1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |IRS Allows Reimbursement of OTC Drugs Under Employer-Sponsored Health Plans

IRS Allows Reimbursement of OTC Drugs Under Employer-Sponsored Health Plans

Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.23.03

The IRS, in a sudden reversal of its prior position, has ruled that over-the-counter (OTC) medications can be reimbursed under an employer-sponsored health plan without triggering federal income tax on such reimbursements to plan participants. The ruling also allows flexible spending accounts (FSAs) and Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs) to reimburse such amounts tax-free. To be reimbursable, the employee must provide the plan with appropriate documentation of the expense. See Rev. Rul. 2003-102, 2003-38 I.R.B. (9/22/03), available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-03-102.pdf.

The change constitutes good news for health plans and employers, which have been struggling to control rapidly escalating prescription drug costs. Plans may now, for example, be able to require that a participant first try a cheaper, but covered, OTC medication and only provide coverage for a prescription alternative if the OTC drug proves ineffective or has a contraindication. The most significant area of immediate potential savings for plans will be in the area of non-sedating antihistamines, where Claritin and similar drugs recently have become available over the counter. Other rugs are increasingly becoming available without prescription.

Before this ruling, many health plans had been forced to discontinue reimbursement for medications as they became available over the counter. While an OTC drug is less expensive than the prescription drug, the cost to many consumers can increased because the price paid for the OTC drug exceeded the co-payment that applied when the drug was covered by insurance. This can be a significant an issue for individuals who remedy chronic health problems by regularly taking an over-the-counter medicine.

The new ruling explains that the statutory exclusion for reimbursements of employee medical expenses under Section 105(b) of the Internal Revenue Code ("Code") is broader than the itemized deduction for medical expenses under Code Section 213 (which does not allow taxpayers to deduct the expense of nonprescription drugs). Thus, despite the fact that an individual cannot deduct payments for OTC drugs as a medical expense if he or she paid it personally, the individual will be able to exclude from income any amounts reimbursed for such medications under an employer-sponsored health plan.

Many employers, HMOs and insurers will wish to amend their health plan documents to permit coverage for the cost of certain OTC medications. There are, however, many different ways to structure such an amendment so as to produce maximum cost savings to a particular plan. If you are interested in discussing how your health plan benefits and plan documents could be modified to reflect the new rules on OTC drugs, please contact your regular Crowell & Moring contact or any attorney on our Health Care team.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....