Tax proposal would incentive health lifestyle

One of my daughters spent last summer in a mid-sized town in the Netherlands, about a one-hour train ride outside Amsterdam. Her husband had a temporary work assignment there.

My daughter is a special education teacher and had the summer off. My wife and I visited them and did our best to help with the two young children.

There was a large and beautiful park that formed the social hub of this town. Every night we walked to the park.

As people got off work, they, too, went to the park. As you walked around the park, it was important to watch the bike lanes.

Two things became immediately apparent as you observed the locals. They were tall. They were in uniformly good physical condition.

Since last summer, I have seen an article that noted the country with the tallest citizens is the Netherlands.

Another article stated that people in the Netherlands view health care first from the perspective of observance of a healthy lifestyle, diet and exercise.

We saw groups of children who were still in school. Physical activity was clearly part of the school curriculum. The normal way to get from point A to point B was to walk or bike.

Amsterdam has more bikes than people. It is a dangerous city to walk in. The danger? Being struck by a pack of bicycles. Not one bicycle. A pack.

The health-care article I saw also said that people in the U.S. first ask not how lifestyle can affect health but what medication is available to deal with a health concern.

Another article I just read said that Ozempic, now commonly used for weight loss, accelerates the loss of muscle mass.

The concern is not that Arnold Schwarzenegger will berate we Americans for loss of muscle, but that muscle loss can lead to problems such as osteoporosis later in life.

In March 2023, bipartisan bills was introduced in both the House (H.R. 1582) and the Senate (S. 786). The House bill had 62 co-sponsors and the Senate bill 17.

Both bills were just reintroduced. They would change the definition of qualified medical expenses found in Section 213 of the tax code.

The purpose is to allow people to use funds in a health care flexible spending account (FSA) or a health savings account (HSA) for personal fitness costs.

This change would allow people to pay for personal fitness with after-tax dollars. That is, whether you itemize deductions or not, your fitness expenses would be tax deductible.

I generally don’t like gimmicky tax legislation. This bill has been criticized for that reason. But we face a real problem in the U.S. with health care costs.

I can’t speak for all of Western Europe. But go to my park in the Netherlands and tell me what you think about the people that you see.

This bill would define medical costs to include fitness equipment, clothing and shoes designed for fitness use, exercise classes and exercise videos.

The limit on allowed costs is $1,000 per year or $2,000 for head of household or joint filers. Equipment is limited to $250 per item.

Fees for a child to participate in sports or fitness activities should also qualify. The Netherlands starts early with healthy lifestyle education.

There is nothing new about preaching the value of choosing a healthy lifestyle. It is unfortunate that we feel a need to create tax incentives to pursue such a lifestyle.

Of course, even tax incentives will not cause a nation to turn to physical fitness. But no legislation can cure a problem. The goal is always just to move us in the right direction.

I wrote months ago about the dismal predictions for Medicare and Medicaid costs. I noted that the outcome of those predictions will depend on the growth rate of health care costs.

Yes, we will bankrupt the system if costs continue to grow at current rates. So, the goal, or even the need, is to bend the cost curve.

This legislation may be gimmicky. But we need a multi-faceted approach to bending the curve of future health care costs. Tax incentives may be a necessary part of that approach.