IRS Does Not Consider Breastfeeding to Be Medical Care

Ask any pregnant woman or mother, and she'll be able to recount the numerous health benefits of breast feeding. It can pass along mom's antibodies, imparting important immune defenses that can prevent sickness and even death in newborns. It's the most complete form of nutrition for a baby, far exceeding formula. And breastfeeding may even help mom's health; research indicates that women who breastfeed may have lower rates of certain breast and ovarian cancers.

Yet that's not good enough for the Internal Revenue Service, who won't allow nursing mothers to use their tax-sheltered health care accounts to pay for breast pumps and breastfeeding supplies. As reported in today's New York Times, this is because the IRS ruled that breast-feeding "does not have enough health benefits to qualify as a form of medical care."

What is covered by these tax-exempt health care accounts? Acne medicine. Denture glue. Contact lenses. Support hose. Parents might even get a break for putting in artificial turf in place of grass if their child has severe allergies.

But breastfeeding? One of the most beneficial components of a baby's health and upbringing? A shining example of a low-cost, natural form of disease prevention? Apperently not.

Flexible spending accounts are set up so that employees can set aside part of their pay check, tax-deferred, to pay for health care costs not covered by insurance. Flexible spending accounts usually cover items like over-the-counter medicine, vision care and auxiliary health costs.

The IRS considers breast milk to be nutrition, a food substance that can promote and is necessary for good health, but not a medical condition and thus not covered as a medical care expense. They will therefore not cover the breast pumps, pads and other items needed when women return to work and want to continue to extract their milk. The equipment can cost women up to $1,000 per year.

In addition, if a woman wanted to have her breastfeeding equipment covered, she would have to get a note from her doctor stating that the breastfeeding was medically necessary.

If that wasn't demeaning enough, the reason the IRS won't cover breast feeding equipment is because they fear that the program might be abused.

It seems like yet another attempt to stigmatize and denormalize breastfeeding, which, according to The National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy, "is becoming an endangered practice. Mothers meet numerous cultural, institutional and commercial barriers to both initiation and continuation of optimal breastfeeding." The IRS is presenting yet another barrier for women to continue this crucial practice. Especially for working moms, breast pumps allow them to continue breastfeeding while on the job, and they shouldn't be penalized for it.

What's even more mind-boggling is the complete lack of emphasis on prevention, something that actually has the capability to cut down on health care costs and disease. According to a study by the Harvard School of Medicine, if 90 percent of mothers feed infants only breast milk for their first six months (as recommended), the U.S. would save $13 billion a year in health care costs and prevent the premature deaths of 900 infants.

The health care law is meant to support this type of commonsense, low-cost prevention. Although breast feeding equipment wasn't covered before health reform, it's time the IRS get hip to the medical necessity of breastfeeding.

The Breastfeeding Promotion Act, sponsored by Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Jeff Merkley, amends the Internal Revenue Code definition of medical care to allow breastfeeding equipment and consultation services to be tax deductible. It also ensures mothers have break time and a private place to pump in workplaces. Sign this petition to urge your Representative to become a co-sponsor of the bill and help it become law.

Photo credit: planet_oleary