Should breast pumps be tax deductible?

Jen - posted on 10/08/2011

They are an eligible expense for an HSA/FSA so in that, you're already getting a tax break. I don't think you get charged sales tax on a medical grade pump from a DME supplier (in fact, I'm positive of that.)

You can put the medical grade pumps as part of your medical expenses which are a tax break. What were you looking to have changed? Did you want the retail models to be under all this? I'm ok with that.

Sherri - posted on 10/08/2011

I do not think it is a medical necessity and I feel it is a personal choice and therefore no I do not think it should be tax deductible.

The only exception is a very sick baby that needs breast milk that can not nurse. In that case then I would be fine with it.

Melissa - posted on 10/08/2011

I think if breast pumps become tax deductible then people will fight and find a way for covers, storage bags/bottles, formula, basically any feeding-tool to be deductible as well. I don't really see the point in making them tax deductible in the first place. Even the expensive ones aren't THAT expensive in comparison to other deductions, so unless you're purchasing multiple through out a year (which to me seems excessive and unnecessary) I think it's just a bit silly. Especially considering if you have a hospital birth they offer insurance-covered pumps.

Amy - posted on 11/21/2010

I think it should. And I don't think there's THAT much of a difference from feeding directly verses pumped milk. I'm a full time working mom and I make time to pump my milk for my little girl because it will help keep her healthy. As a working mom, why wouldn't the government want me to pump milk for my little girl if the other option is giving her formula? not all mom's have the option to feed directly from the breast.

Mary Renee - posted on 11/20/2010

It strikes me as so strange to me that your first instinct is "no" because the child should be put on the breast... what about women that need to work or leave their child for short periods of time but still want to do what is best? They might need to pump to keep up their supply and provide their child with breast milk while they're gone so they can breastfeed when they're back with them. It just strikes me as odd that someone who supports breastfeeding would object to pumping.

Stifler's - posted on 11/14/2010

Yes. If they have to go back to work and still want to breastfeed it should totally be tax deductible.

Alison - posted on 11/11/2010

1) I think that breastfeeding or pumping requires a significant effort and that moms are motivated solely out of concern for the health of their little ones, not tax-breaks

2) Where there is state healthcare, breastfeeding seems to cut back on costs. If healthcare is privately funded, the insurance companies should be paying for it.

April - posted on 11/10/2010

i never understood that about WIC giving free formula. i thought they were supposed to support breastfeeding. makes no sense to me. I have even heard of TWO women saying "why breastfeed when WIC gives free formula?" hum...hello nursing is free too...lol.



UNLESS...you are a working mom who needs to pump and you cannot afford a good pump and may benefit from a tax deduction....

Melissa - posted on 11/10/2010

YES!!! It encourages breastfeeding! Which SHOULD BE the societal norm! Moms on WIC can get formula for free......

Jodi - posted on 11/04/2010

It's not always personal choice Ashley.....sometimes either breast pump and/or bottles are medically necessary.

Ashley=) - posted on 11/04/2010

Personal choice,..so if b/p are to be medical so should bottles.

LaCi - posted on 11/04/2010

Well, that makes it even less of a big deal.

Although, had it been tax deductible I may have sprung for one of the awesome expensive pumps.

April - posted on 11/04/2010

Laci...also if you sign up for WIC here in the US...they give you a breast pump for free...

LaCi - posted on 11/04/2010

I think it's irrelevant because it's not a significant tax deduction. They can go ahead and make it one, but I doubt more than a few people will notice or care. They actually gave me a pump in the hospital. A crappy one, I had my own, but still. If they're handing 'em out for free its not exactly necessary a medical necessity to go buy one.



Granted, not all hospitals are as cool as mine.

April - posted on 11/03/2010

From what I understand, she still had milk from her previous pregnancy, which ended in a stillbirth.

It is also my understanding that although she isn't getting formula, she's getting some kind of cocktail of vitamins. Not really sure what's in it.

I am not even sure if that's really true about her still having milk from her last pregnancy...but the pregnancies WERE back to back. I just never heard of that before...but she was so proud of not giving formula....

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 11/03/2010

"With regard to the penis pump thing, I think the only thing I need to say.......can't you tell there are more men than women in government, and there is our reason right there why we need to encourage women into government and policy decision making. Men will always choose a penis pump over a breast pump."

Exactly, Jodi. It's sad.

Jodi - posted on 11/03/2010

Wow, April, I am amazed they didn't give her formula while waiting for her milk to come in. Generally in a premmie, sugar levels can be an issue, as is temperature control. I don't understand how they were able to refrain from giving her formula. Did your friend already have colostrum when she gave birth (or shortly thereafter?).

With regard to the penis pump thing, I think the only thing I need to say.......can't you tell there are more men than women in government, and there is our reason right there why we need to encourage women into government and policy decision making. Men will always choose a penis pump over a breast pump.

April - posted on 11/03/2010

my friend is currently taking care of her micro-preemie by pumping! i truly believe this little girl wouldn't have survived this long without it. She is now 2 pounds. They have never given her formula. i couldn't believe it! i never even heard of not supplementing with formula for a such a small preemie. at the very least, mothers of preemies should get the tax deduction! but hey if penis pumps are deductible then that's not fair...having sex is not necessary to keep on living. you won't die without sex!! if men can have a deductible pump for their penises then women should have a deductible pump for their breasts!

Johnny - posted on 11/02/2010

Without a breast pump, I would have failed at breastfeeding. I was re-canalizing my ducts because I had 2 breast surgeries and I needed to pump every hour if she didn't eat to build up my supply and get everything going (along with taking medication). I used it until she was 18 months to get enough to feed her. It was considered a medical necessity by my health insurer, they covered 80% of it. Perhaps in their calculations, the benefits of breast milk for a child could lead to lower long-term health care costs?

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 11/02/2010

I read several articles on this and just FYI: penis pumps, acne medicine and astro-turf to replace allergy causing natural grass are covered. Breast pumps should be covered! There are babies in the NICU and moms who have to work who need those breast pumps to be able to continue their breastfeeding relationship.

Leah - posted on 11/02/2010

I absolutely think it should be tax deductible. As well, because of our universal health plan, I also think that because breast feeding has been proven to protect against infection -- including gastroenteritis, respiratory illness, urinary infections, and ear infections, reduces the risk of childhood diabetes and leukemia, and of allergic conditions, such as asthma and eczema, pumps should be subsidized by the government. If more babies were breast fed for a year or longer, their long term health would improve, thus putting less of a strain on the health care system and SAVING the government and tax payers money. If the reason some moms aren't breastfeeding for the full amount of time is b/c they have to return to work or are uncomfortable b/fing in public, this would relieve SOME of those problems. I just think it would be a small investment now that will save the country thousands over the 80 or so years that little baby today will live. IMO.

Schmoopy - posted on 11/02/2010

Jodi, good point! I didn't think of that - I had a preemie who was in the NICU for 34 days. There's no way I could have established a milk supply for her without a breast pump. So in our kinds of cases, it definitely qualifies as a necessity.

Jodi - posted on 11/02/2010

"The pump IS a convenience for the mom, however, which makes it an option, not neccessity."

Not always. My daughter was in the SCU for 10 days after birth and I supplied them with pumped milk to feed her by tube.......and the first couple of days they also had to give her formula until my milk came in. I was unable to pump by hand, even the nurses tried and it just never stimulated enough milk. (So in my case, both necessities).

But not being American, I have no idea what medications are already considered "necessities".

Catherine - posted on 11/02/2010

Honestly, I think breast pumps should qualify, especially if doing so will encourage more mothers to try breastfeeding. Also, since acne medication, denture adhesive, and artificial turf qualify, I have a hard time seeing the argument as to why breast pumps should not.

Also, why is it that the IRS has been given the authority to nix a medical request made by a group of doctors?

Amy - posted on 11/02/2010

I think it's kinda silly to say it's a necessity. You CAN manually express milk. Not the most fun or quickest option, but you gotta do what you gotta do. I don't think it would help more women choose breastmilk over formula. They will pump, put it in a bottle and then give to baby all the while thinking, why am I putting my body through this if they are still drinking from a bottle, why not formula. It's EASIER that pumping. Not to mention if you don't have skin to skin or baby sucking, milk production drops and then you may be led to NEED formula because you aren't producing enough. Nothing is better than baby at breast to keep women nursing. Pumping has to happen if we want our freedom to leave our kids for work, to go on a date - whatever. But it's a lovely luxury, not a necessity to pump. I was lucky enough that the lactation counselor gave me one as part of a promo they were doing. [I'm sure insurance paid for it somewhere along the line, but..] That's the only one I ever used. I liked the idea of not being hooked to a machine and stuck near a power outlet. I think if it would be deductible, it would have to have a medical reason to be - such as the mother is returning to work, the mother can't produce enough milk without extra pump sessions, etc. ?? I don't know. I just think people want too much for free.

Schmoopy - posted on 11/02/2010

I'm no expert, but I'm sure there are lots of items and services that qualify for tax deductions that aren't "necessities." I'm all for throwing Breast Pumps into the mix!

Laura - posted on 11/02/2010

That's an interesting question. The problem I have is with the word "neccessity". IMO, breast pumps are a medical "option", not a "neccessity". A neccessity is something required in order to survive (food, clothing shelter) and a breast pump is NOT required for an infant to survive. An infant has the breast itself and formula and a bottle that will also allow it to survive. The pump IS a convenience for the mom, however, which makes it an option, not neccessity. I had one and used it with my daughter when she was an infant; it was an optional device meant for my convenience and was not really neccessary for me to feed her. It is a personal choice by the mom whether or not she wants one to use.

Kelly - posted on 11/02/2010

In the US, just because something is available only by prescription does not make it a tax deductible medical necessity. There are a few drugs out there that are prescription only that do not qualify for deductions (mostly erectile dysfunction drugs, and some diet aids & skin treatments).



Even if formula was made prescription only, I don't think it would qualify as it is still considered "food" not "medicine". If you make formula tax deductible, you would have to make all food tax deductible and our country simply could not afford to do that.



EDIT: btw, I do not think formula should or ever will be made prescription only :)

Jodi - posted on 11/02/2010

" I don't know that actual formula would have to be made deductible because that is actual food, whereas a pump is simply a means of getting food into the baby."

I can see that point to Kelly. But what about the recent proposals that suggest formula should be made prescription only. No, they are not reality, simply a suggestion, but just by making those suggestions makes formula, potentially, a medical necessity not just a food...

Kelly - posted on 11/02/2010

Caitlin, this bill is not about making it exempt from sales tax, it is proposing it as a federal income tax deduction.

Kelly - posted on 11/02/2010

I agree with Jodi A. If you make the pump deductible, then bottles must also be made deductible because they serve the same purpose as the pump--to feed the baby. I don't know that actual formula would have to be made deductible because that is actual food, whereas a pump is simply a means of getting food into the baby. If you use a pump, you must also use bottles, but you would also be using bottles if you formula fed, so I don't think it would help encourage breastfeeding that much more.

Besides that, you can buy a very good pump for $200-$300 and the tax deduction on that is so small, it wouldn't really make that much difference unless someone were right on the line for having enough medical expenses to itemize and deduct them. Few insured people meet that criteria with just a pregnancy for the year (I forget the minimum amount, but it is based on a percentage of your income).

Caitlin - posted on 11/02/2010

I believe that here, our province doesn't charge tax on baby necessities like diapers and formula and breast pumps already.

Sure it's healthier to put the baby right on the breast, but some moms can't stay home to do that. I had to go back to work when my baby was 6 months old, so I pumped for when I was at work. It was either that or formula, and I would have bought it even if the provincial tax was still charged.

Jodi - posted on 11/02/2010

Well, if you make a breast pump available because it is considered medically necessary, shouldn't formula also be considered a medical necessity for some mothers? And where do you draw that line? I can see the dilemma.

April - posted on 11/02/2010

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles...

forgot to post the link...so here it is!