Autopsy

[Guest Nini]

Is an autopsy a reimbursable expense under a health fsa? If it is, please provide the supporting authority.

Thanks.

[Guest Kristine]

I wouldn't think so... Which way are you leaning?

[Guest Nini]

I say no, because not medical care and not related to the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of a disease or illness. But hey, I have been wrong in the past

[Sheila K]

I wouldn't think so either.

It is not a "treatment" for a medical problem. It is not "medically" necessary. It is not used to alleviate personal injury or sickness.

IRS Publication 502 has the information you may want. I have copied the relevant portion below:

What Are Medical Expenses?

Medical expenses are the costs of diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, and the costs for treatments affecting any part or function of the body. They include the costs of equipment, supplies, and diagnostic devices needed for these purposes. They also include dental expenses.

Medical care expenses must be primarily to alleviate or prevent a physical or mental defect or illness. They do not include expenses that are merely beneficial to general health, such as vitamins or a vacation.

Medical expenses include the premiums you pay for insurance that covers the expenses of medical care, and the amounts you pay for transportation to get medical care. Medical expenses also include amounts paid for qualified long-term care services and limited amounts paid for any qualified long-term care insurance contract.

Good luck!

Sheila K 8-)

[LRDG]

Refer to Section 213 of the IRC.

IRS 500 series publications are not the most reliable source of information for administrators to rely on for compliance.

[E as in ERISA]

Who's autopsy? And why does the participant think it's reimbursable? Is the purpose to test a deceased relative to see if they have some disease that is hereditary? Test a parent to see if they have something so that the participant knows whether they should take some preventive action? I don't know if that makes a difference.

[E as in ERISA]

Revenue Ruling 2003-102 said that 213 is not controlling for purposes of whether something can be reimbursed by a cafeteria plan. It allows reimbursement for over the counter drugs even though 213 doesn't allow deduction for most. It only has to be something that can be reimbursed under 105.

[oriecat]

I've never even thought about the fact that someone might have to pay for an autopsy!

[GBurns]

Aside from 213 not being in control of what is reimburseable under 105, what is reimburseable in this case might depend on the particular facts.

Why is the autopsy needed? Who will be autopsied?

If the autopsy is needed in order to determine a genetic or hereditary disposition towards a suspected medical condition in the surviving plan participant, then it might be regarded as being for the diagnosis or the treatment etc of a disease.

If the autopsy is to determine cause of death with no connection to the medical condition of the surviving plan participant, then it should not be reimburseable.

[LRDG]

Revenue Ruling 2003-102:

http://www.legalbitstream.com/scripts/isys...y/irl347d/1/doc

I would feel more confident about referring to the Federal Register, but assuming the content of the link is accurate, there's nothing in Revenue Ruling 2003-102 that states "Revenue Ruling 2003-102 said that 213 is not controlling for purposes of whether something can be reimbursed by a cafeteria plan."

Sec. 213 does identify medical expenses eligible for deduction from taxable income, and is referred to in Sec. 125 for purposes of identifying medical expenses excludable from taxable income.

Limited exceptions to Sec. 213 do exist, example elimination of the 7.5% threshold for amounts spent on medical care, or by specific reference as in Revenue Ruling 2003-102 which only providers the exception for medically necessary expenses for OTC drugs.

*I'm thinking Claratin(sp) becoming available OTC, the revenue ruling as win win for insurance and pharmacutical companies*