A legal fight is ongoing over the legal validity of certain actions that several employers have taken in respect of the health insurance coverage of employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has challenged in court actions by certain employers in respect of certain specific conditions of wellness programs meant for employees.
Wellness programs are programs that employers have employees enlist in - that allow employers to decide on specific health coverage cost issues. They do this by having employees undergo specific health tests and then tailor insurance coverage for their employee-pools accordingly, according to The Huffington Post.
Employers claim that these programs encourage employees to cultivate health habits that would promote their health and productivity - and discourage them from adopting health practices that would be certain to lead to claims on their healthcare insurance coverage.
Smoking could be an example. An employee that smokes carries specific health risks as a consequence of that, and will in all likelihood make claims arising from health complications based on his or her smoking habit. According to employers, several employees reportedly gave up smoking once they realized that the smoking behavior was a cost that they could not afford in this circumstance, according to Bloomberg.
In one recent case involving a Wisconsin company, Flambeau. The employer cancelled the health insurance coverage of an employee as the employee was not willing to undergo employer-sponsored health assessment and biometric screening. The EEOC challenged this action in court saying that this action infringed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits the obtaining of personal health information and subjecting people to medical exams, according to JD Supra Business Advisor
However, the Court held that this action of Flambeau did not infringe the Americans with Disabilities Act. EEOC is now preparing to appeal this matter.
"This is like turning 'voluntariness' on its head," Samuel Bagenstos, a professor at the University of Michigan said. "[I]t would make it all but impossible to enforce the voluntariness requirement for requests for medical information. In that sense that is probably the wrong reading of the statute," according to Bloomberg.
