Few people will have noticed new rules around corporate "health-contingent wellness programs" (emphases mine):
... The rules also give employers new freedom to reward employees who participate in workplace wellness programs intended to help them lower blood pressure, lose weight or reduce cholesterol levels. The maximum permissible reward would be increased to 30 percent of the cost of coverage, from the current 20 percent.
The rules would further increase the maximum reward to 50 percent for wellness programs intended to prevent or reduce tobacco use.
Rewards could amount to several thousand dollars a year, officials said, because total premiums in employer-sponsored health plans now average more than $5,600 a year for individual coverage and nearly $16,000 for family coverage...
The Hill's Healthwatch has more details. It is remarkable that CNBC can have a general freakout about an increase in marginal federal tax rates for persons earning over $250,000 a year, but say nothing about a program that costs middle-class workers $2,000-$3,000 a year.
Let us take a moment to contemplate this curious silence.
Yes, I said costs, because the money for these programs has to come from somewhere. In this case it comes out of take home pay - either as a direct benefit cost or as a reduction in future income. In some cases the money might come out of ACA mandated health insurance premium rebates ...
... while some employers are returning the money directly in paychecks, or planning “premium holidays” that increase take-home pay, others are weighing different options, benefits consultants said, like reducing next year’s premium, or spending the refund on so-called wellness programs that reward workers who lose weight or quit smoking.
Yeah, that's a bad sign.
In theory the money we're losing now might be offset by reduced healthcare costs over time, which might in theory reduce insurance costs and maybe one day the lost income might trickle back down again.
Right. That's not going to happen.
It is also possible that, regardless of impact on health care costs, and after considerable administrative overhead is deducted, these programs will make some workers healthier than they might otherwise be. In that sense they might be considered a form of social transfer; all employees pay for improved health habits for some employees.
That wouldn't be so bad - if we knew the programs worked. But we don't know that; these programs were launched with very little research. What little I could find showed some surprises ....
... while a reduction in employee health risks leads to immediate cost savings, the accumulation of additional health risks soon leads to substantially higher medical and pharmacy costs...
I don't know why corporations are so keen on these programs, but I suspect there are sound business reasons. They may not be obvious; I'm reminded that Walmart liked defined contribution plans because they discriminated against unhealthy (and costly) spouses. I have read that some states offer tax credits for the programs, and I assume that the $2,000 a year or so I'm paying for our corporate program is treated as a tax deductible health care benefit.
Which brings me to the GOP. They're looking to cut money from the ACA. Why not do something useful and ask about corporate wellness programs?
Right. I bet this is one of those things that made it into the ACA as a sop to the GOP...