Participatory workplace wellness programs: Reward, penalty, and regulatory conflict

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Policy Points: Workplace wellness programs that provide incentives for completing a health risk assessment are a form of participatory programs. There are legal and ethical concerns when employers assess penalties for not completing a health risk assessment, raising questions about the voluntariness of such a program. The Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services' 2013 regulations for participatory programs and employers' current practices conflict with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's prevailing interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Context In keeping with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Congress revised the law related to workplace wellness programs. In June 2013, the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services passed the final regulations, updating their 2006 regulatory framework. Participatory programs that reward the completion of a health risk assessment are now the most common type of wellness program in the United States. However, legal and ethical concerns emerge when employers utilize incentives that raise questions about the voluntariness of such programs. At issue is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, employers cannot require health-related inquiries and exams. Methods To analyze the current interpretation of the ADA, I conducted research on both LexisNexis and federal agency websites. The resulting article evaluates the differences in the language of Congress's enabling legislation and the federal departments' regulations and how they may conflict with the ADA. It also reviews the federal government's authority to address both the legal conflict and ethical concerns related to nonvoluntary participatory programs. Findings Employers' practices and the federal departments' regulations conflict with the current interpretation of the ADA by permitting employers to penalize employees who do not complete a health risk assessment. The departments' regulations may be interpreted as conflicting with Congress's legislation, which mentions penalties only for health-contingent wellness programs. Furthermore, the regulatory protections for employees applicable to health-contingent wellness programs do not apply to participatory programs. Conclusions Either Congress or the federal agencies should address the conflict among employers' practices, the wellness regulations, and the ADA and also consider additional protections for employees. Employers can avoid ethical and legal complications by offering voluntary programs with positive incentives.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)301-318
Number of pages18
JournalMilbank Quarterly
Volume93
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2015

Fingerprint

Health Promotion
Reward
Workplace
Health
Motivation
Legislation
Health Services
Voluntary Programs
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Federal Government
Conflict (Psychology)
Language
Research

Keywords

  • ethics
  • health information
  • health law
  • workplace wellness programs

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health Policy
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Participatory workplace wellness programs : Reward, penalty, and regulatory conflict. / Pomeranz, Jennifer L.

In: Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 93, No. 2, 01.06.2015, p. 301-318.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4daf4eb2039f4cafb4ad413b7c46fb62,
title = "Participatory workplace wellness programs: Reward, penalty, and regulatory conflict",
abstract = "Policy Points: Workplace wellness programs that provide incentives for completing a health risk assessment are a form of participatory programs. There are legal and ethical concerns when employers assess penalties for not completing a health risk assessment, raising questions about the voluntariness of such a program. The Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services' 2013 regulations for participatory programs and employers' current practices conflict with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's prevailing interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Context In keeping with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Congress revised the law related to workplace wellness programs. In June 2013, the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services passed the final regulations, updating their 2006 regulatory framework. Participatory programs that reward the completion of a health risk assessment are now the most common type of wellness program in the United States. However, legal and ethical concerns emerge when employers utilize incentives that raise questions about the voluntariness of such programs. At issue is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, employers cannot require health-related inquiries and exams. Methods To analyze the current interpretation of the ADA, I conducted research on both LexisNexis and federal agency websites. The resulting article evaluates the differences in the language of Congress's enabling legislation and the federal departments' regulations and how they may conflict with the ADA. It also reviews the federal government's authority to address both the legal conflict and ethical concerns related to nonvoluntary participatory programs. Findings Employers' practices and the federal departments' regulations conflict with the current interpretation of the ADA by permitting employers to penalize employees who do not complete a health risk assessment. The departments' regulations may be interpreted as conflicting with Congress's legislation, which mentions penalties only for health-contingent wellness programs. Furthermore, the regulatory protections for employees applicable to health-contingent wellness programs do not apply to participatory programs. Conclusions Either Congress or the federal agencies should address the conflict among employers' practices, the wellness regulations, and the ADA and also consider additional protections for employees. Employers can avoid ethical and legal complications by offering voluntary programs with positive incentives.",
keywords = "ethics, health information, health law, workplace wellness programs",
author = "Pomeranz, {Jennifer L.}",
year = "2015",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1468-0009.12123",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "93",
pages = "301--318",
journal = "Milbank Quarterly",
issn = "0887-378X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Participatory workplace wellness programs

T2 - Reward, penalty, and regulatory conflict

AU - Pomeranz, Jennifer L.

PY - 2015/6/1

Y1 - 2015/6/1

N2 - Policy Points: Workplace wellness programs that provide incentives for completing a health risk assessment are a form of participatory programs. There are legal and ethical concerns when employers assess penalties for not completing a health risk assessment, raising questions about the voluntariness of such a program. The Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services' 2013 regulations for participatory programs and employers' current practices conflict with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's prevailing interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Context In keeping with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Congress revised the law related to workplace wellness programs. In June 2013, the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services passed the final regulations, updating their 2006 regulatory framework. Participatory programs that reward the completion of a health risk assessment are now the most common type of wellness program in the United States. However, legal and ethical concerns emerge when employers utilize incentives that raise questions about the voluntariness of such programs. At issue is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, employers cannot require health-related inquiries and exams. Methods To analyze the current interpretation of the ADA, I conducted research on both LexisNexis and federal agency websites. The resulting article evaluates the differences in the language of Congress's enabling legislation and the federal departments' regulations and how they may conflict with the ADA. It also reviews the federal government's authority to address both the legal conflict and ethical concerns related to nonvoluntary participatory programs. Findings Employers' practices and the federal departments' regulations conflict with the current interpretation of the ADA by permitting employers to penalize employees who do not complete a health risk assessment. The departments' regulations may be interpreted as conflicting with Congress's legislation, which mentions penalties only for health-contingent wellness programs. Furthermore, the regulatory protections for employees applicable to health-contingent wellness programs do not apply to participatory programs. Conclusions Either Congress or the federal agencies should address the conflict among employers' practices, the wellness regulations, and the ADA and also consider additional protections for employees. Employers can avoid ethical and legal complications by offering voluntary programs with positive incentives.

AB - Policy Points: Workplace wellness programs that provide incentives for completing a health risk assessment are a form of participatory programs. There are legal and ethical concerns when employers assess penalties for not completing a health risk assessment, raising questions about the voluntariness of such a program. The Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services' 2013 regulations for participatory programs and employers' current practices conflict with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's prevailing interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Context In keeping with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Congress revised the law related to workplace wellness programs. In June 2013, the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services passed the final regulations, updating their 2006 regulatory framework. Participatory programs that reward the completion of a health risk assessment are now the most common type of wellness program in the United States. However, legal and ethical concerns emerge when employers utilize incentives that raise questions about the voluntariness of such programs. At issue is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, employers cannot require health-related inquiries and exams. Methods To analyze the current interpretation of the ADA, I conducted research on both LexisNexis and federal agency websites. The resulting article evaluates the differences in the language of Congress's enabling legislation and the federal departments' regulations and how they may conflict with the ADA. It also reviews the federal government's authority to address both the legal conflict and ethical concerns related to nonvoluntary participatory programs. Findings Employers' practices and the federal departments' regulations conflict with the current interpretation of the ADA by permitting employers to penalize employees who do not complete a health risk assessment. The departments' regulations may be interpreted as conflicting with Congress's legislation, which mentions penalties only for health-contingent wellness programs. Furthermore, the regulatory protections for employees applicable to health-contingent wellness programs do not apply to participatory programs. Conclusions Either Congress or the federal agencies should address the conflict among employers' practices, the wellness regulations, and the ADA and also consider additional protections for employees. Employers can avoid ethical and legal complications by offering voluntary programs with positive incentives.

KW - ethics

KW - health information

KW - health law

KW - workplace wellness programs

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930511345&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930511345&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1468-0009.12123

DO - 10.1111/1468-0009.12123

M3 - Article

C2 - 26044631

AN - SCOPUS:84930511345

VL - 93

SP - 301

EP - 318

JO - Milbank Quarterly

JF - Milbank Quarterly

SN - 0887-378X

IS - 2

ER -