contributions; those who cannot contribute may still face high upfront cost-sharing in a high-deductible design.
- HSA administrators, insurers, and payroll systems — any federal contributions or new eligibility rules would require systems changes, new reporting, and compliance mechanisms that create operational costs.
- California agencies and advocates — although the resolution itself is nonbinding, continued advocacy and potential state-level coordination efforts to align outreach or tax treatment could demand staff time and resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma AJR 24 exposes is how to balance immediate, targeted premium relief (reauthorizing ePTCs) with a policy push toward account-based savings (bolstering HSAs) that shifts cost-risk to consumers; solving one problem (monthly premiums) while pursuing the other (incentivizing savings) can produce conflicting incentives and distributional outcomes, especially for lower-income households who may lack the capacity to save.
AJR 24 is an advocacy document, not a binding entitlement or budget instruction. That reduces immediate legal consequences but also leaves critical design choices unresolved: the resolution urges Congress to consider bolstering HSAs but does not define whether 'bolstering' means direct federal deposits, matching contributions, refundable tax credits, or expanded eligibility.
Each design option has distinct distributional and administrative consequences that the resolution does not engage.
The resolution couples support for continued premium subsidies with interest in account-based solutions. That pairing creates real trade-offs.
Premium tax credits reduce monthly premium burdens directly and are relatively well-targeted through marketplace income rules; HSAs shift costs into tax-advantaged accounts and tend to benefit people who can save or have steady incomes. The text does not address how federal HSA contributions would interact with premium subsidy calculations, how contributions would be targeted or clawed back, or how people on Medicaid or other public programs would be treated—questions that materially affect who benefits and who does not.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.