Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 18, 1999
Medical Savings Account Expansion Act of 1999 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to repeal: (1) the limitations on the number of taxpayers having medical savings accounts (MSAs); (2) the eligibility requirement that an MSA holder be covered by a high deductible health plan established by the holder's or holder's spouse's small employer, or be a self-employed individual whose high deductible health plan is not established by the self-employed individual or by such individual's spouse's employer; (3) the restriction that a taxpayer's deduction for an MSA contribution not exceed the taxpayer's compensation; and (4) the denial of a taxpayer deduction for contributions to an MSA if the taxpayer's employer's contribution to the MSA is excludable from the employer's gross income. Increases to 100 percent of the annual deductible of an individual's high deductible health plan the amount of annual contributions to an MSA the individual may make (and deduct from gross income). Reduces the high deductible plan minimum annual deductible: (1) from $1,500 to $1,000 for self-only coverage; and (2) from $3,000 to $2,000 for family coverage.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.657 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.657 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.657 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.657 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.