The American Herbal Products Association (AHPA), the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), the Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA) and the United Natural Products Alliance (UNPA) sent a joint letter to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to obtain coverage for dietary supplements under Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) and Healthcare Savings Accounts (HSAs).
There is also a separate letter from the Natural Products Association (NPA).
The joint letter from AHPA, CRN, CHPA and UNPA requests the IRS revise its Publication 502 to read: “You can include in medical expenses the cost of dietary supplements, provided that such products meet the definition of a dietary supplement as defined in section 201(ff) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(ff)) and are labeled with Supplement Facts labels that are compliant with federal regulations for these products.”
According to the associations, the joint letter asks the IRS to “recognize all products lawfully marketed as a dietary supplement with a Supplement Facts box as medical expenses.” The NPA letter would limit what can be reimbursed to only those products that contain a structure-function claim or a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized health claim.
The associations stated that the broader language is cleaner and easier for retailers and plan administrators to implement. If the product has a “Supplement Facts” panel, it’s covered and the store does not need to know what a “health claim” or “structure-function claim” is to know if the product can be reimbursed.
It also covers the entire category of dietary supplements, those products “intended to supplement the diet” whether through “nutrition or supplementing with herbs and other ingredients.”
“Some commonly used dietary supplements do not have a health claim or a structure/function claim on the label. For example, many ‘letter vitamin’ and mineral products (ironically, the ones most familiar to consumers and with long histories of use) are marketed and labeled solely on the strength of the ingredient name. Why would we exclude items like vitamin C or magnesium (just because they don’t have a claim on the label) that consumers have relied on for decades?” the associations wrote.
The associations argued the limited language would make it easy to circumvent how products are covered. Products that don’t have a “health claim” or “structure-function claim” could add a claim to the label, making them eligible, so there would be no cost savings for the government by limiting the allowed supplements.
“If the motivation is to narrow the allowable products to more mainstream dietary supplements, that approach also has the opposite effect. Supplements that are considered ‘fringe products’ because they make claims for sexual function, unrealistic weight loss, or explosive muscle growth all contain structure-function claims, albeit they may not be supportable or substantiated with credible science. However, they would still be covered under the more restrictive language because they contain a structure-function claim,” the associations wrote.
For more information, visit www.ahpa.org, www.crnusa.org, www.chpa.org or www.unpa.com.
