PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 2, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10440 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10440 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10440 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10440 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-16 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed REACH Act would offer a federal income tax credit of up to $10,000 a year to certain individual health care workers employed at least 900 hours in a rural area. Eligible workers would include specified primary care, mental health and nursing professionals and qualifying medical residents. Higher income would reduce or eliminate the credit.
This Act may be cited as the Resources for Essential Access to Community Health Act or the REACH Act.
In the case of any eligible rural health care provider, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year an amount equal to $10,000.
the term eligible rural health care provider means an individual who is employed not less than 900 hours during the taxable year— (1) as a primary care practitioner, mental health professional, nurse, or resident participating in an approved medical residency training program, and (2) in a rural area.
The amount of the credit allowed by subsection (a) (determined without regard to this subsection) shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount which bears the same ratio to such credit (as so determined) as— (1) the excess of— (A) the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over (B) $170,000, bears to (2) $10,000.
The proposed credit would go to individual workers. To qualify, a worker would need at least 900 hours of employment during the tax year in both an eligible role and a qualifying rural area.
the term eligible rural health care provider means an individual who is employed not less than 900 hours during the taxable year— (1) as a primary care practitioner, mental health professional, nurse, or resident participating in an approved medical residency training program, and (2) in a rural area.
The proposal would use an existing Social Security Act definition of primary care practitioner and expressly include physicians whose primary specialty is obstetrics and gynecology.
The term primary care practitioner has the meaning given such term in section 1833(x)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(x)(2)(A)). Such term includes a physician (as described in section 1861(r)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(r)(1))) who has a primary specialty designation of obstetrics and gynecology.
Eligible mental health professionals would be health service psychologists, licensed clinical social workers, licensed professional counselors, marriage or family therapists, psychiatric nurse specialists and psychiatrists.
The term mental health professional means a health service psychologist, licensed clinical social worker, licensed professional counselor, marriage or family therapist, psychiatric nurse specialist, or psychiatrist.
The proposal would use definitions from other federal laws to determine which nurses, residency programs and rural areas qualify. Those definitions are referenced but not reproduced in the supplied bill.
The term nurse has the meaning given such term in section 428K(g)(7) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078–11(g)(7)).
The term approved medical residency training program has the meaning given such term in section 1886(h)(5)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(5)(A)).
The term rural area has the meaning given such term in section 343(a)(13) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)).
The proposed $10,000 credit would decrease by $1 for every $1 of adjusted gross income above $170,000, reaching zero at $180,000. Adjusted gross income is the tax-return income measure used for this limit.
In the case of any eligible rural health care provider, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year an amount equal to $10,000.
The amount of the credit allowed by subsection (a) (determined without regard to this subsection) shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount which bears the same ratio to such credit (as so determined) as— (1) the excess of— (A) the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over (B) $170,000, bears to (2) $10,000.
The proposal would allow, but would not require, the Secretary to publish regulations or guidance needed to administer the credit.
The Secretary may publish such regulations or guidance as are necessary to administer this section.
The amendments would apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2026. The credit would end for employment in tax years beginning after December 31, 2033. For calendar-year taxpayers, that would cover tax years 2027 through 2033.
The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2026.
No credit shall be allowed under this section with respect to employment in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2033.
The bill would create Internal Revenue Code section 36C, add references to it in two existing statutory provisions and update the Code’s table of sections. The supplied text does not reproduce the two provisions receiving those references.
Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after section 36B the following new section: 36C. Credit for rural health care providers
(b) Conforming amendments (1) Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting 36C, after 36B,. (2) Section 6211(b)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting 36C, after 36B,. (3) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 36B the following new item: Sec. 36C. Credit for rural health care providers.
The supplied October 2, 2026 source snapshot records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means on September 16, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-02T19:58:42Z. 2026-09-16: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. 2026-09-16: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-16. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No provision unrelated to the bill’s main subject was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not resolve formal earmark status in accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out or preferential exception beyond the credit’s ordinary eligibility rules was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The program’s intended beneficiaries alone do not warrant a separate finding. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 2, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI