Employers to get more authority to make wellness mandatory
May 19, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Employment law, Health care, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, policies
As part of the Obama Administration’s push to cut healthcare costs, employers probably will gain more power to reward employees who follow a healthy lifestyle — and punish those who won’t.
Previous efforts to push wellness in the workplace were met by objections — and occasional lawsuits — from employees and advocacy groups who said “wellness” was just another term for “invasion of privacy” and an attempt to control employees’ lives outside the workplace.
Rumblings out of Washington indicate, however, that the White House — with help from a friendly Congress — would like to change some of the rules on wellness mandates if the changes will lower healthcare costs.
What’s coming — what’s changing
The Administration has sent several proposals to Capitol Hill and asked members of Congress to consider the ideas, such as giving employers tax credits for:
- programs that offer periodic screenings for health problems
- counseling to help employees adopt healthier lifestyles
- smoking-cessation programs
- treatment of obesity
- physical fitness
- nutrition
- treatment of depression
To allow employers to fully implement such programs, without penalty or fear of lawsuits, the Administration would have to overcome some legal obstacles. For instance:
- A 1996 law prevents group health plans from discriminating against people because of their health status or medical history. Charging those people higher premiums or denying them the rewards that healthy people might get could be considered “discriminatory.” That’ll have to be changed.
- If an employer offers financial incentives to employees for lowering cholesterol, losing weight or stopping smoking, the amount of such rewards generally may not exceed 20% of the cost of health coverage. Under current laws and tax codes, employers who want to offer greater rewards can’t do so. The Administration and Congress are looking at loosening those rules and letting employers decide the limits of the rewards.
Tags: congress, healthcare, obama, wellness
May 26th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Are the employers going to cut back on the 50 hour work week so everyone can hit the health clubs on their way home and hire enough people so there isn’t an overwhelming amount of stress? I doubt it.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Good point NJ! This seems like a ploy to promote weightloss companies, health clubs, etc. and put more money in their accounts. No doubt they are lobbying for this type of reform not for the good of the people but for their own pockets.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
And will they also make people give up their drinking (which I don’t see as one of the “healthy lifestyles” tax credits. After all, drinking causes liver problems, let alone the risk of having an accident while driving. This is just ridiculous and I hope this is not allowed to continue on – it is discrimination and privacy invasion through and through!! And yes, I happen to be one of these overweight individuals that it would affect….and you know what – I take less medication for my “effects of obesity” than someone else I know that is rail thin and walks to work each day…..her medication list is too numerous to list (most are anti-physcotic) and the cost of her disease far outnumbers mine. So what, do we tell her she has to take wellness classes to overcome her “unhealthy” lifestyle? I’m sorry, last I heard bi-polar disease is not “cureable”.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I don’t think health clubs and weightloss companies have much to do with it – most wellness programs have very little to do with outside for-profit weightloss companies. It is definitely about the employer’s pocket book and the desire to decrease the premiums charged by the insurance companies (especially when they see double digit percentage increases every year), but if it also helps the employees and remains a voluntary program is that really a bad thing? I don’t think an employer should be able force an employee to hit the gym but if that employer provides healthier snacks in the vending machines (or better access to healthier snacks if not in the vending machines), or has a vendor (such as the insurance carrier or a non-profit) come in a couple times a year to do voluntary and confidential cholesterol and blood pressure screenings, or provides some sort of small incentive to be a non-smoker or to be a part of a break time walking group is that really such a bad thing? Obviously it has to be handled right – the employees have to be comfortable with it and not feel pressured into it or feel their privacy is invaded. But I don’t think that is an impossible task, or maybe I am naive… thoughts?
May 27th, 2009 at 8:54 am
It’s a total invasion of privacy. Big government works that way. Push it as a suggestion because it’s ‘good for you’. When we as free American’s don’t comply then government dictates what is best for us. It is a slippery slope. Anyone remember Hitler and the master race? Sounds a little scary to me. We are inundated with information from doctors, health clubs, and pharmaceutical companies. We are smart people. Each person can and will put these principles into practice as is best for him/her. This is not just a step toward invading my privacy but taking away my freedom and control of my healthcare.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
If we did what was in our best interest, obesity wouldn’t be the huge problem that it is in America. I for one, am tired of the sky high health insurance premiums. If a wellness program is going to help level those out, then I am all for it. After all, a healthy lifestyle is beneficial to EVERYONE…not just the employer’s pocketbook. What I think is sad is that we as Americans have not taken steps to maintain a healthy lifestyle…we’ve gotten so far off course that its receive the attention of our government. I’d be shocked if there’s another country that has as many overweight/obese people as we do.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
What is the “incentive” for those already living a healthy life style – example: I’ll have emplyees complain if we pay someone to stop smoking – but don’t provide the same $$ for someone who never smoked! There’s no benefit to the healthy – and who dictates how “unhealthy” – is unhealthy – 10 pounds overweight / 100 pounds overweight – its subjective!
May 28th, 2009 at 8:41 am
BL: I agree – a healthy lifestyle is beneficial to everyone. At what cost is my concern. I’m not speaking financially but in loss of freedom. Healthcare costs are way out of control. Perhaps that cost could also be attributed to people who abuse the ER, don’t pay their bills and fraud? Americans do have health issues but not all are due to lifestyle choices. Some are genetic. I think we really need to be aware of the big picture. What happens when the government decides a certain genetic disposition is too costly? I know you are thinking that it won’t happen but it is just a step away. Government is already far too big and is encroaching on my freedom. Be vigilant and look to where this leads. There are costs associated with everything. I don’t want the cost to be my right to decide my healthcare and lifestyle.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I just got back from Europe – and I have to tell you that Americans are fat. I wasn’t aware of how prevalent our collective chubbiness is until I saw how slender Europeans are. This was both in the city and in the country . . . working people as well as those at leisure. I am 50 pounds overweight, and am very aware of it. But here in America I don’t think a thing of it, I’m pretty slim compared to a lot of women I work with. Over there I was always the heaviest woman in the room.
SOOOO, If incentives and wellness programs will encourage at least a few people to shed a few pounds, so be it. Those who want to stay heavy, continue smoking etc will not be prevented from doing so. They’ll just pay a bit more for the privilege of having choice.
June 9th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Laura: “They’ll just pay a bit more for the privilege of having choice.” This is a scary statement. It’s another way of saying – Step in line with what the government has decided or you’re going to pay. I really thought being American gave us the freedom of choice in our personal lives.
June 9th, 2009 at 7:22 am
I’d be more scared of a practice that said “Lets ignore the problem of people eating and drinking and smoking themselves to death, lets just pretend it doesn’t exist and try to find a way to pay for it. And while we’re at it, lets put it on the backs of the taxpayer”
What I have read so far indicates that it will still be employers providing the incentives to employees, not the government. Unless I missed something. So as long as premiums are being paid by the private sector and these decisions are being made by each employer as they see fit in their organizations – then I’m all for it.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:52 am
I agree with BL. Health care is the number two expense for our organization. In previous years it ranked #4. If you are at all in touch with your claims experience and where your health care dollars are being spent, I think you’ll find most of the those dollars are spent on lifestyle related medical conditions. Yes, genetics plays a part – but the biggest expense is driven from lifestyle choices – being sedentary, choosing taste in food over nutrition, etc.
I applaud the governments willingness to help corporate America wrap its arms around escalating health care costs. Instead of hammering us with a socialized medical program, this is a much better alternative.
There is a way to approach this with your employees that is not punitive – but does allow choice. Either participate in one component of the wellness program and receive a discount – or don’t – and forego the discount. Participate in two components and enjoy an even bigger discount or your premiums – or don’t. The benefit to the employee is two fold – savings in premiums AND, most importantly, better health.
TO YOUR HEALTH!!!!
August 27th, 2009 at 9:40 am
I agree with JLB and would also like to remind people of the “GINA” bill, which is still out there waiting to be signed.
PJ, how can you even say “you applaud the governments willingness to help corporate American” followed by “instead of them hammering us with socialized medical program”, what do you think they are now trying to do? The current admin. is not corporate friendly – all the new laws are against the “company”, (example – arrest and/or fine $$ the employer instead of the ILLEGAL person(s) in our country). How much sense does that make?
Freedom of Choice went away long ago, unless, of course, it’s against everything our founding fathers faught for. Lost of religion in this country -thanks to the ACLU. If you are a muslim or atheist you might get offended by the bible or cross or who knows what. Europe is socialist – I think our country is better. Maybe people could start having and using some common sense and realize there are consequences for their actions (good or bad), own up to their mistakes, etc., instead of always blaming someone else. Don’t eat until you can’t move away from the table, sometimes less is better than the “supersize it”. Moderations in eating, drinking, anything would be a start. You could start with leaving one bite of food on your plate, taking smaller portions, etc.
America better wake up soon.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
BW: Yes, it’s astonishing how quickly things are changing in America. The frightening thing is that so many don’t see where this is going. I’m not sure if people are trusting blindly because after all this is America and that just won’t happen here. Thankfully I am finding more people waking from their deep slumber. Question everything. Look beyond the politician’s stated intent. Examine the power that the government will gain and how easy it will be to move to the next step just by simply declaring an emergency. Moderation in eating, drinking, smoking and tv but never in freedom.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
JLB: I agree completely.
Too bad others think the government will take care of them, oh, of course, at someone elses expense. Nothing is free in this world, it cost somebody something. Then again the government has brained washed some people to believe they can handle money better than ourselves. The government loves our money for the “power” (you know the carrot in front of the carriage saying).
August 27th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
BW: You made me smile today
There is so much to be discussed in your comments. But I will just say – the government can’t give anyone anything without first taking it from someone else.
When will Atlas shrug?
August 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
JLB: Glad I could make you smile today.