link to page 2 

 
 INSIGHTi 
 
H.R. 5376 Universal Paid Family and Medical 
Leave Benefit Formula, and the Distribution 
of Workers across Selected Earnings Groups 
October 22, 2021 
H.R. 5376 (Title XIII, Subtitle A) proposes a new federal cash benefit for eligible individuals engaged in 
certain types of family and medical caregiving. Benefits would be calculated on a weekly basis (paid 
monthly) for up to a maximum of 12 workweeks of qualified caregiving in a benefit period (generally a 
12-month period).  
The weekly benefit amount would be equal to the product of the weekly benefit rate multiplied by the 
ratio of the number of creditable caregiving hours in the week to the number of hours in the regular 
workweek (i.e., weekly benefit rate x [hours of caregiving/hours in regular workweek]). Creditable 
caregiving hours may not exceed the number of hours in an individual’s regular workweek (i.e., the ratio 
[hours of caregiving/hours in regular workweek] cannot exceed one). For example, an individual who 
regularly works 40 hours and has annual average earnings of $72,000 could claim a weekly benefit of 
$922 (based on a weekly benefit rate of $922 calculated as shown below) if they engaged in at least 40 
caregiving hours; the weekly claim would be $466 (i.e., ½ x $922) if they provided 20 hours of 
caregiving.  
The initial weekly benefit rate would be the sum of 
  85% x (the first $15,080 of annual earnings) ÷ 52 weeks 
  75% x (the portion of annual earnings between $15,081 and $34,248) ÷ 52 weeks 
  55% x (the portion of annual earnings between $34,249 and $72,000) ÷ 52 weeks 
  25% x (the portion of annual earnings between $72,001 and $100,000) ÷ 52 weeks 
  5% x (the portion of annual earnings between $100,001 and $250,000) ÷ 52 weeks 
For qualified caregiving that occurs in weeks that end within the year 2024 (after which date a portion of 
the benefit formula will be adjusted), the maximum weekly benefit would be $1,201.09. A minimum 
benefit has not been proposed.  
Figure 1 illustrates weekly benefit amounts across a range of average annual earnings levels for an 
individual who provides weekly caregiving hours in an amount that is at least as great as his or her regular 
Congressional Research Service 
https://crsreports.congress.gov 
IN11783 
CRS INSIGHT 
Prepared for Members and  
 Committees of Congress 
 
  
 
 link to page 3 
Congressional Research Service 
2 
workweek hours (e.g., provides 40 hours of creditable caregiving hours and has a 40-hour regular 
workweek). The proposed benefit formula is based on total wages and self-employment earnings during 
the most recent eight-quarter calendar quarter period (a span of two years) that ends four months prior to 
the beginning of the individual’s benefit period. 
Figure 1. Proposed Weekly Paid Leave Benefit Amount, by Average Annual Earnings  
Formula provided in H.R. 5376 (Title XIII, Subtitle A) 
 
Source: CRS calculations based on H.R. 5376. 
Notes: H.R. 5376 proposes to base benefit amounts on total wages and self-employment earnings during the most recent 
eight-quarter calendar quarter period (a span of two years) that ends four months prior to the beginning of the individual’s 
benefit period. The calculations assume an individual who provides weekly caregiving hours in an amount that is at least as 
great as his or her regular workweek hours. Weekly benefit rates are rounded to the nearest dol ar amount. 
After calendar year 2024, the bend points of the weekly benefit formula—the dollar amounts used to 
calculate the weekly benefit rate—would increase annually by the growth in the national average wage 
index (42 U.S.C. §409(k)(1)) or would remain at the previous year’s level if the average wage index does 
not increase. 
Table 1 presents the distribution of workers in 2019 (the most recent year for which relevant public use 
data are available) by state across the earnings groups identified in the paid leave benefit formula 
proposed in H.R. 5376. Nationally, 5.1% of adult workers (18 years and older) had earnings in the lowest 
earnings group, and 2.2% had earnings in the highest earnings group. In some states, relatively few 
workers had earnings in the lowest earnings category (the District of Columbia had the lowest share at 
1.9%), whereas in other states the share was relatively high (9.4% in Mississippi). Similarly, states 
differed in the degree to which workers were concentrated in the highest earnings groups; shares ranged 
from 1.1% (Hawaii) to 4.1% (the District of Columbia and Connecticut). These differences in earnings 
across states may lead to different average paid leave benefit amounts across states under H.R. 5376. 
State-level differences in workers’ earnings can reflect true differences in workers’ purchasing power, but 
they can also reflect regional price differences. For example, the Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates 
that in 2019 average price levels (for consumption goods and services) in Hawaii were more than 19% 
  
Congressional Research Service 
3 
higher than the national price average, while prices were nearly 16% below the national average in 
Mississippi. Such differences would not be reflected in the paid family leave benefit proposed in H.R. 
5376. 
Table 1. Distribution of Adult Workers Across Selected Earnings Group in 2019, by State 
Full-time, full-year workers 
 
Earnings in the Last 12 Months 
 
$15,080 or 
$15,081 - 
$34,249 - 
$72,001 - 
$100,001 - 
Over 
less 
$34,248 
$72,000 
$100,000 
$250,000 
$250,000 
Alabama 
6.4% 
30.2% 
43.2% 
10.6% 
7.9% 
1.6% 
Alaska 
3.9% 
21.2% 
44.0% 
17.0% 
12.5% 
1.4% 
Arizona 
5.1% 
27.6% 
43.1% 
12.4% 
10.1% 
1.8% 
Arkansas 
6.3% 
34.6% 
42.4% 
9.1% 
6.0% 
1.7% 
California 
4.7% 
23.0% 
37.5% 
15.0% 
16.8% 
3.0% 
Colorado 
4.3% 
19.5% 
43.3% 
15.6% 
14.9% 
2.4% 
Connecticut 
3.2% 
16.3% 
41.0% 
18.8% 
16.8% 
4.1% 
Delaware 
4.1% 
22.0% 
43.1% 
15.8% 
12.9% 
2.1% 
District of Columbia 
1.9% 
8.7% 
34.1% 
20.1% 
31.1% 
4.1% 
Florida 
6.5% 
32.4% 
40.3% 
10.5% 
8.6% 
1.7% 
Georgia 
6.0% 
28.6% 
40.8% 
12.2% 
10.6% 
1.8% 
Hawaii 
3.6% 
23.5% 
45.5% 
16.3% 
10.0% 
1.1% 
Idaho 
5.9% 
29.2% 
43.3% 
11.9% 
8.1% 
1.7% 
Il inois 
4.7% 
23.2% 
41.0% 
15.2% 
13.5% 
2.4% 
Indiana 
4.6% 
27.5% 
45.8% 
12.3% 
8.3% 
1.5% 
Iowa 
5.0% 
24.2% 
49.0% 
12.4% 
7.6% 
1.7% 
Kansas 
6.0% 
25.7% 
46.0% 
12.6% 
8.1% 
1.7% 
Kentucky 
6.2% 
28.2% 
46.0% 
11.1% 
6.9% 
1.6% 
Louisiana 
8.5% 
27.9% 
41.3% 
11.7% 
8.9% 
1.8% 
Maine 
3.8% 
26.6% 
48.4% 
12.3% 
7.6% 
1.3% 
Maryland 
3.7% 
17.5% 
39.7% 
17.9% 
18.9% 
2.3% 
Massachusetts 
2.9% 
15.3% 
40.3% 
19.0% 
19.3% 
3.3% 
Michigan 
5.5% 
24.6% 
43.5% 
13.8% 
10.8% 
1.8% 
Minnesota 
3.3% 
17.9% 
46.8% 
16.7% 
13.4% 
2.0% 
Mississippi 
9.4% 
33.9% 
40.2% 
9.4% 
5.6% 
1.6% 
Missouri 
5.4% 
27.1% 
45.1% 
12.2% 
8.6% 
1.7% 
Montana 
7.5% 
25.5% 
46.4% 
12.4% 
6.7% 
1.6% 
Nebraska 
4.5% 
24.8% 
49.1% 
12.0% 
8.0% 
1.6% 
Nevada 
5.6% 
28.8% 
44.1% 
11.5% 
8.7% 
1.4% 
New Hampshire 
3.4% 
19.1% 
44.4% 
16.9% 
14.4% 
1.9% 
  
Congressional Research Service 
4 
 
Earnings in the Last 12 Months 
 
$15,080 or 
$15,081 - 
$34,249 - 
$72,001 - 
$100,001 - 
Over 
less 
$34,248 
$72,000 
$100,000 
$250,000 
$250,000 
New Jersey 
4.0% 
18.7% 
37.3% 
17.2% 
19.2% 
3.6% 
New Mexico 
7.7% 
30.1% 
40.7% 
11.3% 
8.4% 
1.8% 
New York 
3.8% 
19.9% 
40.5% 
16.6% 
15.8% 
3.4% 
North Carolina 
5.9% 
28.7% 
43.1% 
11.1% 
9.6% 
1.6% 
North Dakota 
5.8% 
20.9% 
50.6% 
12.3% 
8.5% 
1.9% 
Ohio 
4.8% 
25.7% 
45.3% 
13.4% 
9.0% 
1.8% 
Oklahoma 
7.1% 
29.5% 
43.3% 
11.2% 
7.4% 
1.6% 
Oregon 
3.9% 
23.4% 
43.6% 
15.0% 
12.2% 
1.9% 
Pennsylvania 
4.7% 
22.8% 
44.9% 
14.5% 
11.3% 
1.9% 
Rhode Island 
3.8% 
19.9% 
47.0% 
16.6% 
11.0% 
1.7% 
South Carolina 
6.5% 
28.7% 
44.0% 
11.0% 
8.2% 
1.6% 
South Dakota 
6.3% 
27.3% 
49.2% 
10.1% 
5.8% 
1.5% 
Tennessee 
5.8% 
29.9% 
43.6% 
10.2% 
8.6% 
1.9% 
Texas 
6.6% 
27.9% 
39.9% 
12.5% 
11.2% 
1.9% 
Utah 
4.8% 
24.5% 
43.8% 
13.8% 
11.4% 
1.8% 
Vermont 
4.2% 
22.1% 
51.2% 
12.5% 
8.8% 
1.2% 
Virginia 
4.7% 
22.0% 
39.1% 
14.7% 
17.3% 
2.1% 
Washington 
3.1% 
18.9% 
41.5% 
16.4% 
17.7% 
2.5% 
West Virginia 
6.6% 
32.1% 
41.4% 
11.7% 
6.6% 
1.6% 
Wisconsin 
4.3% 
22.7% 
49.4% 
13.8% 
8.2% 
1.7% 
Wyoming 
5.7% 
24.1% 
45.9% 
14.0% 
8.5% 
1.8% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United States 
5.1% 
24.8% 
41.9% 
13.8% 
12.3% 
2.2% 
Source: CRS calculations based on data from the 2019 Census Bureau American Community Survey. 
Notes: Some state totals wil  not add to 100% due to rounding. The sample consists of individuals employed at the time of 
the survey who are at least 18 years old and report that they usually work at least 35 hours per week and worked at least 
50 weeks in the last 12 months. Unpaid family workers are excluded. When self-employed workers are excluded from the 
sample, worker shares decrease (to varying degrees) in the lowest and highest earnings categories in all states; more 
generally, worker share differences between the sample that excludes self-employed workers and the sample for this table 
were within three percentage points for each state.  Earnings are in 2019 dol ars.  
 
  
Congressional Research Service 
5 
Author Information 
 
Sarah A. Donovan 
  Barry F. Huston 
Specialist in Labor Policy 
Analyst in Social Policy 
 
 
 
 
 
Disclaimer 
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff 
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of 
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of 
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. 
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United 
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, 
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the 
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. 
 
IN11783 · VERSION 1 · NEW