Printable View
Anyone know if purchasing catheters is an approved expense for a FSA? I haven't been to the doctor this year, so I have $$$ I need to burn off of it that I will lose Jan 2012.
I found this link which doesn't specify-
https://www.healthhub.com/MyDashboar...pensesOTC.aspx
And then this link which are prohibited expenses, not on there either
https://www.healthhub.com/MyDashboar...pensesOTC.aspx
I've checked a few sites that specialize in medical supplies for FSA/HSA purchases, and I see lots of incontinence supplies, but nary a catheter to be found. So I suspect the answer is "no".
I'd thought that since OTC medications now require a prescription to be FSA/HSA eligible perhaps supplies would also need a prescription, but that does not appear to be the case.
--
Art
I'm sure your cave instructor will write you one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Greenberg
I'll have to ask my doctor-- there are times in my week to week life when I legitimately cannot make it to a bathroom due to bladder size. We'll see how that goes :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Slüdge
The RX for OTC products is silly. So those of us who pay our health insurance and save for expenses have to pay income taxes on medical needs that we're not going to the doctor (thereby raising insurance premiums, which are said to be out of hand in this country) for-- while those who supposedly represent us are fighting hard for those who don't pay a dime to get healthcare? sigh.
You know there are ethical issues involved here....
Whether you can do it or not, does not make it right to use pre tax HSA dollars to buy "medical" supplies that you won't be using for medical purposes.
Personally, I'm not going to compromise my integrity for the price of a box of 100 condom catheters.
Of course, I also don't file "colorable" tax returns as some people do who rely on an audit rate that is only 2% just to save some money and avoid their fair share of taxes.
It sucks to lose HSA dollars, but its the risk you knowingly take when you estimate how much you'll need any given year.
I guess it's all a matter of how far you want to stretch your definitions of right and wrong.
Larry,Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
Condoms are approved, which are in no way necessary, so I'd have to read the definition of medical expense before determining it's unethical. I'm sure you already know since you've declared it an ethical issue, so can you share the definition?
Found this site that implies they're FSA approved
http://fsastore.com/Catheters-C244.aspx
There is a difference between ethical and illegal behavior. In as much, something could be legal and still be unethical. Your question regarding the use of a MEDICAL flex spending account to reimburse DIVING expenses demonstrates an intent to deceive federal FSA regulations, and while you may interpret the action as legal, most objective people would still view it as unethical. In addition, I'm scratching my head as to why you would even post this question on the forum as you already have your mind made up.Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
If I were you, I'd get my own house in order (see above) before I claim to be better than a politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
Posting because I don't know the definition of eligible expenses and cannot find it. If you can find it, I'd love to read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by KarsticGator
My intent isn't to break the law, it's to understand it. Condoms are NOT a medical expense, yet everywhere I've read online, they're an approved use of funds. Do you consider buying condoms with the funds unethical? Sunscreen is approved, which can be used to/from the dive site, is it unethical to buy that? ****** is approved, is that unethical?
If other recreational items were not allowed, I wouldn't be asking about buying a recreational item with FSA account. However that isn't the case, hence the question.
Edit - "the purple pill" (starts with a Viag and ends with an ra) is what I said above that got censored, not profanity.
If you are not using items for their intended purpose, then yes, in my opinion it is unethical. If you use condoms purchased with that money to put on the muzzle of your firearms to keep rain out, unethical.
James I work with people who use condom caths as they lack bladder control (paraplegia and quadraplegia) and with people with the same disabilities who use foley caths every day to allow their bladder to completely empty to avoid further medical complications.
THOSE individuals are the reason that catheters are an allowable HSA expense. The regulations that allow them to be purchased as an allowable medical expense and the congressional intent behind the authorizing legislation was clearly not intended to allow James, Cave Diver, to save a few dollars cave diving.
To in any way try to capitalize on an FSA account and apply it to your diving related condom caths is insulting to people who have to use them for legitimate medical reasons and who use an FSA to offset disability related expenses.
I guess if there is an upside to this it's that you are only a DCS hit away from potentially having to use them for legitimate medical reasons....
To state you are only trying to "understand" the rules suggests you are at least considering what most reasonable people would consider to be unethical behavior or you are an idiot. I'll let you choose.
Sunscreen, etc are similarly allowed for similar health related reasons for persons who are sun sensitive due to side effects of meds, a few specific skin conditions or due to elevated risk of skin cancer. They are not on the approved list so you can go hang out on the beach and work on a tan. But at least in that case there is some preventative medical benefit for the user.
****** is on the list for people who need it to achieve normal function but not for people who just want to enhance normal performance. In one case it's obviously ethical to use HSA money for it and in the other it's obviously not.
It's not rocket science.
Larry,Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
Had items that were medical related but strictly recreational been clearly marked allowed, I would have never asked, and I would 100% agree with you it's unethical to buy recreational items under a FSA account.
In your edit, you clearly avoid the condom and via.gra examples, but that's neither here nor there I suppose, since it's clear none of us participating in this thread can find any definition.
Then I suggest not asking cave divers questions about tax laws. Ask your CPA.Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
James, you're a smart guy. I'm just amazed, appalled, and I guess disappointed you even felt the need to ask when the end use is clearly recreational. I expected better from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
You have incredible potential but starting down the track with this kind of ethically challenged rationalization will get you into situations that will close doors and limit your potential. Don't go there.
I got pointed to this post bc someone knows I work in HR (nominally - I work in HR systems, so it's not really the same) but anyway... to provide some insight (what it means specifically one would have to ascertain themselves) according to at least one definition (wageworks, one of the major FSA administrators), both "urological products" and "condoms" are covered - without an Rx.
But that isn't why I am posting... on reading the thread I was surprised there was a question about ethics raised... the point of condom catheters is to allow for hydration, which we all know is an important factor in prevention of DCS... making it reasonable to say they are medically necessary. I hadn't thought it about, but maybe I could use my FSA account for my she-p?!?!... I do believe that catheters are at least as (if not more) medically necessary than a lot of the other expenses that covered, so if they ARE covered, I personally would have no ethical dilemma in spending money I earned to help keep me hydrated.
But you aren't medically required to cave dive. Using this logic, you should be able to by bottled water with an FSA.Quote:
Originally Posted by lv2dive
Are you medically required to have sex?Quote:
Originally Posted by KarsticGator
Yes. And it's the blue pill. You are obviously not partying with the right crowd :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
This is nonsense. P-valves help prevent DCS. Condoms help prevent STDs, which is why they are allowed.
I don't see the difference.
yes. dr's orders... prn.Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slüdge
Let's take that to the limit then - nitrox and O2 reduce the DCS risk on any given profile relative to just using air, and thus help prevent DCS so let's just pay the gas bill with the FSA account. Or better yet, since cave diving (or more correctly the exercise involved) increases good cholesterol reduces bad cholesterol and has other positive effects, why can't I just use pre tax FSA money to cover the entire cost of my cave trips?
While I'd love to NOT see the difference, there is a difference and it's pretty clear. But it's interesting to see how people try to rationalize things like this.
Wow.
As someone who spent a career in
public accounting including time in the ethics department of a Big Six firm, I will give my opinion that DA (Larry) is pretty much right on target. Cases can always be made for things on the fringes of the law that may violate only the spirit rather than the letter of the law. Those are called loopholes, and they are what some tax accountants and lawyers get paid big bucks to find. But that does not make them ethical, and very often the line is crossed into illegal. While the chances of being caught may be low and the penalties involved usually toothless, let's not confuse "getting away with something" with "its legitimate."
One more thing to add to those trying to make a case that condom caths for diving should be considered preventive medicine, I suffered a terrible and serious UTI once when my tubing kinked. That medical problem would not have existed without the pee valve. So please stop trying to convince yourself that the condoms help with hydration. You could dive wet and pee all you want. Your drysuit may keep you warmer and therefore avoid pneumonia, but that doesn't make it medically necessary or deductible.
Playing devil's advocate.
Not emptying your bladder increases the risk of a urinary tract infection. The longer you hold it the higher the risk. Other associated risks - bladder spasm and weakened sphincter. All of these issues require medical care so preventing them is actually money saving for the insurance company. Medical care for any of the issues associated with not emptying your bladder costs much more than a case of condoms.
for the record, I don't even have an FSA.
I work in the clerical portion of the medical field, and often times I deal with insurances and FSA's/HSA's. There's alway a loop hole to be found, wether or not ethics play a role in decision making or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
You'll need proof of purchase and an order (or rx) from your doc explaining why said product is medically necessary, which I think may be a little hard to obtain in this case...
Very interesting idea though... :-P
Not true. Urine is normally sterile unless an outside agent is introduced. That's what a catheter, tubing and pee valve do. Unless there is already an underlying infection, holding it in might be uncomfortable but should not increase the risk of UTI. And there's nothing to say you can't just pee in your drysuit. But if you do in order to avoid infection, I guess the cleaning bill should be deductible according to your logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by RN
I disagree completely with the language used towards jj here. It's HIS money that is put into an fsa account in order to avoid payroll and other taxes as the money is to be used for a medical purpose.
HIS earned money that the government then picks at in order to spend like drunken sailors, money that is used for all sorts of purposes that some consider immoral to begin with...it's ethically wrong to roll over and hand the government whatever they feel they "deserve"...fight for your money using the tax code, nothing unethical about that at all!
Introducing the concept of morality relating to taxes just starts a whole new debate in my opinion.
morality and taxes? thats one of them OX- Morons is it not?
The real problem is the stupid tax code and the use-it-or-lose-it nature of the FSA. I don't find it unethical at all to use your own money, which is what's in the FSA. The ethical question, in my mind, comes when deciding whether to keep the tax break. I say go ahead and use your money and if you have moral qualms about it you can add back the amount under miscellaneous income on your tax return so that you are not claiming a tax break that you don't "deserve." As always, consult your tax advisor before taking any action :)
I'm inclined to agree. It's money that you earned! Use it or lose it blows.... What happens to the money after you lose it? is that then money that the government "earned"? So you avoid paying taxes on a very small sum of money that you earned.... If it makes you feel better make an equivalent contribution to a veterans charity and don't claim it. I give, volunteer, and donate lots of time money and resources that I don't claim and don't feel a bit bad about exploiting the crooked tax code to keep some of the money that I earned to donate or do with it as I see fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdax
I wonder who keeps the money that you don't spend? I know someone who in the mid 1990s elected to put 5k into her plan (the max at the time), had elective surgery in Feb and left the company in March. I have no reason to believe she intended to do this, but she got a huge windfall- 5k out with about 1200 in. Someone (her former company? the plan administrator? dunno) was left holding the bag on that one. But that's how the FSA plan works, or how they worked at that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Bix
I think the whole tax code is silly (and economically inefficient).
I couldn't disagree more. When you buy stock, you do so with the hope that it's value will increase, but there is no guarantee. If you want to reap the reward of an increase, you have to also assume the risk of a decrease. No crying foul when you get a bad outcome. No one made him contribute anything to his FSA. He wanted the benefit of using pretax dollars, but he also had to assume the risk of losing it if it wasn't spent. He knew the rules going in, and it is ridiculous to expect the rules to change just because he didn't have the expenses he anticipated. Complaining about the rules is fine before he made the contribution, but not after. He was informed, and that's all that matters.
If I buy life insurance, do I have the right to demand my premium back at the end of the year just because I didn't die? Its like anything else in life. If you don't like the risk, don't play the game. But don't look for support if you want to cheat because you didn't win.
Those who feel that it is ok to cheat because the setup wasn't fair to begin with are a big part of the problem, not the solution. He was willing to "exploit the crooked tax code" to his benefit by using pretax dollars to pay the expenses. Now he wants to change the game and exploit it another way because he didn't like the outcome. Please don't try to make anything noble or justifiable out of this. He put his money down and took his chances. He lost. Lesson learned. Don't put any more into the FSA than you absolutely know you are going to spend.
And for those who think the rules are stacked in the government's favor, you should know one of the provisions related to HSAs is that you have the entire annual amount available to you at the beginning of the year, even if you stop making contributions because your employment is terminated. If you elect to contribute $1,000 for the year and have a large medical expense in January, you can claim the full $1,000 for reimbursement. If you quit the next week, you don't have to make up the difference. That would be exploiting a loophole in a legal way.
My understanding is the money rolls over to a Flex Insurance account. Kinda of like a reserve fund. I have been told by HR that there are plenty of funds in that account to support the program for a very long time.
I'll spend it. I just prefer to spend it on things I know I'll use, rather than a spare set of prescription sunglasses or contacts to keep around just in case I lose them.Quote:
Originally Posted by kwinter
Funny how it's ethical to buy something just to burn the money that you won't use, yet it's unethical to buy an item you know you will.
By the way, your earlier post about holding it in not being dangerous is false. I don't believe that diving wet is safe for the majority of cave dives, either, for redundant buoyancy reasons as well as being cold increasing risk of DCS.
Quote:
Another cause of bladder infections, or UTI, is waiting too long to urinate. The bladder is a muscle that expands to keep urine in and contracts when the urine is released. Waiting too long from the time you first experience the need to urinate can cause the bladder to stretch beyond its capability. As time passes, the bladder muscle becomes significantly weaker. A weak bladder muscle may not be able to empty completely causing some urine to be left in the bladder. According to the National Kidney and Urological Information Clearinghouse, normal urine contains no bacteria. When urine is left in the bladder it is more likely to become infected with bacteria. This can enhance the possibility of developing a urinary tract infection or bladder infection.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/97...#ixzz1hOEcFDWI
You may want to do some research before posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by kwinter
I should clarify that I'm talking about cystitis, or lower UTI rather than pyelonephritis. While it can be caused by urinary retention, that would be more of a chronic problem as in prostate enlargement that keeps the bladder from completely emptying. Not from just "holding it in" to avoid soiling your drysuit. I think I'm on pretty firm ground here.Quote:
Originally Posted by RN
Get disposable contacts, you'll use them eventually. Technically, you should be changing them out weekly and when diving with them you should strictly follow that guideline.
Maybe not having sex gives some people heartburn, hence the need for the purple pill.... Some of you could use it from the comments here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenwood_60
WRT pushing your ethics on anything but cavediving here: its silly. I wont be asking any of your opinions on the afterlife (there is one), the existence of God (I know him), my personal taxes (Robbery), my sexual preferences/orientation (straight and abstinate), or opinions on extra-terrestrial life (not seen one yet).
JJ simply was asking if anyone knew the specifics of the code. Geez people.
My opinion: Loopholes are loopholes.. Smoke em if you got em.
The logic here amuses me to some degree.. I can use the funds on glasses, although I can pass a driving test without them, and only need them to read books. Hardly a medical excuse. Is that a loophole I should be derided for taking advantage off too?
James - It really is straight forward. Tell your doctor the whole story, that P-valves' accessories let you stay hydrated and flushing your system, and in doing so relieves some chance of Urinary Tract Infections.Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
Ask him to write a prescription for OTC condom catheters for sport uses.
The fact it says OTC prevents requiring insurance to cover it.
The fact it is on an Rx form and for OTC means FSA will accept it as an expense.
Just like you can take Rx masks off of FSA accounts.
Ah, I hadnt thought of that... Reading guages is a chore sometimes. Thanks for the loophole! LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Jax
Had you said, "relieves some chance of decompression illness," I'd buy that. But the fact that EVERY man I've ever known to get a UTI got it from a P-valve, I'd throw that out the window.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jax
+1 ... I've only heard of 3 male UTI's ... all attributed to cath usage. They also all sounded like truly miserable experiences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slüdge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slüdge
Hmmm . . . well, it works for girls . . . that urine retention thing is bad juju.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin Rhoda
I had a UTI along with a kidney stone. Completely not diving related in any way, entirely dehydration related.
The odds of a cath related UTI based soley on the small sample set of first hand reports I have heard just dropped to 0.75 ... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenwood_60
You need to qualify it with age, and .... Ummm... certain activities....but at age 45 when I got the mother of all UTI and kidney infections, the doctor suggested it was exceedingly rare for a male my age to get a UTI. The primary suspects on his list started sounding like the list of questions the state pecker checker starts asking people with STDs. I preempted that with a discussion of pee valves and how they are used and that then sounded more plausible to him than my fairly plain vanilla sex life.
In older men UTIs apparently become more common, and it's apparently more common in men who might, for example, have amorous feelings toward the pool guy and act on them.
Jiminy crickets, guys! Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!Quote:
Originally Posted by kwinter
Look, FSAs are a wonderful way for people who otherwise cannot take medical off their taxes can get a bit of a break.
It used to be that all KINDS of over the counter stuff could be taken off, just claim it. Then the gov't found out that people were selling OTC stuff just to clear their account. All a doctor / phys asst does is legitimize your need. I now have a prescription for OTC stuff which I use in lieu of Rx drugs. It just allows me to reclaim my money.
Absolutely, sports Rx eyewear is deductable. My readers were covered, no question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skorpiov
come on folks lets quiet DICKING around and get on with the tax fraud.
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by darkdiver211
Too late. The deadline for commiting this tax fraud was the 31st. ;)