H.R. 5376 Universal Paid Family and Medical Leave Benefit Formula, and the Distribution of Workers across Selected Earnings Groups
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
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