EEOC Wellness Regulations Survive AARP Challenge
|
01/04/2017
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
A
federal
court
in
Washington,
D.C.
has
declined
to
issue
an
order
that
would
have
halted
implementation
of
the
EEOC’s
wellness
plan
regulations
under
the
ADA
and
GINA.
The
regulations
had
been
challenged
by
AARP
on
the
grounds
that
they
failed
to
adequately
protect
workers’
rights.
However,
the
court
concluded
there
was
no
risk
of
"irreparable
harm"
to
workers
in
allowing
the
regulations
to
remain
on
the
books.
This
means
the
regulations
remain
in
force
and
will
apply
as
scheduled.
The
EEOC’s
regulations
are
generally
applicable
to
wellness
programs
beginning
with
the
2017
plan
year.
The
regulations
limit
the
incentives
that
employers
may
offer
in
connection
with
a
wellness
program
that
involves
a
medical
examination
or
disability-related
inquiry.
Most
wellness
programs
that
involve
a
health
risk
assessment
or
biometric
screening
are
covered.
The
incentive
cannot
exceed
30%
of
the
cost
of
employee-only
coverage
under
the
related
health
plan
--
or
twice
that
amount
in
the
case
of
plans
that
offer
incentives
to
both
employees
and
their
spouses.The
regulations
also
impose
notice
and
confidentiality
requirements,
in
addition
to
limiting
the
amount
of
incentives.
The
EEOC’s
rules
apply
in
addition
to
other
wellness
plan
rules
under
HIPAA
and
the
ACA,
with
sometimes
inconsistent
results.
For
example:
- Under
the
HIPAA
and
ACA
regulations,
there
is
no
limit
on
the
amount
of
the
incentive
that
can
be
offered
in
a
“participation
only”
wellness
program
involving
completion
of
a
health
risk
assessment
and
biometric
screening,
but
the
same
wellness
program
generally
is
subject
to
Continue Reading...
|
|
EEOC Issues Final Wellness Regulations
|
05/21/2016
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
The
EEOC
has
issued
final
regulations
under
the
ADA
and
GINA
that
address
the
extent
to
which
employers
may
use
incentives
to
encourage
employees
and
their
spouses
to
participate
in
wellness
programs
that
involve
disability-related
inquiries
or
medical
examinations.
Although
the
regulations
allow
limited
incentives,
there
are
a
number
of
conditions
and
restrictions.
And
there
are
some
important
differences
between
the
EEOC's
rules
and
other
rules
governing
wellness
programs,
such
as
guidance
under
HIPAA
and
the
ACA.
Here
are
the
highlights.
What
Wellness
Plans
Are
Covered?
These
regulations
apply
to
any
wellness
plan
that
involves
a
disability-related
inquiry
or
medical
examination.
This
will
include
most
wellness
plans
that
require
completion
of
a
health
risk
assessment
or
biometric
screening.
It
also
includes
tobacco-related
wellness
plans
that
involve
any
type
of
medical
test
to
screen
for
the
presence
of
nicotine,
but
it
does
not
include
tobacco-related
programs
that
merely
ask
an
employee
to
certify
whether
they
use
tobacco
(and
do
not
require
any
other
medical
examinations).
In
an
important
change
from
the
proposed
regulations,
the
final
regulations
apply
to
a
wellness
program
without
regard
to
whether
the
program
is
offered
in
connection
with
a
group
health
plan.
For
example,
an
employer
that
offers
a
cash
reward
to
employees
for
completing
a
health
risk
assessment
or
biometric
screening
may
be
subject
to
the
limitations
under
the
final
regulations.
What
Limits
Apply
to
Wellness
Incentives?
For
a
wellness
plan
covered
by
these
regulations,
the
incentive
offered
to
any
employee
may
not
exceed
30%
of
the
full
cost
Continue Reading...
|
|
Wellness Program Survives ADA Challenge
|
01/15/2016
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
In
a
closely
watched
case,
a
federal
judge
in
Wisconsin
has
denied
the
EEOC’s
challenge
to
a
wellness
program
maintained
by
Flambeau,
Inc.
The
EEOC
had
sued
the
employer,
alleging
the
wellness
program
violated
the
ADA.
The
wellness
program
required
employees
to
complete
a
health
risk
assessment
and
a
biometric
screening,
but
employees
completing
the
program
didn't
just
receive
a
premium
reduction
or
other
financial
incentive.
They
were
required
to
complete
the
program
as
a
condition
to
obtaining
coverage
under
the
employer’s
group
health
plan.
Employees
that
chose
not
to
participate
in
the
wellness
program
were
not
allowed
to
enroll
in
the
employer's
health
plan.
The
EEOC
alleged
that
the
wellness
program
violated
the
ADA’s
prohibition
against
involuntary
medical
examinations
and
disability-related
inquires.
Although
employees
were
not
required
to
participate
in
the
wellness
program,
the
EEOC
viewed
the
penalty
for
nonparticipation
(loss
of
access
to
the
group
health
plan)
as
too
coercive,
effectively
making
the
wellness
program
an
involuntary
program.
But
the
court
side-stepped
the
question
of
voluntariness
and
concluded
that
a
safe
harbor
under
the
ADA
(which
allows
for
bona
fide
underwriting
activities)
applied
to
the
wellness
program.
Thus,
the
program
did
not
violate
the
ADA
without
regard
to
whether
it
was
voluntary.
The
court's
decision
to
apply
the
ADA's
underwriting
safe
harbor
is
consistent
with
a
2012
federal
appeals
court
decision
(Seff
v.
Broward
County),
but
the
EEOC
has
indicated
it
strongly
agrees
with
that
interpretation
of
the
ADA.
So
we
might
expect
further
sparring
between
the
EEOC
and
employers
who
choose
Continue Reading...
|
|
EEOC Proposes GINA Guidance on Wellness Plan Incentives for Spouses
|
11/02/2015
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
The
EEOC
has
released
a
proposed
rule,
a
fact
sheet,
and
a
set
of
FAQs
regarding
the
Genetic
Nondiscrimination
Act
(GINA)
and
wellness
plan
incentives
for
spouses
of
employees.
Under
the
proposed
rule,
an
employer
may
offer
an
incentive
as
part
of
a
wellness
plan
for
an
employee’s
spouse
to
provide
information
about
the
spouse’s
current
or
past
health
status,
so
long
as
the
wellness
plan
is
part
of
a
program
that
is
reasonably
designed
to
promote
health
or
prevent
disease.
Some
additional
conditions
must
also
be
satisfied,
including
that
the
total
incentive
for
the
employee
and
the
spouse
must
not
exceed
30%
of
the
total
cost
of
the
group
health
plan
coverage
in
which
the
employee
and
spouse
are
enrolled
and
that
the spouse
provide
a
voluntary,
written
authorization.
This
guidance
is
limited
to
programs
that
provide
incentives
for
spouses
to
provide
information
about
their
current
or
past
health
status.
It
does
not
change
existing
GINA
guidance
that
prohibits
offering
incentives
to
employees,
spouses,
or
their
children
to
provide
their
own
genetic
information,
including
family
medical
history.
These
regulations
are
a
companion
to
regulations
under
the
ADA
proposed
by
the
EEOC
earlier
this
year
relating
to
wellness
plan
incentives
offered
to
employees
in
exchange
for
undergoing
a
disability-related
inquiry
or
medical
examination.
Under
those
regulations,
employers
generally
may
offer
such
incentives,
so
long
as
the
amount
of
the
incentives
are
limited
to
30%
of
the
total
cost
of
employee-only
coverage
under
the
employer's
group
health
plan.
The
ADA
and
GINA
regulations
Continue Reading...
|
|
Federal Legislation Would Clarify Wellness Plan Treatment Under ADA and GINA
|
03/16/2015
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
Federal
legislation
has
been
introduced
that
would
clarify
the
treatment
of
employer
wellness
plans
under
the
ADA
and
GINA.
It
is
styled
as
the
"Preserving
Employee
Wellness
Programs
Act."
Under
the
act,
any
wellness
plan
that
meets
the
requirements
imposed
by
regulations
issued
under
HIPAA
and
the
ACA
would
not
be
treated
as
violating
the
ADA
or
Title
I
or
Title
II
of
GINA
solely
because
the
plan
provides
a
reward.
The
legislation
would
respond
to
confusion
over
the
EEOC's
position
on
how
employer
obligations
under
the
ADA
and
GINA
intersect
with
the
HIPAA
and
ACA
rules
that
allow
providing
a
reward
(or
penalty)
to
employees
who
participate
in
a
"health-contingent"
wellness
program.
Although
the
EEOC
has
never
taken
a
formal
regulatory
position
on
the
issue,
it
has
sued
several
employers
over
their
wellness
programs,
including
at
least
one
program
that
appeared
to
satisfy
the
requirements
under
HIPAA
and
the
ACA
(see
prior
articles
here,
here,
and
here).
The
EEOC
is
said
to
be
working
on
a
set
of
regulations
to
address
this
issue
that
may
be
near
release.
Employers
will
want
to
keep
an
eye
on
both
these
legislative
and
regulatory
developments,
as
they
could
have
an
important
(and
hopefully
helpful)
impact
on
wellness
plan
design.
A
copy
of
Senate
Bill
620,
the
Preserving
Employee
Wellness
Programs
Act,
is
here.
|
|
EEOC Catches Grief Over Wellness Plan Litigation
|
11/18/2014
|
By: Donald Berner
|
The
political
maneuvering
following
the
mid-term
elections
has
begun.
As
discussed
in
a
prior
post
(click
here),
the
expectation
of
more
Congressional
"oversight"
continues
to
become
a
reality.
In
a
recent
Senate
hearing, the
EEOC Commissioner
and
the
EEOC General
Counsel
were
roughed
up
a
bit
over
the EEOC's
recently
filed
wellness
plan
litigation. (Click here for
Jason's
prior
article
on
the
litigation)
The
clear
message
coming
out
of
the
Senate
hearing
was
that
the
EEOC
should
think
very
carefully
before
engaging
in
the
course
of
filing
litigation
against
employers
as
it
relates
to
wellness
plans. One
of
the
criticisms
directed
at the
EEOC was the
lack
of
ADA guidance
as
it
relates
to
wellness
plans. Look
for
this
to
get
further
attention
as
the
new legislature
convenes
in
2015.
|
|
EEOC Turns Up the Heat on Employer Wellness Plans
|
10/31/2014
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
Adding
to
a
flurry
of
recent
activity
(see
here
and
here),
the
EEOC
has
challenged
the
wellness
plan
maintained
by
Honeywell
International,
alleging
that
it
violates
both
the
ADA
and
GINA.
The
EEOC
is
seeking
a
preliminary
injunction
against
Honeywell
that
would
stop
further
implementation
of
the
plan.
Plan
Terms.
Based
on
the
facts
described
in
the
EEOC’s
court
filings,
Honeywell
employees
are
asked
to
undergo
a
biometric
screening
that
includes
a
blood
draw.
If
the
employee
has
family
coverage,
the
employee’s
spouse
is
asked
to
complete
the
biometric
screening
as
well.
If
employees
(or
their
spouses)
do
not
complete
the
screening,
they
pay
a
“surcharge”
on
their
annual
premium
of
up
to
$2,500
(a
base
surcharge
of
$500,
plus
tobacco-related
surcharges
of
$1,000
for
individual
coverage
or
$2,000
for
family
coverage).
They
also
lose
up
to
$1,500
in
employer
contributions
to
an
HSA.
ADA
-
Voluntariness.
The
EEOC’s
argument
under
the
ADA
is
that
the
biometric
screening
under
Honeywell’s
plan
is
not
voluntary
and,
thus,
is
a
prohibited
medical
examination.
Although
employees
are
not
required
to
submit
to
the
biometric
screening,
the
premium
surcharges
and
lost
HSA
contributions
are
enough
to
render
the
screening
involuntary.
ADA
-
Underwriting
Safe
Harbor.
The
EEOC
also
argues
that
the
wellness
plan
is
not
protected
by
the
ADA’s
underwriting
safe
harbor.
That
safe
harbor
permits
“establishing,
sponsoring,
observing
or
administering
the
terms
of
a
bona
fide
benefit
plan
that
are
based
on
underwriting
risks,
classifying
risks,
or
administering
such
risks
that
are
based
on
Continue Reading...
|
|
EEOC Challenges Another Wellness Plan Under the ADA
|
10/06/2014
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
The
EEOC
has
announced
(here)
the
filing
of
another
lawsuit
challenging
an
employer’s
wellness
plan
on
the
basis
that
it
violates
the
ADA.
Like
a
similar
case
filed
in
August
(see
coverage
here),
the
EEOC
alleges
that
the
employer’s
plan
fails
under
the
ADA
because
it
is
not
a
voluntary
program.
Background.
The
wellness
plan
at
issue
in
this
case
sounds
fairly
typical.
Employees
apparently
were
asked
to
submit
to
a
biometric
screening
and
complete
a
health
risk
assessment.
So
far,
so
good.
But
employees
who
declined
to
participate
in
the
wellness
plan
are
said
to
have
had
their
health
plan
coverage
canceled
or
to
have
been
required
to
pay
100%
of
the
cost
of
coverage
under
the
employer's
health
plan.
By
comparison,
employees
who
participated
in
the
wellness
plan
were
only
required
to
pay
25%
of
the
cost
of
coverage
under
the
employer's
health
plan.
Something
Doesn’t
Add
Up.
The
facts
as
stated
by
the
EEOC
aren’t
totally
consistent.
First
they
say
health-plan
coverage
was
canceled
when
employees
declined
to
participate
in
the
wellness
plan.
Then
they
say
higher
health-plan
costs
were
shifted
to
employees
who
declined
to
participate
in
the
wellness
plan.
It
can’t
be
both
-
at
least
not
for
the
same
employees.
So
we
may
not
have
a
clear
picture
of
the
plan
in
question
at
this
point.
Voluntariness.
But
whatever
the
facts
may
be,
we
can
see
that
the
EEOC
is
clearly
focused
on
voluntariness.
According
to
the
press
release:
“Having
to
choose
between
complying
with
Continue Reading...
|
|
EEOC Files ADA Lawsuit Over Employer Wellness Plan
|
09/05/2014
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
The
EEOC has
filed
a
lawsuit
against
a
Wisconsin
employer,
alleging
that
the
employer's
wellness
plan
violates
the
ADA.
According
to
the
EEOC's
press
release
(here),
this
is
the
first
lawsuit
by
the
EEOC
directly
challenging
a
wellness
program
under
the
ADA.
Background.
Although
wellness
plans
are
increasingly
common,
they
raise
a
complex
array
of
legal
issues.
Regulations
addressing
compliance
with
the
HIPAA
nondiscrimination
requirements
are
well-developed
now.
But
there
is
virtually
no
guidance
addressing
the
manner
in
which
the
ADA
applies
to
wellness
plans.
In
particular,
the
ADA
prohibits
employers
from
requiring
employees
to
undergo
involuntary
medical
examinations,
unless
those
examinations
are
clearly
job-related,
and
it
has
never
been
clear
where
the
line
is
on
"voluntariness."
Bad
Facts.
Unfortunately,
the
facts
of
this
case
are
bad
enough
that
it
may
not
provide
much
meaningful
guidance.
The
EEOC's
lawsuit
alleges
that
the
employer
in
this
case
required
employees
to
participate
in
its
wellness
program
(including
what
sounds
like
a
fairly
typical
health
questionnaire
and
biometric
screening)
and
penalized
those
who
refused
by
requiring
them
to
pay
100%
of
the
cost
of
coverage
under
the
employer's
health
plan,
plus
a
$50/month
surcharge.
Additionally,
there
is
an
allegation
that
the
employer
then
terminated
an
employee
for
declining
to
participate
in
the
wellness
program.
Results
Not
Typical.
All
of
these
facts,
if
true,
go
well
beyond
what
most
typical
employer
wellness
programs
require
or
impose
and
would
seem
to
be
a
fairly
clear
violation
of
the
ADA's
voluntariness
requirement.
So
it's
not
clear
how
much
Continue Reading...
|
|
Minimum Value Regulations Clarify Treatment of Wellness Incentives
|
05/04/2013
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
Buried
deep
within
new
regulations
on
the
arcane
"minimum
value"
requirement
is
important
new
guidance
on
how
employer
wellness
incentives
will
impact
both
the
minimum
value
and
affordability
analysis
with
respect
to
employer-provided
health
coverage.
Most
Wellness
Impact
is
Disregarded.
The
rule
described
in
the
regulation
is
fairly
simple,
although
not
favorable
to
employers.
For
purposes
of
determining
whether
health
coverage
is
affordable
to
employees,
any
reward
associated
with
participation
in
a
wellness
program
(other
than
related
to
tobacco
use)
is
ignored.
This
generally
has
the
effect
of
increasing
the
amount
the
employee
is
treated
as
contributing
toward
the
cost
of
coverage,
thereby
making
the
coverage
less
affordable.
Example.
Assume,
employees
generally
are
required
to
pay
$200
per
month
for
employee-only
coverage.
But
if
the
employees
participate
in
a
health
risk
assessment
and
basic
biometric
screening,
they
receive
a
discount
of
$50
per
month
(making
the
monthly
cost
$150).
For
purposes
of
determining
whether
the
coverage
is
affordable,
the
employees
are
treated
as
having
to
pay
$200
per
month
for
coverage,
even
though
they
may
actually
qualify
to
pay
only
$150
per
month.
There
is
a
similar
rule
for
minimum
value,
to
the
extent
the
wellness
incentive
impacts
the
cost-sharing
structure
of
the
plan
(deductible,
coinsurance,
or
copayments).
Non-tobacco
wellness
programs
are
ignored
in
determining
the
plan's
cost
sharing,
which
impacts
the
determination
whether
the
plan
provides
minimum
value.
For
example,
if
a
plan
has
a
$2,000
deductible
but
provides
a
$500
reduction
for
participating
in
a
non-tobacco-related
wellness
plan,
the
plan
Continue Reading...
|
|
EEOC Provides Informal Wellness Plan Guidance
|
04/01/2013
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
One
of
the
murkier
issues
with
wellness
plans
is
the
manner
in
which
they
intersect
with
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act
(ADA).
I
discuss
some
of
the
background
on
the
issue here. A
recent
EEOC
letter
(here)
provides
an
"informal
discussion"
of
how
the
ADA
applies
to
a
particular
type
of
wellness
plan.
The
Plan.
The
wellness
plan
at
issue
waived
the
deductible
under
a
health
plan
for
participants
with
serious
medical
conditions
(e.g.,
diabetes)
who
enrolled
in
a
disease-management
program.
Although
the
wellness
program
did
not
expressly
require
participants
to
complete
a
health
risk
assessment,
the
EEOC
assumed
that
participants
needed
to
make
some
disclosure
about
their
health
status
to
their
employer
to
become
eligible
for
the
plan,
thereby
implicating
the
ADA.
Voluntariness. The
EEOC
reiterated
that,
because
a
wellness
plan
involves
an
employer
inquiry
into
an
employee's
medical
condition,
the
wellness
plan
must
be
voluntary.
A
plan
is
voluntary
so
long
as
participation
is
not
required
and
employees
who
choose
not
to
participate
are
not
penalized.
The
plan
in
this
case
did
not
penalize
non-participants,
but
it
did
provide
a
reward
(waiver
of
deductible)
for
participants.
The
EEOC
would
not
take
a
position
on
whether
the
availability
of
a
reward
renders
a
plan
involuntary.
Reasonable
Accommodation.
The
EEOC
also
noted
that
a
wellness
plan
generally
must
provide
a
reasonable
accommodation
to
individuals
who
are
unable
to
meet
the
required
outcomes
or
engage
in
required
activities
due
to
a
disability.
For
example,
if
a
plan
requires
a
participant
to
comply
with
a
recommended
Continue Reading...
|
|
Agencies Release Joint Proposed Regulation on Wellness Plans
|
12/03/2012
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
The
IRS,
DOL,
and
HHS
have
issued
a
joint
proposed
regulation
addressing
wellness
plans
and
the
wellness
exception
to
the
HIPAA
nondiscrimination
rules.
Background.
Section
2705
of
the
Public
Health
Service
Act,
as
added
by
the
Affordable
Care
Act,
provides
statutory
affirmation
of
the
wellness-plan
rules
that
have
existed
by
regulation
for
several
years
as
part
of
the
HIPAA
nondiscrimination
rules
(rules
that
prohibit,
among
other
things,
discrimination
on
the
basis
of
health
factors).
It
also
gives
the
relevant
governmental
agencies
(IRS,
DOL,
and
HHS)
express
authority
to
issue
further
rules
on
wellness
plans
that
increase
the
permissible
reward
or
penalty
to
as
much
as
50%
of
the
cost
of
associated
heath-plan
coverage.
Proposed
Regulations.
The
proposed
regulations
largely
follow
the
structure
of
the
existing
wellness-plan
regulations,
requiring,
among
other
things,
that
wellness
programs
requiring
a
particular
health
outcome
(e.g.,
smoking
cessation,
biometric
screening
results,
minimum
BMI,
etc.)
provide
reasonable
alternatives
and
limit
the
reward
or
penalty
offered
or
imposed
in
connection
with
the
plan.
However,
there
are
a
couple
of
points
worth
highlighting:
- Participation
v.
Health-Contingent.
The
proposed
regulations
label
wellness
programs
as
either
"participatory"
or
"health-contingent."
It
is
only
the
health-contingent
programs
that
are
subject
to
more
rigorous
regulation
under
the
proposed
rules.
Participatory
programs
include
fitness-club
memberships,
general
health
education,
and
other
similar
programs
that
do
not
provide
for
a
reward
or
include
any
conditions
based
on
satisfying
a
standard
related
to
a
health
factor.
- Size
of
Reward.
The
requirements
that
must
Continue Reading...
|
|
Court Rejects Challenge to Employer's Wellness Plan
|
09/08/2012
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
In
a
closely
watched
case,
a
federal
appeals
court
in
Atlanta
has
rejected
a
challenge
to
a
wellness
plan
maintained
by
Broward
County,
Florida
for
its
employees.
The
case
was
brought
by
a
former
employee,
who
claimed
the
wellness
plan
violated
the
ADA
by
improperly
requiring
employees
to
submit
to
medical
examinations.
As
background,
the
ADA
generally
prohibits
employers
from
requiring
employees
to
undergo
medical
examinations
or
otherwise
inquire
of
employees
whether
they
are
disabled.
But
purely
voluntary
medical
examinations
are
permitted
(as
are
bona
fide
fitness-for-duty
examinations),
and
the
ADA
expressly
allows
employers
to
establish,
sponsor,
observe,
or
administer
the
terms
of
a
bona
fide
benefit
plan
when
those
terms
are
based
on
underwriting
risks,
classifying
risks,
or
administering
risks.
This
latter
rule
is
sometimes
referred
to
as
an
underwriting
"safe
harbor"
under
the
ADA.
The
wellness
plan
in
this
case
was
fairly
typical.
Employees
participating
in
the
plan
were
subject
to
a
health-risk
assessment
and
a
biometric
screening
(a
finger
prick
for
cholesterol
and
glucose
testing).
Participation
was
not
required,
but
employees
who
did
not
participate
were
charged
an
extra
$20
per
pay
period
for
their
health-insurance
coverage.
The
court
concluded
the
plan
qualified
for
the
underwriting
safe
harbor
under
the
ADA
and
so
did
not
violate
the
ADA.
The
wellness
program
was
deemed
to
be
a
"term"
of
a
bona
fide
benefit
plan
(the
employer's
major-medical
plan),
even
though
there
was
no
written
document
for
the
wellness
program.
There
is
a
well-worn
axiom
that
bad
facts
make
bad
law.
This
Continue Reading...
|
|
Wellness Plans and Employee Genetic Information
|
07/27/2012
|
By: Jason Lacey
|
I
was
interviewed
for
and
quoted
in
an
article (subscription
required) in
today's
Wichita
Business
Journal
highlighting
the
risk
that
an
employer's
wellness
program
might
cross
the
line
and
result
in
the
collection
of
employee
genetic
information
in
violation
of
the
federal
Genetic
Information
Nondiscrimination
Act
(GINA).
The
article
is
short
and
so
does
not
get
into
the
nuances
of
what
is
permitted
and
what
is
not,
but
the
basic
point
is
a
good
one:
If
you're
asking
employees
to
fill
out
a
health
risk
assessment
or
similar
questionnaire,
you
need
to
be
thinking
about
the
GINA
requirements.
Here
are
some
specific
points
to
keep
in
mind:
- If
you're
using
a
vendor
to
run
your
wellness
program,
they
likely
will
understand
the
law,
but
it's
still
your
responsibility
to
make
sure
you're
in
compliance.
At
a
minimum,
you'll
want
to
review
(with
legal
counsel)
the
questionnaires
and
other
documents
employees
will
be
asked
to
complete
to
see
if
there
are
any
red
flags.
- Genetic
information,
as
defined
for
purposes
of
GINA,
is
broader
than
you
might
think.
Family
medical
history,
for
example,
is
considered
genetic
information.
- Although
the
safe
bet
is
to
simply
not
request
that
employees
provide
family
medical
history
or
other
genetic
information,
there
are
circumstances
when
it
can
be
ok.
In
general,
disclosures
in
connection
with
a
wellness
plan
that
are
entirely
voluntary
and
not
made
in
connection
with
health
insurance
enrollment
or
underwriting
are
permitted.
|
|
|
Authors
Don Berner, the Labor Law, OSHA, & Immigration Law Guy
Boyd Byers, the General Employment Law Guy
Jason Lacey, the Employee Benefits Guy
Additional Sources

|