Dietary Supplements Access Act
HB8933, titled the Dietary Supplements Access Act, would amend the Internal Revenue Code to treat certain dietary supplement purchases as qualified medical expenses. The bill would allow these expenses to be paid or reimbursed through health savings accounts (HSAs), Archer MSAs, and health flexible spending arrangements/health reimbursement arrangements (FSAs/HRAs), subject to a cap of $500 per taxpayer per year, or $250 for a married individual filing separately.
The bill defines dietary supplements by reference to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, but excludes products marketed, labeled, or commonly understood to be energy drinks, soft drinks, or soda. The changes would apply to amounts paid or expenses incurred after December 31, 2025, meaning the tax treatment would begin in the 2026 tax year and later.
If enacted, the bill would expand the range of tax-preferred medical expenses under the Internal Revenue Code by adding dietary supplements to the list of eligible items for HSAs, Archer MSAs, FSAs, and HRAs. This would affect taxpayers who use these accounts, as well as employers and plan administrators that offer reimbursement arrangements, by requiring them to recognize certain supplement purchases as reimbursable medical care within the bill’s annual dollar limits. It would also create a new statutory definition and exclusion for what counts as a dietary supplement for tax purposes.
There is limited recorded legislative sentiment because the bill was only introduced and referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means, with no committee transcript or vote history available. Based on the bill’s sponsorship and framing, the measure appears to be presented as a consumer-access and health-expense relief proposal rather than a controversial tax overhaul. No formal opposition or support is documented in the available materials.
The main policy issue likely to draw debate is whether dietary supplements should be treated as medical expenses under tax law, since that expands tax-advantaged spending beyond traditional health care items. Another possible point of contention is the $500 annual cap, which may be viewed by supporters as a reasonable limit and by critics as either too generous or too restrictive. The exclusion of energy drinks, soft drinks, and soda suggests an effort to prevent misuse, but it also highlights the challenge of drawing clear lines between supplements and general wellness or beverage products.