A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 8 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Dietary Supplements Access Act," seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It proposes to include dietary supplements as qualified medical expenses. This change would apply to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and Archer MSAs. It also applies to Health Flexible Spending Arrangements and Health Reimbursement Arrangements. The inclusion of these supplements is subject to specific annual dollar limits.
Yes· 3 of 16
- Scored +2
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Benefits young adults who utilize health savings accounts and purchase dietary supplements.
- Scored +2
Would people in middle age be better off under this?
Helps middle-aged individuals offset the costs of routine dietary supplements using pre-tax funds.
- Scored +2
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Assists seniors who frequently use dietary supplements by allowing pre-tax account usage.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Expanded access to medical expense coverage: Under Section 2, the bill allows amounts paid for dietary supplements to be treated as medical care for HSAs (Section 2(a)(1)), Archer MSAs (Section 2(b)), and Health Flexible/Reimbursement Arrangements (Section 2(c)). This allows individuals to use these specific health accounts for supplement purchases.
-
Specific spending limits: The bill sets a limit of $500 per taxable year ($250 for married individuals filing separately) for these expenses (Section 2(a)(1), 2(b), and 2(c)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Spending restrictions: Individuals are limited in how much they can use these funds for dietary supplements, as the amounts cannot exceed $500 per year, or $250 for a married individual filing a separate return (Section 2(a)(1), 2(b), and 2(c)).
-
Product exclusions: Not all dietary supplements will qualify, as the bill explicitly excludes any product marketed, labeled, or commonly understood to be an energy drink, soft drink, or soda (Section 2(a)(2)(ii)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Helps middle-aged individuals offset the costs of routine dietary supplements using pre-tax funds. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Helps middle-class taxpayers reduce out-of-pocket costs for wellness and dietary supplement expenditures. Would retired people be better off under this? — Benefits retirees managing health expenses and supplement usage through applicable savings accounts. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Assists seniors who frequently use dietary supplements by allowing pre-tax account usage. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Benefits young adults who utilize health savings accounts and purchase dietary supplements. Would children be better off under this? — Allows families to use tax-advantaged accounts for children's dietary supplements up to the cap. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Offers tax-preferred treatment for supplement purchases through health accounts for higher-income individuals. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Provides minor tax relief for low-income households that utilize FSAs or other eligible medical accounts. Would men be better off under this? — Provides general tax-advantaged purchasing power for supplements often used by men's health regimens. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — May assist individuals with disabilities who incorporate specific dietary supplements into their healthcare routines. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Allows veterans utilizing specific health arrangements to benefit from supplement tax relief. Would women be better off under this? — Provides general tax-advantaged purchasing power for supplements often used by women's health regimens.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this cut taxes for middle-income families? — Allows individuals to use pre-tax dollars from accounts like HSAs and FSAs to purchase dietary supplements up to a certain limit. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Slightly benefits the dietary supplement industry by increasing consumer purchasing power through tax-advantaged accounts. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Provides a minor boost to businesses and retailers that sell dietary supplements.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Expands the definition of qualified medical expenses to include dietary supplements, easing out-of-pocket costs for users.
- 9/16/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/18/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/20/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Brendan BoyleDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Mike CareyRepublican · Ohio
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Josh GottheimerDemocrat · New Jersey
Bill HuizengaRepublican · Michigan
Mike KennedyRepublican · Utah
Claudia TenneyRepublican · New York
Beth Van DuyneRepublican · Texas