Dietary Supplements Access Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL-16]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 20, 2026
Bottom line
The bill expands the definition of qualified medical expenses for tax-advantaged health accounts to include dietary supplements, up to an annual limit, starting in 2026.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals to use funds from Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), Archer Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs), Health Flexible Spending Arrangements (FSAs), and Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) to pay for dietary supplements. It establishes an annual cap of $500 ($250 for married individuals filing separately) for such expenses and explicitly excludes energy drinks, soft drinks, and sodas from the definition of dietary supplements.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill empowers individuals to take a more proactive role in managing their health and wellness by making dietary supplements more affordable. They contend it reduces out-of-pocket healthcare costs for consumers who choose to incorporate supplements into their health regimens, recognizing supplements as a legitimate component of personal health management and preventative care.
Opponents contend
Critics contend that including dietary supplements, which are not regulated by the FDA for efficacy or safety in the same way as prescription drugs, as qualified medical expenses could lead to misuse of tax-advantaged accounts. They argue it may encourage spending on products with unproven benefits, create a new tax expenditure without clear public health gains, and potentially divert funds from more evidence-based medical treatments.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its provisions quickly.
Section 2(a), 2(b), 2(c)
Inclusion of Dietary Supplements as Qualified Medical Expenses
This core provision amends various sections of the Internal Revenue Code to allow individuals to use pre-tax funds from Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), Archer Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs), Health Flexible Spending Arrangements (FSAs), and Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) for the purchase of dietary supplements. A key limitation is an annual cap of $500 per individual ($250 for married individuals filing separately). The bill also clarifies that 'dietary supplement' refers to the definition in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, specifically excluding energy drinks, soft drinks, or sodas.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision empowers individuals to make their own health choices, recognizes the role of supplements in preventative care and wellness, and makes these products more affordable, especially for those managing chronic conditions or seeking to improve overall health. They emphasize personal responsibility and the potential for improved public health outcomes through broader access to wellness tools.
Critics contend
Critics contend that including dietary supplements, which are not regulated by the FDA for efficacy or safety in the same way as prescription drugs, as qualified medical expenses could lead to misuse of tax-advantaged accounts. They argue it may encourage spending on products with unproven benefits, create a new tax expenditure without clear public health gains, and potentially divert funds from more evidence-based medical treatments.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to provide individuals with greater flexibility and financial assistance for personal health choices against concerns regarding the scientific validation of dietary supplements and the potential fiscal impact of expanding tax-advantaged spending categories.
The bill defines 'dietary supplement' by referencing section 201(ff) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(ff)).
Section 2(a)(2)(E)(i)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative drafting practice to avoid reprinting lengthy definitions and to ensure consistency with existing federal law governing dietary supplements.
Case for: Ensures that the bill's application of 'dietary supplement' aligns precisely with the established legal definition, preventing ambiguity and conflicting interpretations.
Case against: Requires readers to consult external legal text to fully understand the precise scope of products covered, which might be an inconvenience for those unfamiliar with the referenced statute.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the exact range of products eligible for tax-advantaged spending, influencing the overall fiscal impact and consumer behavior.
The bill explicitly excludes any product marketed, labeled, or commonly understood to be an energy drink, soft drink, or soda from the definition of 'dietary supplement' for the purposes of this act.
Section 2(a)(2)(E)(ii)
Why it matters:Likely intended to prevent abuse of the tax-advantaged status for common beverages not typically considered health supplements, thereby addressing potential criticisms and maintaining the integrity of the tax benefit.
Case for: Prevents the use of tax-advantaged accounts for items that are clearly not medical care, ensuring that the benefit is directed towards products more aligned with health and wellness goals.
Case against: No strong case against this specific exclusion; it is generally seen as a common-sense limitation to prevent misuse.
Estimated impact: Narrows the scope of eligible products, reducing potential revenue loss and focusing the benefit on actual dietary supplements rather than general beverages.
The amendments made by the bill apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2025, for distributions from savings accounts, and to expenses incurred after December 31, 2025, for reimbursements.
Section 2(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define when a new law takes effect, allowing sufficient time for individuals, financial institutions, and employers to prepare for the changes.
Case for: Provides a clear and consistent timeline for implementation, enabling all affected parties to update their systems and adjust their financial planning accordingly.
Case against: No strong case against specific effective dates, though some might argue for an earlier or later implementation based on perceived urgency or readiness.
Estimated impact: Determines the precise start date for the fiscal impact on federal revenue and when consumers can begin utilizing the new tax benefits.