A project of the George Washington University's Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Update to Employer Wellness Programs: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Posted on December 20, 2012 | No Comments

PDF Version
Details
Implementation Briefs
Editor's Comment
Key Developments
Library

By Nancy Lopez

Background

As described in a previous Implementation Brief, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996[1] (HIPAA) generally prohibits group health plans and group health insurance issuers operating in the group health market from discriminating against similarly situated individuals with regard to premiums, benefits or eligibility based on a health factor. HIPAA recognized an exception to this rule if an individual adheres to certain programs of health promotion and disease prevention, known as wellness programs. Under regulations issued in 2006,[2] HIPAA has been interpreted to permit two types of wellness programs: (1) participatory programs that do not impose health factors or goals as a condition of receiving a reward (e.g., attending a health seminar or receiving a subsidized gym membership); and (2) health-contingent programs that require individuals to meet certain health factor benchmarks, such as weight loss or tobacco cessation, in order to receive the reward.[3] The 2006 regulations further provide that health-contingent programs must meet five “non-discriminatory standards”: (1) the reward offered for the program must not exceed 20% of the cost of coverage (i.e., the total amount of employer and employee contribution to cost of coverage); (2) the program must be reasonably designed for health promotion and disease prevention and not be a subterfuge for discrimination based on a health factor; (3) the program must permit eligibility for the reward at least once a year; (4) a reasonable alternative standard (or a waiver of the applicable standard) must be offered for employees who are unable to participate for certain medical reasons; and (5) the program must disclose the alternative standard.[4] Participatory programs are not subject to comply with any additional non-discriminatory standards as long as the program is offered to all similarly situated individuals.[5]

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) further amends the HIPAA standards to broaden the permissible use of wellness programs. Specifically, ACA §1201(4) adds §2705 to the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to permit such programs in the following ways: (1) extends the non-discrimination protections of wellness programs to the individual market;[6] and (2) increases the maximum reward amount of a health contingent program to 30% of the cost of coverage (with authority given to the Secretary of HHS to allow up to 50% of the cost of coverage).[7]

On November 26, 2012, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (77 Fed. Reg. 70620) implementing ACA modifications to the HIPAA wellness program authority and providing clarification of the non-discriminatory standards for health contingent programs. These proposed rules take effect for plan years starting January 1, 2014 and are proposed to apply to both grandfathered and non-grandfathered plans in the insured and self-insured markets to avoid inconsistency among group coverage and to provide flexibility to grandfathered plans.[8] The NPRM allows a 60-day comment period; comments are due by January 25, 2013. This Update focuses on the amendments[9] and clarifications made by the proposed regulations.

The Proposed Regulations

The NPRM is consistent with the majority of HIPAA provisions regarding wellness programs and re-iterates the two categories of wellness programs, participatory and health contingent. However, in response to stakeholder comments to HIPAA regulations and to remain consistent with the ACA, the proposed regulations modify and clarify four of the five additional non-discriminatory standards that the health contingent programs are required to follow.[10]

Size of Reward Standard [Proposed 26 CFR §54.9802-1(f)(3)(ii), 29 CFR §2590.702(f)(3)(ii), and 45 CFR §146.121(f)(3)(ii)]

The NPRM maintains the 30 percent maximum reward increase for health contingent wellness programs added by the ACA, but also adds a maximum award of 50 percent for wellness program that are designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use. The proposed rule lists several examples that illustrate how to calculate the applicable percentage so that the program satisfies this requirement. Comments are invited on the apportionment of rewards among family members/dependents, the general approach for coordinating the tobacco rating factor with wellness program non-discriminatory standards, and whether additional rules or examples would be helpful when the amount of the reward is variable or not determinable.

Reasonable Alternative Standard [Proposed 26 CFR §54.9802-1(f)(3)(iii), 29 CFR §2590.702(f)(3)(iii), and 45 CFR §146.121(f)(3)(iii)]

The NPRM provides the following clarifications for this standard:

  • Instead of providing a reasonable alternative, a plan or issuer may waive an otherwise applicable standard and provide the reward. This waiver may be issued to an entire class of individuals or on an individual basis based on circumstances presented. [Preamble at 70624]
  • Although not required to establish an alternative standard prior to an individual’s request for one, plans and issuers must provide a reasonable alternative upon an individual’s request; alternatively, the condition for receiving the reward must be waived.
  • Plans or issuers may not refuse to provide a reasonable alternative solely because one was unsuccessful before. [Preamble at 70624]
  • The proposed rule provides the following non-exclusive list of factors to take into account in determining whether a reasonable alternative has been provided:
    • If the reasonable alternative is completion of an educational program, the plan or issuer is required to make the program available and free of cost to the individual.
    • If the reasonable alternative is a diet program, the plan or issuer is required to pay for membership or participation fees but not the cost of food.
    • If the reasonable alternative is compliance with a recommendation from a medical professional who is employed by the plan or issuer and the individual’s personal physician states that it would be medically inappropriate to follow such recommendations, then the plan or issuer is required to offer a reasonable alternative that accommodates the individual’s physician’s recommendations with regard to medical appropriateness.

The Departments issuing the proposed rule request comments on this list of factors and any additional facts and circumstances that would be needed to determine a reasonable alternative standard.

The NPRM also clarifies that plans and issuers may seek verification that an individual’s health factor prohibits the individual from satisfying the applicable standard however, verification may not be sought where a claim is obviously valid based on the nature of the individual’s medical condition known to the plan or issuer. An issue that may arise around this standard would be violations of HIPAA privacy requirements. Comments are requested on whether additional clarification would help in determining reasonableness of physician verification.

Reasonable Design Standard [Proposed 26 CFR §54.9802-1(f)(3)(iv), 29 CFR §2590.702(f)(3)(iv), and 45 CFR §146.121(f)(3)(iv)]

The NPRM requests comments on whether standards such as evidence- or practice-based standards would be necessary to ensure that wellness programs are reasonably designed.

The NPRM proposes to amend the reasonable design standard to provide that if the qualification to obtain the reward is based on the results of a health factor measurement, test or screening, then the program will not be deemed reasonably designed unless it is offered to all individuals who did not meet the health factor standard based on the test, measurement or screening. This means, for example, that a plan or issuer may target its program to individuals with high cholesterol as long as those individuals that do not have high cholesterol are provided a different, reasonable means to qualify for the identical reward. Comments are requested on this approach and whether any other consumer protections are necessary to ensure a reasonable design.

Notice of Alternative Standard [Proposed 26 CFR §54.9802-1(f)(3)(v), 29 CFR §2590.702(f)(3)(v), and 45 CFR §146.121(f)(3)(v)]

Consistent with the HIPAA regulations, the proposed rule requires plans and issuers to disclose the availability of an alternative standard or the possibility of a waiver. The NPRM [Preamble at 70625] notes that the sample language provided in the 2006 HIPAA regulations to be used to satisfy the notice requirement was determined to be complicated and confusing so the proposed rules offer new sample language.[11] The Departments invite comments on this sample language.



[1] Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 1936, P.L. 104-191 (1996).
[2] 71 Fed. Reg. 75014 (2006).
[3] A reward can include any of the following: premium discounts or contributions, modification of cost-sharing mechanisms or lack of an additional surcharge.
[4] 45 CFR §146.121(f)(2); Pub. L. 111-148 §1201(4), adding §2705(j) to the Public Health Service Act.
[5] 66 Fed. Reg. 1421,1422; 45 CFR §146.21(f)(1).
[6] ACA §1201(4) adding §2705(l) to PHS Act.
[7] ACA §1201(4) adding §2705(j)(3) to PHS Act.
[8] 77 Fed. Reg. Preamble 70622. Proposed 26 CFR §54.9815-2705, 29 CFR §2590.715-2705, and 45 CFR §147.110.
[9] The Affordable Care Act adds to part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA); the ACA also adds section 715(a)(1) to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and section 9815(a)(1) to the Internal Revenue Code to incorporate the provisions (§§2701-2728 of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act into ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, and to make them applicable to group health plans and health insurance issuers providing coverage in group health plan markets. Accordingly, these sections of the PHSA are subject to shared interpretive jurisdiction by Department of Labor, HHS, and Treasury.
[10] Amending 26 CFR §54.9802(f), 29 CFR §2590.702(f), and 45 CFR §146.121(f) and adding new sections 26 CFR §54.9815-2705, 29 CFR §2590.715-2705, and 45 CFR §147.110.
[11] Proposed 26 CFR §54.9802-1(f)(4), 29 CFR §2590.702(f)(4), and 45 CFR §146.121(f)(4).
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 1936, P.L. 104-191 (1996).
71 Fed. Reg. 75014 (2006).
A reward can include any of the following: premium discounts or contributions, modification of cost-sharing mechanisms or lack of an additional surcharge.
45 CFR §146.121(f)(2); Pub. L. 111-148 §1201(4), adding §2705(j) to the Public Health Service Act.
66 Fed. Reg. 1421,1422; 45 CFR §146.21(f)(1).
ACA §1201(4) adding §2705(l) to PHS Act.
ACA §1201(4) adding §2705(j)(3) to PHS Act.
77 Fed. Reg. Preamble 70622. Proposed 26 CFR §54.9815-2705, 29 CFR §2590.715-2705, and 45 CFR §147.110.
The Affordable Care Act adds to part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA); the ACA also adds section 715(a)(1) to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and section 9815(a)(1) to the Internal Revenue Code to incorporate the provisions (§§2701-2728 of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act into ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, and to make them applicable to group health plans and health insurance issuers providing coverage in group health plan markets. Accordingly, these sections of the PHSA are subject to shared interpretive jurisdiction by Department of Labor, HHS, and Treasury.
Amending 26 CFR §54.9802(f), 29 CFR §2590.702(f), and 45 CFR §146.121(f) and adding new sections 26 CFR §54.9815-2705, 29 CFR §2590.715-2705, and 45 CFR §147.110.
Proposed 26 CFR §54.9802-1(f)(4), 29 CFR §2590.702(f)(4), and 45 CFR §146.121(f)(4).

No Comments

Public comments are closed.

Final regulations published in the June 3rd Federal Register (at 78 Fed. Reg. 33158) implement the ACA amendments to pre-existing federal laws permitting employer-sponsored health plans and health insurers selling products in the group insurance market to include in those products “non-discriminatory wellness programs”. The regulations were released jointly by the federal Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services. An earlier Implementation Brief examined the rules in their proposed form. The final rule largely retains the elements of the proposed rule, while also making important clarifications regarding how a wellness program must be structured in order to be considered non-discriminatory based on health status. Because the final regulations revise previous rules issued in 2006, the wellness program standards apply to both grandfathered and non-grandfathered plans, since the revisions simply restructure older standards rather than creating new ones.
Under federal law, employers are not required to offer health insurance coverage to their employees; however, most do voluntarily. In fact, employer-sponsored health insurance is the primary source of health care coverage for most Americans, with roughly 60 percent of the non-elderly receiving health coverage through the workplace. Initially offered as a way to attract workers during wartime wage freezes and price controls, health insurance coverage is still used as a way to recruit and retain workers, and as a means of improving employees’ health and productivity. However, not all workers have health insurance. Indeed, three-fourths of the approximately 50 million uninsured Americans are working people and their dependents.
One objective of the insurance reform provisions of the health reform law was to continue the policy begun under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) to encourage individuals and their families to be more engaged in their health care and to adopt healthier lifestyles.
Recently, Sara Rosenbaum, the Hirsh Professor of Health Law and Policy at the GW Department of Health Policy, had an opportunity to interview Phyllis Borzi, the federal official in charge of overseeing the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), for Health Reform GPS. EBSA is an agency of the United States Department of Labor responsible for administering, regulating and enforcing the provisions of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and the agency is playing an important role in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act....
A joint rule released by the US Department of Labor (DoL), the US Department of the Treasury (DoT), and the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) addresses new provisions regarding participatory wellness programs in the workplace. Workplace wellness programs are designed to reduce the prevalence of chronic disease, stifle growing health care costs, and improve overall health by rewarding employees for participating in certain activities, such as educational classes or obtaining memberships to fitness centers. The final rule sets the maximum reword for completion of a nondiscriminatory health-contingent wellness program to 30% of coverage costs, up from the original 20%. Employees that successfully complete tobacco-related wellness programs are eligible for up to 50% of cost of coverage.
Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released the essential health benefits proposed rule, the health insurance market rule (which includes standards for premium rates and guaranteed availability and renewability), and a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the wellness program. Also out today is the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) update to the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, pertaining to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services's (CMS's) physician payment rule released earlier this month. CMS's Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services released a letter to the State Medicaid directors today, which concerns essential health benefits in the Medicaid program. Finally, CMS released a guide for reviewing proposed State essential health benefits benchmark plans.
According to a new Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) report, the uninsured rate shrank for working-age Americans last year. The percentage of non-elderly Americans with coverage increased to 82 percent in 2011, up from 81.5 percent in 2010. Employment-based health insurance coverage rates dropped, however. Although employer-sponsored coverage remains the dominant source of health coverage in the United States, providing coverage for 155.5 million people under age 65 in 2011, the percentage of non-elderly individuals with employer-sponsored coverage has declined every year since 2000.
The 2012 Towers Watson/National Business Group on Health Employer Survey on Purchasing Value in Health Care offers insights into the actions and plans of leading U.S. employers and views of what the future of employer-provided health care in the U.S. may look like this year and in the coming three years. According to the study, as health care costs continue to rise, employers are looking for ways to cut costs. While the total cost of health care is predicted to rise 5.3%, to $11,507 per employee in 2013, the growth is slowing. Many companies will keep premium increases in line with the health care cost increases. The study found that 13% of companies would increase premiums by 5% in 2013, for example.
In the United States, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) raised the maximum allowed wellness incentives, which are thought to improve health and reduce costs. Public insurers in Germany operate many such programs. Participation in these programs nearly doubled between 2004 and 2008, reaching one-quarter of the publicly insured population. An evaluation of one large wellness program there found that it reduced costs. However, population-level survey data also suggest that individuals with low incomes or poor health are less likely to enroll. Under the ACA in the United States, the increase in allowed wellness incentives could lead to wide differences in insurance premiums between users and nonusers of programs, and may risk reintroducing a form of medical underwriting. The German case study confirms the cost-saving potential of programs, but also suggests that they should be evaluated rigorously to ensure they do not disadvantage those with health problems or low incomes. A report published by The Commonwealth Fund reviews and provides insight on this issue.
In "An Offer You Can't Refuse: Estimating the Coverage Effects of the 2010 Affordable Care Act," the Employment Policy Institute shows that the predictions of the share of workers who will keep their current employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) are quite sensitive to two behavioral assumptions. At present, 74.29% of workers have ESI. Depending on how workers and employers react to ACA implementation, that share could increase to 78.62% or decrease to 65.89%. The first behavioral assumption is to what degree firms and their workers will alter their current contracts with respect to workers' share of the premiums. The second factor pertains to vague language of portions of the ACA. The language in doubt is whether the affordable coverage rule applies to single coverage or family coverage for workers with families.