We probably could have seen this coming with corporate wellness programs which have interested me for years (see: Disease Management Programs Provide More Cost Savings than Lifestyle Programs). Some of these programs are now developing teeth in the form of significant financial penalties for non-compliance. This is because there is so much money at stake and the companies understand that they can shift their employees toward a healthier lifestyle, even those who are not naturally so-inclined. Some of the details were revealed in a recent article (see: Government sues Honeywell over required testing, fines in wellness program). Below is an excerpt from it:
Federal officials are challenging new benefit rules at Honeywell Inc. that create monetary penalties unless employees and spouses take medical tests. A lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in response to complaints from two Minnesota employees sets up a potential court case over how far employers can go to shift health costs and influence worker behavior.The agency said in the suit...that new health screening and penalties at Honeywell violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. “Employees will be penalized if they or their spouses do not take the biometric tests,” the complaint said. In response to the suit, Honeywell said its screening program is designed to encourage employees to live more healthfully and thereby create lower health care costs for themselves and the company. The company said the program complies with health care-related laws, including the Affordable Care Act....Like other companies, Honeywell embraced the so-called wellness movement to prod employees into better shape and to lower health care-related costs. The EEOC said that Honeywell’s new program creates up to $4,000 in penalties for employees unless they and their spouses take blood and medical tests that can identify smoking, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity and other health problems. They include the loss of $1,500 in company contributions to health savings accounts, a $500 medical plan surcharge, a $1,000 tobacco surcharge and a $1,000 spousal tobacco surcharge. The suit is the third one in three months that the EEOC has filed accusing companies of setting up “involuntary” employee medical or wellness programs....Honeywell’s tests and threatened penalties go too far because they are not job-related and are not consistent with any business necessity, she said.“
So how much prodding is appropriate to move corporate employees to a more healthy lifestyle and testing to find candidates for smoking cessation or weight loss programs? Is a $1,000 tobacco surcharge an over-reaction? Here's a fact from the American Lung Association that I found when searching for the average price of a pack of cigarettes in the U.S.: [T]he average retail price of a pack of cigarettes in The United States is $5.51. But the real price of a pack of cigarettes to society and to the state's economy is $18.05 per pack (see:The United States Facts). For a one pack per day smoker and putting aside health costs to the state, the direct cost of a smoking habit for a Honeywell employee would be about $3,000. This would be a substantial yearly contribution to a child's college fund.
I guess that this EEOC lawsuit will help to determine how hard a company can push an employee toward a healthier lifestyle. I found the following comment of the EEOC from above interesting: "Honeywell’s tests and threatened penalties go too far because they are not job-related and are not consistent with any business necessity." I personally believe that a non-smoker would be a happier and healthier employee. I also believe that the reduction of corporate healthcare costs is a "business necessity." What about the individual rights of the employees? Should they be allowed to harm their health outside of work? And if smoking is deemed bad behavior, what about the lack of daily exercise?
:: Update on 11/07/20145
(see: Judge sides with Honeywell in wellness dispute with EEOC)
Comments