The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to population health.
June 2015 (Volume 93)
June 2015 | Jennifer L. Pomeranz | Original Investigation
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.
Author(s): Jennifer L. Pomeranz
Keywords: workplace wellness programs, health law, ethics, health information
Read on Wiley Online Library
Volume 93, Issue 2 (pages 301–318)
Published in 2015
Tobacco-Control Policies in Tobacco-Growing States: Where Tobacco Was King
Pursuing the Triple Aim: The First 7 Years