(UNITED STATES) — Senators Tim Scott and Kyrsten Sinema urged the Internal Revenue Service to let health savings accounts (HSAs) and flexible spending accounts (FSAs) pay for vitamins and dietary supplements when those products carry health or structure/function claims.

Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, and Sinema, an independent from Arizona, sent the request to IRS Commissioner Charles P. Rettig. They asked the agency to treat nutritional and dietary supplements with those claims as “medical expenses” under the tax rules that govern HSAs and FSAs.

The request targets a narrow but contested part of tax policy: what counts as an eligible medical purchase under accounts that let workers and families use tax-advantaged dollars for health costs. Current rules limit what counts as eligible expenses for HSAs and FSAs.

HSAs and FSAs are tax-advantaged accounts for medical expenses. The senators’ letter sought to widen that definition for products that already make health or structure/function claims.

A related advocacy push goes further. That campaign seeks to make vitamins and dietary supplements eligible under HSA and FSA rules in all cases, not only when products carry those claims.

The effort reflects a longer-running debate over how tax law should draw the line between ordinary consumer purchases and health-related expenses. Vitamins and supplements sit at the center of that dispute because they are widely sold as general wellness products while also being marketed with health-oriented claims.

Congress also moved on the issue this month. On May 20, 2026, Sens. Kevin Cramer and John Curtis introduced the Dietary Supplements Access Act, a bill that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow HSAs and FSAs to cover dietary supplements.

Cramer and Curtis took the legislative route while Scott and Sinema pressed for an administrative change at the IRS. Together, the two tracks show a coordinated effort to expand what account holders can buy with tax-free dollars.

The split matters because the two approaches reach the same policy goal through different channels. One asks the tax agency to reinterpret existing rules for supplements with certain claims; the other would rewrite the statute so dietary supplements qualify under federal tax law.

Charles P. Rettig, as IRS commissioner, received the request from Scott and Sinema. The senators’ letter placed the decision before the agency at a time when lawmakers and advocates are pressing to broaden the list of purchases allowed under health savings accounts (HSAs) and flexible spending accounts (FSAs).

Supporters of the change want vitamins and dietary supplements treated more like other health-related purchases made through tax-advantaged accounts. Their argument rests on the view that products carrying health or structure/function claims should fall within the medical-expense framework already used for HSAs and FSAs.

The broader campaign for supplements in all cases goes beyond that narrower standard. It seeks blanket HSA and FSA eligibility for vitamins and dietary supplements, a position that would expand the range of products people could buy with tax-free funds.

If Congress enacts the Dietary Supplements Access Act, HSAs and FSAs would cover a broader range of supplements. That would reduce out-of-pocket costs for account holders by allowing those purchases to be made with tax-free dollars rather than after-tax income.

Employers and plan administrators would also face practical changes. They would need to update eligible expense lists and revise employee communications if federal rules begin treating more vitamins and dietary supplements as reimbursable medical costs.

The push has drawn in lawmakers from both parties and two different policy routes, one through the IRS and one through Congress. Whether the change arrives through agency action or legislation, the target is the same: expanding the definition of medical expenses so tax-free health accounts can cover vitamins and dietary supplements.