|
Dec 19
2008
|
|
Last month we posted an article that hit on the "Unscientific Top Ten Reasons Why Healthcare is So Expensive." Today we are here to offer you unscientific reason #11.
The U.S. Government doesn't trust you any further than they can throw you.
HDHPs and HSAs, by nature should save you money over traditional health insurance. BUT, the Government in all its wisdom/paranoia does what they can to undermine their efficiencies.
In this case, they passed some legislation (IRS Notice 2008-104) awhile back mandating that in order for (FSA and HRA) healthcare debit cards to be acceptable forms of payment at certain merchants, those merchants were required to only be able to accept your card for what the government has determined is a "qualified medical expense." The government says this is to help you out because the card issuer will be able to provide you/your employer with a consolidated back up report of your qualified medical expenses that you can then use as backup to your FSA and HRA disbursements. Sounds good, right? Well, maybe so until you walk into your local Walgreens, put a bag of cough drops and a bottle of shampoo on the counter and then have to pull out two different credit cards to pay for your $2.57 worth of stuff.
There are those in Congress who would like to extend this concept to your
Health Savings Account. Which is redundant and ridiculous. You see, by law, you are required to keep up with your qualified medical expenses and be able to provide them as backup to your taxes. The IRS, if they don't like what you have submitted, has the right to audit you, which, I've heard is worst than a visit to the proctologist.
A new law (currently buried in committee) would put another layer of oversight by the government over your life, and puts an unnecessary level of infrastructure expense on merchants and debit/credit card issuers.
Hey, if the merchants and issuers believe they can create a competitive advantage for their product, by being able to provide you with this level of reporting, then by all means, I say let them spend the money. However, mandates create costly inefficiencies, and I'm guessing this one, requiring merchants to be able to accept or deny a card based on the specific item purchased and them provide a report of those expenses at year end would cost somewhere in the hundreds of millions of dollars to execute.