The CLEAN Act adds a new ineligibility rule to the Internal Revenue Code and amends the Social Security Act to exclude ‘‘sex offenders’’ (as defined by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, section 111) from receiving the refundable premium tax credit for qualified health plans and from receiving federally funded medical assistance under Medicaid. The tax change denies the credit when the individual or the individual’s spouse is a covered registrant as of the last day of the taxable year; the Medicaid change removes federal matching funds for medical assistance provided to those individuals and explicitly permits states to decline to furnish such assistance.
The measure is significant because it ties criminal-registration status to access to two major federal health-subsidy programs. Practically, it forces IRS and CMS-state systems to verify registry status, creates a durable coverage gap for affected people (and potentially their families), and shifts fiscal and care-delivery consequences to states, hospitals, and community providers while raising predictable legal and administrative questions about identification, timing, and delegated enforcement.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends IRC section 36B to add a categorical denial of the refundable premium tax credit for any individual (or that individual’s spouse) who is a sex offender under Adam Walsh section 111 as of the last day of the taxable year. It also amends SSA section 1903(i) to prohibit federal matching payments for medical assistance furnished to such individuals and changes section 1902(a) to let states elect not to provide Medicaid coverage to them.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are people who are listed as sex offenders under the Adam Walsh Act, spouses filing joint returns with those individuals, state Medicaid programs and their beneficiaries, hospitals and community clinics that treat low-income patients, and federal agencies (IRS and CMS) that must implement verification and enforcement. Compliance vendors, state registries, and legal services will also see new demand.
Why It Matters
This bill creates a new, eligibility-based mechanism for excluding a criminal classification from core federal health supports. That combination of fiscal exclusion, state option, and administrative verification is likely to alter health-care utilization patterns, increase uncompensated care, and prompt legal challenges over due process, equal protection, and statutory interpretation of federal benefit rules.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The CLEAN Act ties two separate federal benefit streams—the refundable premium tax credit under the Affordable Care Act and federally matched Medicaid medical assistance—to criminal-registration status. For the tax credit, the bill inserts a new subparagraph into section 36B(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code that simply bars the credit if the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse is a ‘‘sex offender’’ as defined by section 111 of the Adam Walsh Act on the last day of the taxable year.
The practical effect is that a registrant who otherwise qualifies for a premium tax credit would lose that subsidy for the year if registry status exists at year end.
On the Medicaid side, the bill rewrites the federal matching rules by adding a provision to section 1903(i) of the Social Security Act that disallows federal matching funds for ‘‘medical assistance for an individual who is a sex offender.’’ The bill then amends section 1902(a) to state explicitly that a state may choose not to make medical assistance available to those individuals. In combination, these changes mean the federal government will not share in the cost of medical services provided to registrants; states may still provide services, but they would do so without federal matching dollars if they choose to continue coverage.Both parts of the bill rely on the Adam Walsh Act definition, which is a federal reference point but operationally depends on inclusion in state and federal sex-offender registries.
That dependency creates immediate implementation questions: who certifies registry status to the IRS or to state Medicaid agencies, how often must records be checked, how will joint filers be handled, and what notice and appeal rights (if any) accompany denials? The bill sets effective dates: the tax change applies to taxable years ending after enactment; the Medicaid change applies to enrollments or reenrollments on or after enactment, creating a clear cutoff that preserves coverage for currently enrolled individuals until their next enrollment event.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds IRC section 36B(c)(1)(F) to deny the refundable premium tax credit to any individual (or that individual’s spouse on a joint return) who is a sex offender under Adam Walsh Act section 111 as of the last day of the taxable year.
The tax provision takes effect for taxable years ending after the date of enactment, so eligibility is determined at each taxable year’s end.
The bill amends SSA section 1903(i) to bar federal Medicaid matching payments for medical assistance provided to individuals who are sex offenders as defined by the Adam Walsh Act.
It amends SSA section 1902(a) to allow—rather than require—states not to make Medicaid medical assistance available to those individuals, giving states explicit authority to decline coverage.
The Medicaid provisions apply to individuals enrolled or reenrolled under a state plan (or waiver) on or after enactment, creating a breakpoint between current enrollees and new/enrolled-again individuals.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the ‘‘Criminals’ Loss of Eligibility and Assistance Networks Act’’ or ‘‘CLEAN Act.’
Denial of refundable premium tax credit for sex offenders
Adds a new subsection to Internal Revenue Code section 36B(c)(1) that disqualifies an individual (and, for joint returns, the spouse) from receiving the refundable premium tax credit if the person is a sex offender as defined by Adam Walsh section 111 on the last day of the taxable year. Because it is placed within the mechanics of 36B, the denial affects the refundable credit calculation and is applied on an annual, tax-year basis; practitioners will need to decide how to verify registry status at year end and how the denial interacts with advance payments or reconciliations of the credit.
Prohibition on federal matching funds for sex offenders’ medical assistance
Inserts a new paragraph into section 1903(i) to exclude from federal matching any amounts expended for medical assistance for individuals who are sex offenders under Adam Walsh section 111. This is a funding prohibition: it does not itself forbid states from providing care, but it withdraws federal financial participation for covered services, which materially changes the incentives around covering this population.
Permits states to decline to furnish medical assistance
Amends section 1902(a) to state explicitly that a state may elect not to make medical assistance available to individuals described in the new 1903(i) paragraph. The change transforms an implicit funding limitation into an explicit state option to deny Medicaid coverage, which will produce variation across states depending on policy choices and budget pressures.
Timing for Medicaid changes
Specifies that the Medicaid amendments apply to individuals enrolled or reenrolled under a state plan or waiver on or after enactment. The clause creates a clear enrollment/reenrollment trigger: current enrollees stay covered until their next enrollment event, while new or re-enrolling individuals may be denied federal-funded assistance starting at enactment.
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
- Federal government: The changes reduce federal outlays for premium tax credits and for Medicaid-covered medical assistance for the specified population, lowering federal spending exposure.
- States (administrators and budget officers): States gain explicit authority to decline federally funded coverage for registrants, creating a policy lever to contain state and federal spending and to set state-level eligibility determinations.
- Public-safety advocacy groups: Organizations that favor restricting benefits to people with certain convictions may regard the bill as advancing accountability by linking registry status to federal benefit eligibility.
- Compliance and verification vendors: Companies that provide registry matching, identity verification, and eligibility-integration services will likely see increased demand from IRS, CMS, state Medicaid agencies, and insurers needing to check registrant status at scale.
Who Bears the Cost
- People listed as sex offenders (and some spouses): Those individuals stand to lose the premium tax credit and federal-backed Medicaid assistance, increasing their out-of-pocket costs and risk of uninsurance; spouses filing jointly may lose household subsidies as well.
- Hospitals, community health centers, and emergency departments: If states decline or cannot secure matching funds, providers will face more uncompensated care and greater financial strain as formerly insured patients lose coverage and continue to seek care.
- State Medicaid programs and taxpayers: States that choose to continue providing care without federal matching will absorb additional costs; states that drop coverage may see secondary fiscal impacts (e.g., higher public safety or emergency-care spending).
- CMS and IRS (administration): Both agencies will incur implementation and enforcement costs—building registry-check processes, issuing guidance, handling appeals, and resolving conflicting records—without an appropriation included in the bill.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill forces a trade-off between two legitimate priorities: using eligibility levers to impose consequences for serious criminal conduct and protecting public-health and coverage continuity; denying federal health subsidies may satisfy punitive or fiscal objectives but risks shifting costs to providers and states, worsening health outcomes, and creating administration and litigation burdens that could negate projected savings.
The bill resolves the eligibility question by reference to the Adam Walsh Act’s registry definition, but Adam Walsh is an indexing choice that pushes operational work onto states and federal agencies. Neither the IRS nor CMS currently has an off-the-shelf, trusted feed of registry status designed for routine benefits verification at scale; building secure, privacy-compliant interfaces and adjudication processes will require rulemaking, procurement, and coordination across multiple state systems.
That raises timing and cost questions not addressed in the text.
From a policy standpoint, the statute creates predictable externalities. Denying the premium tax credit reduces marketplace affordability and will likely depress enrollment for affected individuals and households, increasing uncompensated care claims.
Disallowing federal matching for Medicaid services invites heterogeneous state responses—some states may continue coverage at full state cost, others may curtail services, and still others may carve out certain treatments—producing coverage fragmentation. The bill is silent on procedural safeguards: it does not set notice, appeal, or verification timelines, and it determines eligibility based on registry status ‘‘as of the last day’’ of a taxable year or enrollment event, which creates cliff effects and administrative complexity for joint filers, individuals who move across state lines, and those contesting registry placement.
Finally, there are plausible legal questions the bill does not address. Because the exclusions are categorical and tied to criminal-status registries, affected individuals could challenge the measures on constitutional grounds (e.g., equal protection, due process) or under statutory benefits frameworks.
The reliance on registries maintained under varying state standards also creates disparate outcomes and invites litigation over who qualifies as a ‘‘sex offender’’ for federal-benefit purposes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.