Tax break for private cord banking—but only wealthy families benefit

What it does

This bill allows families to deduct the cost of storing their baby's umbilical cord blood or tissue at private banks as a medical expense on their federal income taxes, starting in 2025. Currently, these banking fees are not tax-deductible; the bill treats them the same as other out-of-pocket medical costs, reducing the after-tax cost of private cord banking for families who use it.

Why we flagged it

The bill's sole operative mechanism is a tax deduction—it adds private cord blood and tissue banking to the list of deductible medical expenses under IRC §213(d)(1). This is a direct tax expenditure benefiting families who purchase private banking services.

What the text implies

• The deduction applies only to 'accredited bank[s] in compliance with regulations under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act'—the bill does not define 'accredited' or cite the specific regulations, creating potential ambiguity about which private banks qualify and leaving room for regulatory interpretation.
• The deduction incentivizes private cord banking over public/altruistic cord banking (which is not subsidized), potentially shifting donation patterns away from public banks that serve research and transplant needs.
• Families with lower incomes or those who do not itemize deductions receive no benefit, making this a regressive tax expenditure that widens the gap between wealthy and lower-income families' access to cord banking.
• The effective date (taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024) means the deduction is retroactively available for 2025 tax returns, potentially creating a windfall for families who banked cord blood in 2025 before the law was enacted.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Families who can afford private cord banking and have sufficient medical expenses to itemize deductions gain a modest tax benefit. However, the deduction is regressive—it primarily benefits higher-income households (who itemize and have higher marginal tax rates), while lower-income families either cannot afford private banking or do not benefit from the deduction. Public cord banking (altruistic donation) remains unaffected and is not subsidized, creating a two-tier system where tax policy ince

Who stands to gain

• private umbilical cord blood and tissue banking companies
• accredited cord banking service providers
• higher-income households with sufficient medical expenses to itemize deductions

Named in the bill

Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Section 213(d)(1) (medical expense deduction), Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act, private umbilical cord blood banks, accredited cord tissue banking services

Where it stands

4 cosponsors: 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans.

• Apr 10, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Apr 10, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Ways and Means · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $70,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 2 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.

Jodey Arrington, the sponsor, reported $573,000 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle. $1,500 of that came from 1 PAC tied to these lobbying clients.

• Revvity, Inc. — $70,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 13, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.