WTF? Prescription required to use my reimbursement account for Advil?

[Lance_Boyle]

Just got an email from my reimbursement account administrator. Starting January 1, 2011 I can no longer use my reimbursement account (pre-tax dollars that I surrender at the end of the year if not used) to buy OTC medications without a prescription. WTF? They say this change is due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. WTF does taking away my ability to buy OTC meds with pre-tax dollars have to do with Patient Protection and Affordable Care?

"beginning January 1, 2011, a doctor's prescription will be required in order for you to receive reimbursement of expenses incurred when purchasing certain commonly used over-the-counter (OTC) medicines like Claritin, Advil and Robitussin cough syrup. Because the new law requires a prescription for these types of items before we can reimburse you from your account, you will no longer be able to make these purchases using your Health Care Card (Card)."

Again, WTF? The new law requires a fucking prescription for OTC meds? Next they'll tell me I can no longer use the reimbursement account to pay my co-pay for the doctor visit now required to get a fucking prescription for a fucking OTC medication... What fresh jackassery is this? Who in the fuck bought this law? This is both ass-nine and redickulous.

[FSogol]

1. Aren't we talking about 20 cents? (the tax on a bottle of advil)

How much fraud is there in the system with people applying anything to pre-tax status? Now, if you want to claim the exemption for your Claritin, you need you doctor's note. (It was that way before but, wasn't enforced. Not too difficult if you are seeing a doctor regularly. Everything isn't an outrage and this should rein in some costs.

[Lance_Boyle]

7. How does this combat fraud, even a little?

It's always been required to provide receipts to prove that items purchased on the reimbursement account were plan-covered. Tums, yes. Life-savers, no. At the end of the year, if I had money left that would have been surrendered, I'd stock up on covered OTC stuff. And THAT'S what they're trying to prevent, not any fraud. The only point I can figure to this is that more people will end up surrendering money. There is no possible benefit to anyone else. Again, nice "reform," Congress.

[On the Road]

10. Are They Allowed to Keep Surrendered Money?

They used to have to distribute it among the other participants. I used to get a little check back every year.

[yodoobo]

13. It will increase tax revenues

which was part of making the healthcare reform act possible.

[tanyev]

2. And that is why I don't jack with medical reimbursement accounts.

I'd rather pay a few bucks in taxes than try and keep track of that crap.

[Lasher]

5. I'm with you on that.

Who needs the hassle? And you could end up losing money.

[annabanana]

6. bingerino!. . . . . n/t

[KatyaR]

3. I believe it's part of the healthcare act.

We received that notification as well.

[HereSince1628]

4. Seems like the sort of 'little' amendment to the health care bill

that would be seen as generating a bit of revenue (from those 20 cents that people shouldn't even notice!). You remember hearing about all those little things that helped bring a few conservodems to heel.

[Jkid]

8. Makes perfect sense

Doctor's visits cost money, so that amendment is for the doctors benefit.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. The new law does not require a prescription for OTC meds, it changed the rules for HSAs. Buy as much

Advil as you like, just not with tax-exempt money.

[yodoobo]

11. Its part of the healthcare reform act to stop abuse

To prevent abuse of FSAs.

The savings will help fund insurance for those who couldn't otherwise afford it.

This is a good thing.

[customerserviceguy]

12. The "use it or lose it" reimbursement accounts

of the type you have encourage medical inflation. They're as stupid as overwithholding on your income tax.

Having to kiss some bureaucratic ass to get your own damned money back is degrading, isn't it? Lose the reimbursement account, the tax savings are minimal compared to the hassle anyway, unless you're in a high tax bracket. And if you're making that much money, why are you carping about the cost of an over-the-counter drug for which there are suitable generic products for much cheaper, anyway?