Incentives for Nondiscriminatory Wellness Programs in Group Health Plans, 70619-70642 [2012-28361]
Download as PDF
Vol. 77
Monday,
No. 227
November 26, 2012
Part IV
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 54
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
29 CFR Part 2590
Department of Health and Human Services
45 CFR Parts 146 and 147
Incentives for Nondiscriminatory Wellness Programs in Group Health Plans;
Proposed Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
70620
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 54
[REG–122707–12]
RIN 1545–BL07
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
29 CFR Part 2590
RIN 1210–AB55
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
45 CFR Parts 146 and 147
[CMS–9979–P]
RIN 0938–AR48
Incentives for Nondiscriminatory
Wellness Programs in Group Health
Plans
Internal Revenue Service,
Department of the Treasury; Employee
Benefits Security Administration,
Department of Labor; Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Department of Health and Human
Services.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
This document proposes
amendments to regulations, consistent
with the Affordable Care Act, regarding
nondiscriminatory wellness programs in
group health coverage. Specifically,
these proposed regulations would
increase the maximum permissible
reward under a health-contingent
wellness program offered in connection
with a group health plan (and any
related health insurance coverage) from
20 percent to 30 percent of the cost of
coverage. The proposed regulations
would further increase the maximum
permissible reward to 50 percent for
wellness programs designed to prevent
or reduce tobacco use. These regulations
also include other proposed
clarifications regarding the reasonable
design of health-contingent wellness
programs and the reasonable
alternatives they must offer in order to
avoid prohibited discrimination.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
January 25, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted to the Department of Labor as
specified below. Any comment that is
submitted will be shared with the other
Departments and will also be made
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
available to the public. Warning: Do not
include any personally identifiable
information (such as name, address, or
other contact information) or
confidential business information that
you do not want publicly disclosed. All
comments may be posted on the Internet
and can be retrieved by most Internet
search engines. No deletions,
modifications, or redactions will be
made to the comments received, as they
are public records. Comments may be
submitted anonymously.
Comments, identified by ‘‘Wellness
Programs’’, may be submitted by one of
the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail or Hand Delivery: Office of
Health Plan Standards and Compliance
Assistance, Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Room N–5653, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210,
Attention: Wellness Programs.
Comments received will be posted
without change to www.regulations.gov
and www.dol.gov/ebsa, and available for
public inspection at the Public
Disclosure Room, N–1513, Employee
Benefits Security Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20210, including any personal
information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Turner or Beth Baum, Employee
Benefits Security Administration,
Department of Labor, at (202) 693–8335;
Karen Levin, Internal Revenue Service,
Department of the Treasury, at (202)
622–6080; or Jacob Ackerman, Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Department of Health and Human
Services, at (410) 786–1565.
Customer Service Information:
Individuals interested in obtaining
information from the Department of
Labor concerning employment-based
health coverage laws may call the EBSA
Toll-Free Hotline at 1–866–444–EBSA
(3272) or visit the Department of Labor’s
Web site (www.dol.gov/ebsa). In
addition, information from HHS on
private health insurance for consumers
can be found on the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Web site (www.cciio.cms.gov/) and
information on health reform can be
found at www.HealthCare.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Introduction
The Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, Public Law 111–148, was
enacted on March 23, 2010; the Health
Care and Education Reconciliation Act,
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Public Law 111–152, was enacted on
March 30, 2010 (these are collectively
known as the ‘‘Affordable Care Act’’).
The Affordable Care Act reorganizes,
amends, and adds to the provisions of
part A of title XXVII of the Public
Health Service Act (PHS Act) relating to
group health plans and health insurance
issuers in the group and individual
markets. The term ‘‘group health plan’’
includes both insured and self-insured
group health plans.1 The Affordable
Care Act adds section 715(a)(1) to the
Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) and section 9815(a)(1) to
the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) to
incorporate the provisions of part A of
title XXVII of the PHS Act into ERISA
and the Code, and to make them
applicable to group health plans and
health insurance issuers providing
health insurance coverage in connection
with group health plans. The PHS Act
sections incorporated by these
references are sections 2701 through
2728.
B. Wellness Exception to HIPAA
Nondiscrimination Provisions
Prior to the enactment of the
Affordable Care Act, Titles I and IV of
the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA),
Public Law 104–191, added section
9802 of the Code, section 702 of ERISA,
and section 2702 of the PHS Act
(HIPAA nondiscrimination and
wellness provisions). These provisions
generally prohibit group health plans
and group health insurance issuers from
discriminating against individual
participants and beneficiaries in
eligibility, benefits, or premiums based
on a health factor.2 An exception to the
general rule allows premium discounts
or rebates or modification to otherwise
applicable cost sharing (including
copayments, deductibles or
coinsurance) in return for adherence to
certain programs of health promotion
and disease prevention. The
Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services (HHS), and the
1 The term ‘‘group health plan’’ is used in title
XXVII of the PHS Act, part 7 of ERISA, and chapter
100 of the Code, and is distinct from the term
‘‘health plan,’’ as used in other provisions of title
I of the Affordable Care Act. The term ‘‘health plan’’
does not include self-insured group health plans.
2 The HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions set
forth eight health status-related factors, which the
December 13, 2006 final regulations on
nondiscrimination and wellness programs refer to
as ‘‘health factors.’’ Under HIPAA and the 2006
regulations, the eight health factors are health
status, medical condition (including both physical
and mental illnesses), claims experience, receipt of
health care, medical history, genetic information,
evidence of insurability (including conditions
arising out of acts of domestic violence), and
disability. See 66 FR 1379, January 8, 2001.
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Treasury (collectively, the Departments)
have implemented this exception by
allowing benefits (including cost
sharing), premiums, or contributions to
vary based on participation in a
wellness program if such a program
adheres to certain conditions set forth in
regulations.
The Departments published joint final
regulations on December 13, 2006 at 71
FR 75014 (the 2006 regulations)
regarding the HIPAA nondiscrimination
and wellness provisions.3 The 2006
regulations divide wellness programs
into two general categories. The first
category is programs that either do not
require an individual to meet a standard
related to a health factor in order to
obtain a reward or that do not offer a
reward at all (‘‘participatory wellness
programs’’). Participatory wellness
programs comply with the
nondiscrimination requirements
without having to satisfy any additional
standards if participation in the program
is made available to all similarly
situated individuals.4 Examples of
participatory wellness programs in the
2006 regulations include a fitness center
reimbursement program,5 a diagnostic
testing program that does not base any
reward on test outcomes, a program that
waives cost sharing for prenatal or wellbaby visits,6 a program that reimburses
3 See 26 CFR 54.9802–1; 29 CFR 2590.702; 45
CFR 146.121. Prior to issuance of the final 2006
regulations, the Departments published interim
final regulations with request for comment
implementing the HIPAA nondiscrimination
provisions on April 8, 1997 at 62 FR 16894,
followed by proposed regulations regarding
wellness programs on January 8, 2001 at 66 FR
1421.
4 See paragraph (f)(1) of the 2006 regulations. See
also 26 CFR 54.9802–1(d), 29 CFR 2590.702(d), and
45 CFR 146.121(d), which provide that, generally,
distinctions among groups of similarly situated
participants in a health plan must be based on bona
fide employment-based classifications consistent
with the employer’s usual business practice. A plan
may also distinguish between beneficiaries based
on, for example, their relationship to the plan
participant (such as spouse or dependent child) or
based on the age of dependent children.
Distinctions are not permitted to be based on any
of the health factors noted earlier.
5 The Treasury and the IRS note that satisfying the
rules for wellness programs does not determine the
tax treatment of benefits provided by the wellness
program. For example, fitness center fees are
generally considered expenses for general good
health and thus payment of the fee by the employer
is not excluded from income as the reimbursement
of a medical expense.
6 Note that section 2713 of the PHS Act, as added
by the Affordable Care Act, and the Departments’
interim final regulations at 26 CFR 54.9815–2713T,
29 CFR 2590.715–2713, and 45 CFR 147.130 require
non-grandfathered group health plans and health
insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered group
or individual health insurance coverage to provide
benefits for certain preventive health services
without the imposition of cost sharing. See also 26
CFR 54.9815–1251T, 29 CFR 2590.715–1251, and
45 CFR 147.140 (regarding the definition of
grandfathered health plan coverage).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
employees for the costs of smoking
cessation programs regardless of
whether the employee quits smoking,
and a program that provides rewards for
attending a free health education
seminar. There is no limit on the
financial incentives for participatory
wellness programs.
The second category of wellness
programs under the 2006 regulations
consists of programs that require
individuals to satisfy a standard related
to a health factor in order to obtain a
reward (‘‘health-contingent wellness
programs’’). This category includes
wellness programs that require an
individual to attain or maintain a
certain health outcome in order to
obtain a reward (such as not smoking,
attaining certain results on biometric
screenings, or meeting targets for
exercise). As outlined in the 2006
regulations,7 plans and issuers may vary
benefits (including cost-sharing
mechanisms), premiums, or
contributions based on whether an
individual has met the standards of a
wellness program that meets the
requirements of paragraph (f). Paragraph
(f)(2) of the 2006 regulations prescribes
the following consumer-protection
conditions for health-contingent
wellness programs:
1. The total reward for such wellness
programs offered by a plan sponsor does
not exceed 20 percent of the total cost
of coverage under the plan.
2. The program is reasonably designed
to promote health or prevent disease.
For this purpose, it must have a
reasonable chance of improving health
or preventing disease, not be overly
burdensome, not be a subterfuge for
discriminating based on a health factor,
and not be highly suspect in method.
3. The program gives eligible
individuals an opportunity to qualify for
the reward at least once per year.
4. The reward is available to all
similarly situated individuals. For this
purpose, a reasonable alternative
standard (or waiver of the otherwise
applicable standard) must be made
available to any individual for whom it
is unreasonably difficult due to a
medical condition to satisfy the
otherwise applicable standard during
that period (or for whom it is medically
inadvisable to attempt to satisfy the
otherwise applicable standard).
5. In all plan materials describing the
terms of the program, the availability of
a reasonable alternative standard (or the
possibility of waiver of the otherwise
applicable standard) is disclosed.
7 See 26 CFR 54.9802–1(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3); 29
CFR 2590.702(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3); and 45 CFR
146.121(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
70621
C. Amendments Made by the Affordable
Care Act
The Affordable Care Act (section
1201) amended the nondiscrimination
and wellness program provisions of the
PHS Act (but not of ERISA section 702
or Code section 9802). (Affordable Care
Act section 1201 also moved those
provisions from PHS Act section 2702 to
PHS Act section 2705). As amended by
the Affordable Care Act, the
nondiscrimination and wellness
provisions of PHS Act section 2705
largely reflect the 2006 regulations
(except as discussed later in this
preamble), and extend the
nondiscrimination protections to the
individual market.8 The wellness
program exception to the prohibition on
discrimination under PHS Act section
2705 applies with respect to group
health plans (and any health insurance
coverage offered in connection with
such plans). Section 2705(l) separately
provides for a 10-State wellness
program demonstration project in the
individual market, to be established not
later than July 1, 2014 (as such, this
proposed rule does not include wellness
program policy for the individual
market).
D. Application to Grandfathered Plans
Section 1251 of the Affordable Care
Act provides that certain amendments
made by the Affordable Care Act
generally do not apply to plans or health
insurance coverage that are in effect on
the date of enactment (and that are not
changed in ways specified in
implementing regulations),9 except as
specified in section 1251(a)(3) and (4) of
the Affordable Care Act. Specifically,
section 1251(a)(2) of the Affordable Care
Act provides that subtitles A and C of
title I of the Affordable Care Act, and
the amendments made by such subtitles,
‘‘shall not apply’’ to such grandfathered
health plans.
Because the amendments made to the
PHS Act in section 1201 of the
Affordable Care Act do not apply to
grandfathered health plans, the version
of PHS Act section 2702 in effect at the
time of enactment of the Affordable Care
Act (and the 2006 regulations under that
section) continues to apply to
8 Section 1201 of the Affordable Care Act also
moved the guaranteed availability provisions that
were previously codified in PHS Act section 2711
to PHS Act section 2702, and extended those
requirements to the individual market.
9 See 26 CFR 54.9815–1251T, 29 CFR 2590.715–
1251, and 45 CFR 147.140 (75 FR 34538, June 17,
2010), as amended (75 FR 70114, November 17,
2010). See also Q5 of Affordable Care Act
Implementation FAQs Part II (October 8, 2010),
available at http;//www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faqaca2.html and http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/
factsheets/aca_implementation_faqs2.html.
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
70622
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
grandfathered health plans, while the
provisions of the new PHS Act section
2705 apply to non-grandfathered health
plans for plan years (in the individual
market, policy years) beginning on or
after January 1, 2014.10 ERISA section
702 and Code section 9802 continue to
govern all group health plans, including
grandfathered health plans, and, for
plan years beginning on or after January
1, 2014, ERISA section 715(a)(1) and
Code section 9815(a)(1) will also apply
new PHS Act section 2705 to nongrandfathered health plans.
However, because the Departments
believe that the provisions of these
proposed regulations would be
authorized under either HIPAA or the
Affordable Care Act, the Departments
are proposing in this rulemaking to
apply the same set of standards to both
grandfathered and non-grandfathered
health plans. As noted, PHS Act section
2705(j) largely adopts the wellness
program provisions of the 2006
regulations with some modification and
clarification. Consistent with the
statutory approach, these proposed
regulations would apply the rules of
PHS Act section 2705, governing
rewards for adherence to certain
wellness programs, to grandfathered
health plans by regulation under
authority in the HIPAA
nondiscrimination and wellness
provisions as was done in the 2006
regulations. This approach is intended
to avoid inconsistency across group
health coverage and to provide
grandfathered plans the same flexibility
to promote health and prevent disease
as non-grandfathered plans.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
II. Overview of the Proposed Rule
These regulations generally propose
standards for group health plans and
health insurance issuers offering group
health insurance coverage with respect
to wellness programs. These proposed
regulations would replace the wellness
program provisions of paragraph (f) of
the 2006 regulations and would apply to
both grandfathered and nongrandfathered group health plans and
group health insurance coverage for
plan years beginning on or after January
1, 2014. These regulations also propose
to implement the nondiscrimination
provisions made applicable to the
individual market by section 1201 of the
10 See
26 CFR 54.9815–1251T(c)(2), 29 CFR
2590.715–1251(c)(2), and 45 CFR 147.140(c)(2),
providing that a grandfathered health plan must
comply with the requirements of the PHS Act,
ERISA, and the Code applicable prior to the
changes enacted by the Affordable Care Act, to the
extent not inconsistent with the rules applicable to
a grandfathered health plan (75 FR 34538, June 17,
2010).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
Affordable Care Act. This rulemaking
does not propose to modify provisions
of the 2006 regulations other than
paragraph (f).
A. Two Categories of Wellness Programs
Consistent with the 2006 regulations
and PHS Act section 2705(j), these
proposed regulations would continue to
divide wellness programs into two
categories: ‘‘Participatory wellness
programs’’, which are a majority of
wellness programs (as noted below) and
‘‘health-contingent wellness programs.’’
Participatory wellness programs are
programs that are made available to all
similarly situated individuals and that
either do not provide a reward or do not
include any conditions for obtaining a
reward that are based on an individual
satisfying a standard that is related to a
health factor. Several examples of
participatory wellness programs are
provided in these proposed regulations,
including: (1) A program that
reimburses for all or part of the cost of
membership in a fitness center; and (2)
a program that provides a reward to
employees for attending a monthly, nocost health education seminar.
Participatory programs are not required
to meet the five requirements applicable
to health-contingent wellness programs.
In contrast, health-contingent
wellness programs require an individual
to satisfy a standard related to a health
factor to obtain a reward (or require an
individual to do more than a similarly
situated individual based on a health
factor in order to obtain the same
reward). Like the 2006 regulations, these
proposed regulations would continue to
permit rewards to be in the form of a
discount or rebate of a premium or
contribution, a waiver of all or part of
a cost-sharing mechanism (such as
deductibles, copayments, or
coinsurance), the absence of a
surcharge, the value of a benefit that
otherwise would not be provided under
the plan, or other financial or
nonfinancial incentives or
disincentives. Examples of healthcontingent wellness programs in these
proposed regulations are: (1) A program
that imposes a premium surcharge
based on tobacco use; and (2) a program
that uses a biometric screening or a
health risk assessment to identify
employees with specified medical
conditions or risk factors (such as high
cholesterol, high blood pressure,
abnormal body mass index, or high
glucose level) and provides a reward to
employees identified as within a normal
or healthy range (or at low risk for
certain medical conditions), while
requiring employees who are identified
as outside the normal or healthy range
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(or at risk) to take additional steps (such
as meeting with a health coach, taking
a health or fitness course, adhering to a
health improvement action plan, or
complying with a health care provider’s
plan of care) to obtain the same reward.
Under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3) of
the 2006 regulations (which remain
unchanged),11 health-contingent
wellness programs are permissible only
if they comply with the provisions of
paragraph (f)(3), which are proposed to
be amended in this rulemaking.12
The Departments believe that
appropriately designed wellness
programs have the potential to
contribute importantly to promoting
health and preventing disease. Even
after the issuance of the 2006
regulations and the enactment of the
Affordable Care Act wellness
provisions, however, stakeholder
feedback suggests that there continues
to be a degree of confusion regarding the
scope of the rules governing wellness
programs. The Departments hope that
these proposed regulations will help
dispel the confusion by reiterating that
the five regulatory requirements relating
to frequency of opportunity to qualify,
size of reward, uniform availability and
reasonable alternative standards,
reasonable design, and notice of other
means of qualifying for the reward
(summarized below and contained in
paragraph (f)(3) of the proposed
regulations) apply only to those
wellness programs that meet the
definition of ‘‘health-contingent’’
programs. As discussed above, these are
wellness programs that both provide a
reward and condition the reward on
satisfying a standard that is related to a
health factor. Many wellness programs
(those characterized in these regulations
as ‘‘participatory wellness programs’’)
do not both provide a reward and
condition the reward on satisfying a
standard that is related to a health
factor. Accordingly, as noted,
participatory wellness programs are not
required to meet the five enumerated
requirements applicable to healthcontingent wellness programs, but they
are required to be made available to all
similarly situated individuals.
11 26 CFR 54.9802–1(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3); 29 CFR
2590.702(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3); and 45 CFR
146.121(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3).
12 Until these proposed regulations are finalized
and effective, the provisions of the 2006
regulations, at 26 CFR 54.9802–1(f), 29 CFR
2590.702(f), and 45 CFR 146.121(f) generally remain
applicable to group health plans and group health
insurance issuers.
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
B. Requirements for Health-Contingent
Wellness Programs
Consistent with the 2006 regulations,
these proposed regulations generally
would maintain the five requirements
for health-contingent wellness programs
with one significant modification
relating to the size of the reward. In
addition, several regulatory provisions
have been re-ordered, and clarifications
are proposed to address questions and
issues raised by stakeholders since the
2006 regulations were issued and to be
consistent with the amendments made
by the Affordable Care Act, as discussed
below.
(1) Frequency of Opportunity to
Qualify.
These proposed regulations would,
consistent with the 2006 regulations and
the amendments made by the Affordable
Care Act, require health-contingent
wellness programs to give individuals
eligible for the program the opportunity
to qualify for the reward at least once
per year. As stated in the preamble to
the 2006 regulations, the once-per-year
requirement was included as a brightline standard for determining the
minimum frequency that is consistent
with a reasonable design for promoting
good health or preventing disease.13
(2) Size of Reward.
Like the 2006 regulations, these
proposed regulations would continue to
limit the total amount of the reward for
health-contingent wellness programs
with respect to a plan, whether offered
alone or coupled with the reward for
other health-contingent wellness
programs. Specifically, the total reward
offered to an individual under an
employer’s health-contingent wellness
programs could not exceed a specified
percentage (referred to as the
‘‘applicable percentage’’ in the proposed
regulations) of the total cost of
employee-only coverage under the plan,
taking into account both employer and
employee contributions towards the cost
of coverage. If, in addition to employees,
any class of dependents (such as
spouses, or spouses and dependent
children) may participate in the healthcontingent wellness program, the
reward could not exceed the applicable
percentage of the total cost of the
coverage in which the employee and
any dependents are enrolled (such as
family coverage or employee-plus-one
coverage).
Some stakeholders have raised
questions about health-contingent
wellness programs that allow
dependents to participate, and what
portion of the reward should be
13 See
71 FR at 75018.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
attributable to each participating
dependent. If a class of dependents may
participate in a health-contingent
wellness program, some have suggested
that there be a maximum reward
attributable to the employee’s
participation in the wellness program,
such as an amount that does not exceed
the applicable percentage of the cost of
employee-only coverage. The proposed
regulation being issued
contemporaneously by HHS proposes
that, to comply with PHS Act section
2701, with respect to family coverage,
any premium variation for tobacco use
must be applied to the portion of
premium attributable to each family
member. The Departments invite
comments on apportionment of rewards
in health-contingent wellness programs
(which may involve tobacco use and/or
other health factors)—for example,
should the reward be prorated if only
one family member fails to qualify for it.
The 2006 regulations specify 20
percent as the maximum permissible
reward for participation in a healthcontingent wellness program. PHS Act
section 2705(j)(3)(A), effective for plan
years beginning on or after January 1,
2014, increases the maximum reward to
30 percent and authorizes the
Departments to increase the maximum
reward to as much as 50 percent if the
Departments determine that such an
increase is appropriate. In these
proposed regulations, the increase in the
applicable percentage from 20 percent
to 30 percent, which is effective for plan
years beginning on or after January 1,
2014, conforms to the new PHS Act
section 2705(j)(3)(A). In addition, the
Departments have determined that an
increase of an additional 20 percentage
points (to 50 percent) for healthcontingent wellness programs designed
to prevent or reduce tobacco use is
warranted to conform to the new PHS
Act section 2701, to avoid inconsistency
across group health coverage, whether
insured or self-insured, or offered in the
small group or large group market, and
to provide grandfathered plans the same
flexibility to promote health and
prevent disease as non-grandfathered
plans.
Specifically, PHS Act section 2701,
the ‘‘fair health insurance premium’’
provision, sets forth the factors that
issuers may use to vary premium rates
in the individual or small group
market.14 PHS Act section
14 Small group market means the health insurance
market under which individuals obtain health
insurance coverage (directly or through any
arrangement) on behalf of themselves (and their
dependents) through a group health plan
maintained by a small employer. See PHS Act
section 2791(e)(5); 45 CFR 144.103. For plan years
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
70623
2701(a)(1)(A)(iv) provides that issuers in
the individual and small group markets
cannot vary rates for tobacco use by
more than a ratio of 1.5 to 1 (that is,
allowing up to a 50 percent premium
surcharge for tobacco use).
Contemporaneously with the
publication of these proposed wellness
program regulations, HHS is publishing
a proposed regulation that would
implement PHS Act section 2701. HHS
proposes that a health insurance issuer
in the small group market would be able
to implement the tobacco use surcharge
under PHS Act section 2701 to
employees only in connection with a
wellness program meeting the standards
of PHS Act section 2705(j) and its
implementing regulations. As discussed
in the preamble to the proposed
regulation implementing PHS Act
section 2701, HHS is proposing in that
rule that the definition of ‘‘tobacco use’’
for purposes of section 2701 be
consistent with the approach taken with
respect to health-contingent wellness
programs designed to prevent or reduce
tobacco use under section 2705(j).
Comments are solicited in the preamble
to the proposed rules implementing
section 2701 on possible definitions of
‘‘tobacco use’’ that would be applied for
purposes of PHS Act sections 2701 and
2705(j).
To coordinate these proposed
regulations with the tobacco use rating
provisions of PHS Act section 2701, as
proposed by HHS, these proposed
wellness program regulations would use
the new authority in PHS Act section
2705(j)(3)(A) (and, with respect to
grandfathered health plans, the
preexisting authority in the HIPAA
nondiscrimination and wellness
provisions) to increase the applicable
percentage for determining the size of
the reward for participating in a healthcontingent wellness program by an
additional 20 percentage points (to 50
percent) to the extent that the additional
percentage is attributed to tobacco use
prevention or reduction. Applying these
proposed regulations to all group health
plans would provide consistency across
markets, giving large, self-insured, and
grandfathered employment-based health
beginning on or after January 1, 2014, amendments
made by the Affordable Care Act provide that the
term ‘‘small employer’’ means, in connection with
a group health plan with respect to a calendar year
and a plan year, an employer who employed an
average of at least 1 but not more than 100
employees on business days during the preceding
calendar year and who employs at least 1 employee
on the first day of the plan year. See PHS Act
section 2791(e)(4). In the case of plan years
beginning before January 1, 2016, a State may elect
to substitute ‘‘50 employees’’ for ‘‘100 employees’’
in its definition of a small employer. See section
1304(b)(3) of the Affordable Care Act.
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
70624
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
plans the same added flexibility to
promote tobacco-free workforces as
small, insured, non-grandfathered
health plans.
Examples included in these proposed
regulations illustrate how to calculate
the applicable percentage. The
Departments invite comments on the
proposed approach in general and other
ideas for coordinating the
implementation of the tobacco rating
factor under PHS Act section 2701 with
the nondiscrimination and wellness
program provisions. The Departments
also invite comments as to whether
additional rules or examples would be
helpful to demonstrate compliance with
the limitation on the size of the reward
when the amount of the reward is
variable and is not determinable at the
time the reward is established (for
example, when the reward is waiver of
a copayment for outpatient office visits,
the frequency of which will not be
predictable for any particular
participant or beneficiary under the
plan).
(3) Uniform Availability and
Reasonable Alternative Standards.
A critical element of these proposed
regulations is the requirement that the
reward under a health-contingent
wellness program be available to all
similarly situated individuals. To meet
this requirement, a ‘‘reasonable
alternative standard’’ (or waiver of the
otherwise applicable standard) for
obtaining the reward must be provided
for any individual for whom, for that
period, it is either unreasonably difficult
due to a medical condition to meet the
otherwise applicable standard, or for
whom it is medically inadvisable to
attempt to satisfy the otherwise
applicable standard. That is, the same,
full reward must be available to
individuals who qualify by satisfying a
reasonable alternative standard as is
provided to individuals who qualify by
satisfying the program’s otherwise
applicable standard. These proposed
regulations would generally reiterate the
requirements set forth in the 2006
regulations and codified in PHS Act
section 2705(j), and provide several
additional clarifications.
First, under these proposed
regulations, as under the 2006
regulations, in lieu of providing a
reasonable alternative standard, a plan
or issuer may always waive the
otherwise applicable standard and
provide the reward. The plan or issuer
may waive the otherwise applicable
standard and provide a reward for an
entire class of individuals or may do so
on an individual-by-individual basis
based on the facts and circumstances
presented.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
Second, these proposed regulations
would not require plans and issuers to
establish a particular alternative
standard in advance of an individual’s
specific request for one. However, a
reasonable alternative standard would
have to be provided by the plan or
issuer (or the condition for obtaining the
reward would be required to be waived)
upon an individual’s request. In this
connection, the Departments note that,
as stated in the preamble to the 2006
regulations with respect to tobacco
cessation, ‘‘overcoming an addiction
sometimes requires a cycle of failure
and renewed effort.’’ 15 Plans and
issuers cannot cease to provide a
reasonable alternative standard merely
because one was not successful before;
they must continue to offer a reasonable
alternative standard, whether it is the
same standard or a new reasonable
alternative standard (such as a new
weight-loss class or a new nicotine
replacement therapy).16
All the facts and circumstances would
be taken into account in determining
whether a plan or issuer has provided
a reasonable alternative standard,
including but not limited to the
following proposed factors:
• If the reasonable alternative
standard is completion of an
educational program, the plan or issuer
must make the educational program
available instead of requiring an
individual to find such a program
unassisted, and may not require an
individual to pay for the cost of the
program.
• If the reasonable alternative
standard is a diet program, the plan or
issuer is not required to pay for the cost
of food but must pay any membership
or participation fee.
• If the reasonable alternative
standard is compliance with the
recommendations of a medical
professional who is an employee or
agent of the plan or issuer, and an
individual’s personal physician states
that the medical professional’s
recommendations are not medically
appropriate for that individual, the plan
or issuer must provide a reasonable
alternative standard that accommodates
the recommendations of the individual’s
physician with regard to medical
appropriateness.17 Plans and issuers
15 See
71 FR 75019.
16 Id.
17 As stated in the preamble to the Departments’
regulations on internal claims and appeals and
external review processes, adverse benefit
determinations based on whether a participant or
beneficiary is entitled to a reasonable alternative
standard for a reward under a plan’s wellness
program are situations in which a claim is
considered to involve medical judgment and
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
may impose standard cost sharing under
the plan or coverage for medical items
and services furnished in accordance
with the physician’s recommendations.
The Departments intend that these
clarifications with respect to offering
reasonable alternative standards will
help prevent health-contingent wellness
programs that provide little to no
support to enrollees to improve
individuals’ health. In addition, as
explained later in this preamble,
clarifications are proposed to ensure
that a health-contingent wellness
program is reasonably designed to
improve health and is not a subterfuge
for underwriting or reducing benefits
based on health status. Comments are
invited on these provisions, as well as
whether other facts and circumstances
should be specifically addressed. For
example, the Departments seek
comment on whether any additional
rules or clarifications are needed with
respect to the process for determining a
reasonable alternative standard.
Finally, the 2006 regulations provided
that it is permissible for a plan or issuer
to seek verification, such as a statement
from the individual’s personal
physician, that a health factor makes it
unreasonably difficult for the individual
to satisfy, or medically inadvisable for
the individual to attempt to satisfy, the
otherwise applicable standard. The
Affordable Care Act amendments
codified this provision with one
modification: PHS Act section
2705(j)(3)(D)(ii) makes clear that
physician verification may be required
by a plan or issuer ‘‘if reasonable under
the circumstances.’’ These proposed
regulations clarify that it would not be
reasonable for a plan or issuer to seek
verification of a claim that is obviously
valid based on the nature of the
individual’s medical condition that is
known to the plan or issuer. Plans and
issuers are permitted under the
proposed regulations to seek verification
of claims that require the use of medical
judgment to evaluate. The Departments
solicit comments on whether additional
clarifications would be helpful
regarding the reasonableness of
physician verification.
(4) Reasonable Design.
Consistent with the 2006 regulations
and PHS Act section 2705(j), these
proposed regulations would continue to
require that health-contingent wellness
programs be reasonably designed to
promote health or prevent disease, not
be overly burdensome, not be a
subterfuge for discrimination based on a
health factor, and not be highly suspect
therefore is eligible for Federal external review. See
76 FR 37216.
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
in the method chosen to promote health
or prevent disease. The preamble to the
2006 regulations stated that the
‘‘reasonably designed’’ standard was
designed to prevent abuse, but
otherwise was ‘‘intended to be an easy
standard to satisfy * * *. There does not
need to be a scientific record that the
method promotes wellness to satisfy
this standard. The standard is intended
to allow experimentation in diverse
ways of promoting wellness.’’ 18 The
preamble also stated that the
Departments did not ‘‘want plans and
issuers to be constrained by a narrow
range of programs * * * but want plans
and issuers to feel free to consider
innovative programs for motivating
individuals to make efforts to improve
their health.’’ 19 These proposed
regulations would continue to provide
plans and issuers flexibility and
encourage innovation. Also, as
discussed later in this preamble, the
regulations include several clarifications
to ensure against subterfuge and
discrimination. Comments are welcome
on whether certain standards, including
evidence- or practice-based standards,
are needed to ensure that wellness
programs are reasonably designed to
promote health or prevent disease. The
Departments also welcome comments
on best practices guidance regarding
evidence- and practice-based strategies
in order to increase the likelihood of
wellness program success. Resources for
employers and plans include the
Healthier Worksite Initiative of the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) at http://
www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/hwi/.
Under the proposed regulations, the
determination of whether a healthcontingent wellness program is
reasonably designed is based on all the
relevant facts and circumstances. To
ensure that programs are not a
subterfuge for discrimination or
underwriting based on health factors
such as weight, blood pressure, glucose
levels, cholesterol levels, or tobacco use
with no or insufficient support to
improve individuals’ health, the
Departments propose that, to the extent
a plan’s initial standard for obtaining a
reward (or a portion of a reward) is
based on results of a measurement, test,
or screening that is related to a health
factor (such as a biometric examination
or a health risk assessment), the plan is
not reasonably designed unless it makes
available to all individuals who do not
meet the standard based on the
measurement, test, or screening a
different, reasonable means of
18 71
19 71
FR 75018.
FR 75019.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
qualifying for the reward. Accordingly,
the general approach that was adopted
in the 2006 regulations is preserved,
which allows plans and issuers to
conduct screenings and employ
measurement techniques in order to
target wellness programs effectively. For
example, plans and issuers could target
individuals with high cholesterol for
participation in cholesterol reduction
programs, or individuals who use
tobacco for participation in tobacco
cessation programs, rather than the
entire population of participants and
beneficiaries if individuals who do not
meet a plan’s target biometrics (or
similar standards) are provided a
different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the same reward. The
Departments invite comments on this
approach, including on ways to ensure
that employees will not be subjected to
an unreasonable ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’
approach to designing the different
means of qualifying for the reward that
would fail to take an employee’s
circumstances into account to the extent
that, as a practical matter, they would
make it unreasonably difficult for the
employee to access those different
means of qualifying. Comments also are
invited on whether any other consumer
protections are needed to ensure that
wellness programs are reasonably
designed to promote health or prevent
disease.
(5) Notice of Other Means of
Qualifying for the Reward.
These proposed regulations,
consistent with the 2006 regulations and
the amendments made by the Affordable
Care Act, would require plans and
issuers to disclose the availability of
other means of qualifying for the reward
or the possibility of waiver of the
otherwise applicable standard in all
plan materials describing the terms of a
health-contingent wellness program. If
plan materials merely mention that a
program is available, without describing
its terms, this disclosure is not required.
For example, a summary of benefits and
coverage (SBC) required under section
2715 of the PHS Act that notes that cost
sharing may vary based on participation
in a diabetes wellness program, without
describing the standards of the program,
would not trigger this disclosure.
The 2006 regulations provided sample
language that could be used to satisfy
this requirement in both the regulatory
text and in several examples. However,
feedback and experience since the 2006
regulations were published have
indicated that the sample language was
complicated and confusing to some
individuals and may have led fewer
individuals to seek a reasonable
alternative standard than were eligible.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
70625
Accordingly, these proposed regulations
provide new sample language in the
regulatory text and in examples that is
intended to be simpler for individuals to
understand and to increase the
likelihood that those who qualify for a
different means of obtaining a reward
will contact the plan or issuer to request
it. The Departments invite comment on
the sample language in both the
regulatory text and in the examples.
C. Application to the Individual Health
Insurance Market
PHS Act sections 2705(a) and (b), as
added by section 1201 of the Affordable
Care Act, apply the HIPAA
nondiscrimination requirements to
health insurance issuers in the
individual health insurance market.
Accordingly, the HHS proposed
regulations include a new § 147.110
which applies the nondiscrimination
protections of the 2006 regulations to
non-grandfathered, individual health
insurance coverage, effective for policy
years beginning on or after January 1,
2014. By their terms, the wellness
program provisions of PHS Act section
2705(j), however, do not apply to health
insurance coverage in the individual
market. Accordingly, the wellness
program provisions of § 146.121(f) apply
only to group health plans and group
health insurance coverage, not
individual market coverage.
D. Applicability Date
These proposed regulations would
apply for plan years (in the individual
market, policy years) beginning on or
after January 1, 2014, consistent with
the statutory effective date of PHS Act
section 2705, as well as PHS Act section
2701. Comments are invited on this
proposed applicability date.
III. Economic Impact and Paperwork
Burden
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563—
Department of Labor and Department of
Health and Human Services
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects; distributive impacts; and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
determined that this proposed rule is a
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
70626
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866,
because it raises novel legal or policy
issues arising from the President’s
priorities. Accordingly, the rule has
been reviewed by the OMB.
TABLE 1—Accounting Table
Benefits ................................
Costs ....................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Transfers ..............................
Quantified: Minimal due to low expected use of higher reward limits.
Qualitative: Benefits include the ability to increase the reward based on a health factor to incentivize individuals to
meet a health standard associated with improved health, which could reduce health care costs. Improved
standards could reduce the use of wellness programs as a subterfuge for discrimination based on a health factor.
Quantified: Minimal since employers are expected to create or expand wellness programs only if the expected
benefit exceeds the cost as well as due to low expected use of higher reward limits.
Qualitative: Costs of the rule include clarifications regarding what costs individuals may pay as part of an alternative means of complying with the health standard. To the extent an individual faces an increased cost for not
meeting a health standard, the individual would have reduced resources to use for other purposes.
Quantified: Minimal due to low expected use of higher reward limits.
Qualitative: Transfers resulting from the rule include transfers from those who do not meet a health standard to
those who do meet the standard or the associated alternative standard.
Based on the Departments’ review of
the most recent literature and studies
regarding wellness programs, the
Departments reached the conclusion
that the impact of the benefits, costs,
and transfers associated with the
proposed rules will be minimal. As
discussed in this analysis, few healthcontingent wellness programs today
come close to meeting the 20 percent
limit (based on the data, the usual
reward percentage ranges from three to
11 percent); therefore, the Departments
do not believe that expanding the limit
to 30 percent (or 50 percent for
programs designed to prevent or reduce
tobacco use) will result in significantly
higher participation of employers in
such programs. The Departments
provide a qualitative discussion below
and cite the survey data used to
substantiate this conclusion. Moreover,
most wellness programs appear to be
participatory programs that do not
require an individual to meet a standard
related to a health factor in order to
obtain a reward. As stated earlier in this
preamble, these participatory wellness
programs are not required to meet the
five requirements that apply to healthcontingent wellness programs, but they
are required to be made available to all
similarly situated individuals.
Although the Departments believe few
plans will expand the reward
percentage, the Departments provide a
qualitative discussion regarding the
sources of benefits, costs, and transfers
that could occur if plans were to expand
the reward beyond the current
maximum of 20 percent. Currently,
insufficient broad-based evidence makes
it difficult to definitively assess the
impact of workplace wellness programs
on health outcomes and cost, although,
overall, employers largely report that
workplace wellness programs in general
(participatory programs and healthcontingent programs) are delivering on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
their intended benefit of improving
health and reducing costs.
The one source of potential additional
cost discussed in the impact analysis is
the clarification that plans must provide
a reasonable alternative means of
satisfying the otherwise applicable
standard. The Departments present
evidence that currently employers not
only allow a reasonable alternative
standard, but that most employers
already pay for these alternatives. The
Departments do not have an estimate of
how many plans are not currently
paying for alternatives consistent with
the clarifications set forth in the
proposed regulations, but the number
appears to be small. The Departments
also employ economic logic to conclude
that employers will create or expand
their wellness program and provide
reasonable alternatives only if the
expected benefits exceed the expected
costs. Therefore, the Departments
believe that the benefits of the proposed
rule will justify the costs. The
Departments invite comments on these
conclusions and request input for
improving the analysis, including
additional data, surveys, or studies.
B. Background and Need for Regulatory
Action—Department of Labor and
Department of Health and Human
Services
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
on December 13, 2006, the Departments
issued joint final regulations regarding
the HIPAA nondiscrimination and
wellness provisions. The 2006
regulations set forth the requirements
for wellness programs that provide a
reward to individuals who satisfy a
standard related to a health factor or
provide a reward to individuals to do
more than a similarly situated
individual based on a health factor. See
section I.B. of this preamble for a
detailed discussion of the HIPAA
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
nondiscrimination and wellness
provisions and the 2006 regulations.
PHS Act section 2705 largely reflects
the provisions of the 2006 regulations
with some modification and
clarification. Most notably, it increased
the maximum reward that can be
provided under a health-contingent
wellness program from 20 percent to 30
percent of the total cost of coverage
under the plan and authorized the
Departments to increase this percentage
to as much as 50 percent of the total cost
of coverage under the plan, if the
Departments determine that such an
increase is appropriate. Accordingly, as
discussed in section II.B of this
preamble, these proposed regulations
increase the applicable percentage for
the maximum reward from 20 percent to
30 percent, with an additional increase
of 20 percentage points (to 50 percent)
for health-contingent wellness programs
designed to prevent or reduce tobacco
use. The additional increase is
warranted to conform to PHS Act
section 2701, to avoid inconsistency
across group health coverage, whether
insured or self-insured, or offered in the
small group or large group market, and
to provide grandfathered plans the same
flexibility to promote health and
prevent disease as non-grandfathered
plans.20
C. Regulatory Alternatives—Department
of Labor and Department of Health and
Human Services
As stated earlier in this preamble, the
2006 regulations prescribed several
requirements for health-contingent
wellness programs, including a
limitation on the maximum reward of
20 percent of the total cost of coverage
20 For a discussion of PHS Act section 2701 and
the HHS proposed regulation being published
contemporaneously with these proposed
regulations, see section II.B.2. of this preamble.
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
under the plan.21 PHS Act section 2705
largely reflects the requirements for
wellness programs from the 2006
regulations with some modification and
clarification. Most notably, it increased
the maximum reward that can be
provided under a health-contingent
wellness program from 20 percent to 30
percent of the total cost of coverage
under the plan and authorized the
Departments to increase this percentage
to as much as 50 percent, if the
Departments determine that such an
increase is appropriate.
PHS Act section 2701(a)(1)(A)(iv)
provides that issuers in the individual
and small group markets cannot vary
rates for tobacco use by more than a
ratio of 1.5 to 1 (that is, allowing up to
a 50 percent rating factor for tobacco
use) for non-grandfathered plans. PHS
Act section 2701 applies to the
individual market and the small group
market, but does not apply in the large
group market or to self-insured plans.
Contemporaneously with the
publication of these proposed
regulations, HHS is publishing a
proposed rule that would provide that
an issuer in the small group market
would not be able to impose the tobacco
rating factor on an individual in the
plan under PHS Act section 2701 unless
it was imposed as part of a wellness
program meeting the standards of PHS
Act section 2705(j) and its
implementing regulations.
An important policy goal of the
Departments is to provide the large
group market and self-insured plans and
grandfathered health plans with the
same flexibility as non-grandfathered
plans in the small group market to
promote tobacco-free workforces. The
Departments considered several
regulatory alternatives to meet this
objective, including the following:
(1) Stacking premium differentials.
One alternative considered was to
permit a 50 percent premium
differential for tobacco use in the small
group market under PHS Act section
2701 without requiring a reasonable
alternative standard. Under PHS Act
section 2705, an additional 30 percent
premium differential would also be
permitted if the five criteria for a healthcontingent wellness program are met
(including the offering of a reasonable
alternative standard). Under this option,
an 80 percent premium differential
would have been allowable in the small
group market based on factors related to
health status. Large and self-insured
plans would have been limited to the 30
percent maximum reward. Allowing
such a substantial difference between
21 See
section I.B, earlier in this preamble.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
what was permissible in the small group
market and the large group market was
not in line with the Departments’ policy
goal of providing consistency in
flexibility for plans.
(2) Concurrent premium differentials
with no reasonable alternative required
to be offered for tobacco use. Another
alternative would be to read sections
2701 and 2705 together such that, for
non-grandfathered health plans in the
small group market, up to a 50 percent
premium differential would be
permitted based on tobacco use, as
authorized under PHS Act section
2701(a)(1)(A)(iv), with no reasonable
alternative standard required for the
tobacco use program. With respect to
non-tobacco-related wellness programs,
a reward could be offered only to the
extent that a tobacco use wellness
program were less than 30 percent of the
cost of coverage because the two
provisions apply concurrently, and a
reward would not be permitted under
PHS Act section 2705 if the maximum
reward already were exceeded by virtue
of PHS Act section 2701. Thus, the 50
percent tobacco surcharge under PHS
Act section 2701 would be available
only to non-grandfathered, insured,
small group plans. The chosen approach
is intended to avoid inconsistency and
to provide grandfathered plans the same
flexibility to promote health and
prevent disease as non-grandfathered
plans.
D. Current Use of Wellness Programs
and Economic Impacts—Department of
Labor and Department of Health and
Human Services
The current use of wellness programs
and economic impacts of these
proposed regulations are discussed in
this analysis.
Wellness programs 22 have become
common among employers in the
United States. The 2012 Kaiser/HRET
survey indicates that 63 percent of all
employers who offered health benefits
also offered at least one wellness
program.23 The uptake of wellness
programs continues to be more common
among large employers. For example,
the 2012 Kaiser/HRET survey found that
health risk assessments are offered by 38
percent of large employers offering
22 On
behalf of the Departments, RAND
researchers did a review of the current literature on
this topic. ‘‘A Review of the U.S. Workplace
Wellness Market’’ February 2012. The report can be
found at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/workplace
wellnessmarketreview2012.pdf.
23 Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health
Benefits: 2011 Annual Survey. 2011, The Kaiser
Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA; Health
Research & Educational Trust, Chicago, IL.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
70627
health benefits, but only 18 percent of
employers with fewer than 200 workers.
The Kaiser/HRET survey indicates
that 29 percent of all firms and 53
percent of large firms offered weight
loss programs, while 30 percent and 64
percent, respectively, offered gym
memberships or on-site exercise
facilities. Meanwhile, 32 percent of all
employers and 63 percent of large
employers offered smoking cessation
resources. Despite widespread
availability, actual participation of
employees in wellness programs
remains limited. While no nationally
representative data exist, a 2010 nonrepresentative survey suggests that
typically less than 20 percent of eligible
employees participate in wellness
interventions such as smoking
cessation.24
Currently, insufficient broad-based
evidence makes it difficult to
definitively assess the impact of
workplace wellness on health outcomes
and cost. Yet, overall, employers largely
report that workplace wellness
programs are delivering on their
intended benefit of improving health
and reducing costs. According to the
2011 Kaiser/HRET survey, 65 percent of
respondents that offered wellness
programs stated that these programs
improved employee health, and 53
percent believed that they reduced
costs. Larger firms (defined as those
with more than 200 workers in the
Kaiser/HRET survey) were significantly
more positive, as 74 percent affirmed
that workplace wellness programs
improved health and 65 percent said
that it reduced cost, as opposed to 65
percent and 52 percent, respectively,
among smaller firms.25 Forty percent of
respondents to a survey by Buck
Consultants indicated that they had
measured the impact of their wellness
program on the growth trend of their
health care costs, and of these, 45
percent reported a reduction in that
growth trend. The majority of these
employers, 61 percent, reported that the
reduction in growth trend of their health
care costs was between two and five
percentage points per year.26 There are
numerous accounts of the positive
impact of workplace wellness programs
in many industries, regions, and types
of employers. For example, a recent
24 Nyce, S. Boosting Wellness Participation
Without Breaking the Bank. TowersWatson Insider.
July, 2010:1–9.
25 Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health
Benefits: 2010 Annual Survey. 2010, The Kaiser
Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA; Health
Research & Educational Trust, Chicago, IL.
26 Buck Consultants, Working Well: A Global
Survey of Health Promotion and Workplace
Wellness Strategies. 2010, Buck Consultants: San
Francisco, CA.
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
70628
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
article published by the Harvard
Business Review cited positive
outcomes reported by private-sector
employers along several different
dimensions, including health care
savings, reduced absenteeism, and
employee satisfaction.27
Several studies that looked at the
impact of smoking cessation programs
found significantly higher quit rates or
less tobacco use.28 29 Smoking cessation
programs typically offered education
and counseling to increase social
support.30 Two studies reported that
individuals in the intervention group
quit smoking at a rate approximately 10
percentage points higher than those in
the control group, and another reported
that participants were almost four times
as likely as nonparticipants to reduce
tobacco use.31 32 However, these effects
should be interpreted with caution. One
study showed significant differences in
smoking rates at a one-month follow-up,
but showed no significant differences in
quit rates at six months, highlighting the
importance of long-term follow-up to
27 Berry, L., A. Mirabito, and W. Baun, What’s the
Hard Return on Employee Wellness Programs?
Harvard Business Review, 2010. 88(12): p. 104.
28 Heirich, M. and C.J. Sieck, Worksite
cardiovascular wellness programs as a route to
substance abuse prevention. J Occup Environ Med,
2000. 42(1): p. 47–56; 40; McMahon, S.D. and L.A.
Jason, Social support in a worksite smoking
intervention. A test of theoretical models. Behav
Modif, 2000. 24(2): p. 184–201; Okechukwu, C.A.,
et al., MassBuilt: Effectiveness of an apprenticeship
site-based smoking cessation intervention for
unionized building trades workers. Cancer Causes
Control, 2009. 20(6): p. 887–94; Sorensen, G., et al.,
A comprehensive worksite cancer prevention
intervention: Behavior change results from a
randomized controlled trial (United States). J Public
Health Policy, 2003. 24(1): p. 5–25.
29 Gold, D.B., D.R. Anderson, and S.A. Serxner,
Impact of a telephone-based intervention on the
reduction of health risks. Am J Health Promot,
2000. 15(2): p. 97–106; Herman, C.W., et al.,
Effectiveness of an incentive-based online physical
activity intervention on employee health status.
Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 2006. 48(9): p. 889–895; Ozminkowski,
R.J., et al., The impact of the Citibank, NA, health
management program on changes in employee
health risks over time. J Occup Environ Med, 2000.
42(5): p. 502–11.
30 Heirich, M. and C.J. Sieck, Worksite
cardiovascular wellness programs as a route to
substance abuse prevention. J Occup Environ Med,
2000. 42(1): p. 47–56; McMahon, S.D. and L.A.
Jason, Social support in a worksite smoking
intervention. A test of theoretical models. Behav
Modif, 2000. 24(2): p. 184–201.
31 Heirich, M. and C.J. Sieck, Worksite
cardiovascular wellness programs as a route to
substance abuse prevention. J Occup Environ Med,
2000. 42(1): p. 47–56; Okechukwu, C.A., et al.,
MassBuilt: Effectiveness of an apprenticeship sitebased smoking cessation intervention for unionized
building trades workers. Cancer Causes Control,
2009. 20(6): p. 887–94.
32 In the study, 42% of participants reduced their
risk for tobacco use. See Gold, D.B., D.R. Anderson,
and S.A. Serxner, Impact of a telephone-based
intervention on the reduction of health risks. Am
J Health Promot, 2000. 15(2): p. 97–106.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
investigate the sustainability of
results.33
While employer sponsors generally
are satisfied with the results, more than
half stated in a recent survey that they
do not know their programs’ return on
investment.34 The peer-reviewed
literature, while predominantly
positive, covers only a small proportion
of the universe of programs, limiting the
generalizability of the reported findings.
Evaluating such complex interventions
is difficult and poses substantial
methodological challenges that can
invalidate findings.
Overall, surveys suggest that a
relatively small percentage of employers
use incentives, dollar or otherwise, for
wellness programs, although incentive
use is more prevalent among larger
employers. Data from the 2011 Kaiser/
HRET Survey of Employer Health
Benefits indicate that 14 percent of all
employers offered cash, gift cards,
merchandise, or travel as incentives for
wellness program participation. Among
large firms (greater than 200 workers),
only 27 percent offered these kinds of
incentives. Mercer Consulting’s 2009
National Survey of Employer-Sponsored
Health Plans found similar patterns,
estimating that six percent of all firms
and 21 percent of those with 500 or
more employees provided financial
incentives for participating in at least
one program.35 Employers are also
looking to continue to add incentives to
their wellness programs, for example 17
percent intend to add a reward or
penalty based on tobacco-use status.36
The use of incentives to promote
employee engagement remains poorly
understood, so it is not clear how type
(e.g., cash or non-cash), direction
(reward versus penalty), and strength of
incentive are related to employee
engagement and outcomes. The Health
Enhancement Research Organization
and associated organizations also
recognized this deficiency and provided
seven questions for future research.37
33 Kechukwu, C.A., et al., MassBuilt:
Effectiveness of an apprenticeship site-based
smoking cessation intervention for unionized
building trades workers. Cancer Causes Control,
2009. 20(6): p. 887–94.
34 Buck Consultants, Working Well: A Global
Survey of Health Promotion and Workplace
Wellness Strategies. 2010, Buck Consultants: San
Francisco, CA.
35 Mercer, National Survey of EmployerSponsored Health Plans: 2009 Survey Report. 2010,
Mercer.
36 ‘‘Employer Survey on Purchasing Value in
Health Care,’’ 17th Annual Towers Watson/National
Business Group on Health Employer Survey on
Purchasing Value in Health Care.
37 ‘‘Guidance for a Reasonably Designed,
Employer-Sponsored Wellness Program Using
Outcomes-Based Incentives,’’ joint consensus
statement of the Health Enhancement Research
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
There are also no data on potential
unintended effects, such as
discrimination against employees based
on their health or health behaviors.
Currently, the most commonly
incentivized program appears to be
associated with completion of a health
risk assessment. According to the 2009
Mercer survey, 10 percent of all firms
and 23 percent of large employers that
offered a health risk assessment
provided an incentive for completing
the assessment. For other types of health
management programs that the survey
assessed, only two to four percent of all
employers and 13 to 19 percent of large
employers offered incentives.38 The
2011 Kaiser/HRET survey found that 10
percent of all employers and 42 percent
of large firms that offered a health risk
assessment provided a financial
incentive to employees who completed
it.
Incentives are offered in a variety of
forms, such as cash, gift cards,
merchandise, time off, awards,
recognition, raffles or lotteries, reduced
health plan premiums and co-pays, and
contributions to flexible spending or
health savings accounts. As noted
previously, the Kaiser/HRET 2011
survey reported that among firms
offering health benefits with more than
200 workers, 27 percent offered cash or
cash equivalent incentives (including
gift cards, merchandise, or travel
incentives). In addition, 11 percent of
these firms offered lower employee
health plan premiums to wellness
participants, two percent offered lower
deductibles, and 11 percent offered
higher health reimbursement account or
health savings account contributions.
Meanwhile, 13 percent of firms with
fewer than 200 workers offered cash or
equivalent incentives, and each of the
other types of incentives were offered by
only two percent or less of firms.
Cash and cash-equivalent incentives
remain the most popular incentive for
completion of a health risk assessment.
The Kaiser/HRET 2011 survey reports
that among employers incentivizing
completion of a health risk assessment,
41 percent offered cash, gift cards,
merchandise or travel, 23 percent
allowed workers to pay a smaller
proportion of premiums, 12 percent
offered lower deductibles, and one
percent offered lower coinsurance.
Among large employers, 57 percent
Organization, American College of Occupational
and Environmental Medicine, American Cancer
Society and American Cancer Society Cancer
Action Network, American Diabetes Association,
and American Heart Association.
38 Mercer, National Survey of EmployerSponsored Health Plans: 2009 Survey Report. 2010,
Mercer.
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
utilized cash incentives, 34 percent
offered smaller premiums, six percent
provided lower deductibles, and three
percent provided lower coinsurance.
Findings from Mercer’s 2009 survey
suggest similar trends, with five percent
of all employers and ten percent of
those with 500 or more workers
providing cash incentives for
completion of a health risk assessment;
one percent and two percent,
respectively, offering lower cost sharing;
and two percent and seven percent,
respectively, offering lower premium
contributions.39 Note that in the Mercer
survey, the results cited reflect the
incentives provided by all firms that
offer a health risk assessment, while the
Kaiser/HRET results previously
mentioned reflect only firms that
incentivize completion of a health risk
assessment.
Incentives may be triggered by a range
of different levels of employee
engagement. The simplest incentives are
triggered by program enrollment—that
is, by merely signing up for a wellness
program. At the next level, incentives
are triggered by program participation—
for instance, attending a class or
initiating a program, such as a smoking
cessation intervention. Other incentive
programs may require completion of a
program, whether or not any particular
health-related goals are achieved, to
earn an incentive. The health-contingent
incentive programs require successfully
meeting a specific health outcome (or an
alternative standard) to trigger an
incentive, such as verifiably quitting
smoking. There is little representative
data indicating the relative prevalence
of these different types of triggers. The
most common form of outcome-based
incentives is reportedly awarded for
smoking cessation. The 2010 survey by
NBGH and TowersWatson indicated
that while 25 percent of responding
employers offered a financial incentive
for employees to become tobacco-free,
only four percent offered financial
incentives for maintaining a BMI within
target levels, three percent did so for
maintaining blood pressure within
targets, and three percent for
maintaining targeted cholesterol
levels.40
The value of incentives can vary
widely. Estimates from representative
surveys of the average value of
incentives per year range between
39 Mercer, National Survey of EmployerSponsored Health Plans: 2009 Survey Report. 2010,
Mercer.
40 TowersWatson, Raising the Bar on Health Care:
Moving Beyond Incremental Change.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
$152 41 and $557,42 or between three
and 11 percent of the $5,049 average
cost of individual coverage in 2010,43
among employees who receive them.
This suggests that companies typically
are not close to reaching the 20 percent
of the total cost of coverage threshold
set forth in the 2006 regulations. These
findings indicate that based on currently
available data, increasing the maximum
reward for particpating in a healthcontingent wellness program to 30
percent (and the Departments’ decision
to propose an additional 20 percentage
points for programs designed to prevent
or reduce tobacco use) is unlikely to
have a significant impact. Additionally,
as discussed earlier in this preamble,
today most incentive-based wellness
programs are associated with
completion of a health risk assessment
irrespective of the results, and therefore
are not subject to the limitation, because
such programs are not health-contingent
wellness programs.
The Departments lack sufficient
information to assess how firms that
currently are at the 20 percent limit will
respond to the increased limits and
welcome public comments regarding
this issue. If firms already viewed the
current 20 percent reward limit as
sufficient, then the Depatments would
not expect that increasing the limit
would provide an incentive for program
design changes.
It is possible that the increased
wellness program reward limits will
incentivize firms without healthcontingent wellness programs to
establish them. The Departments,
however, do not expect a significant
number of new programs to be created
as a result of this change because firms
without health-contingent wellness
programs could already have provided
rewards up to the 20 percent limit
before the enactment of the Affordable
Care Act, but did not.
Two critical elements of these
proposed regulations are (1) the
standard that the reward under a healthcontingent wellness program be
available to all similarly situated
individuals and (2) the standard that a
program be reasonably designed to
promote health or prevent disease.44
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
the regulation does not prescribe a
41 Mercer, National Survey of EmployerSponsored Health Plans: 2009 Survey Report. 2010,
Mercer.
42 Linnan, L., et al., Results of the 2004 national
worksite health promotion survey. American
Journal of Public Health, 2008. 98(8): p. 1503–1509.
43 Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health
Benefits: 2010 Annual Survey.
44 See section II.B, earlier in this preamble for a
more detailed discussion of these requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
70629
particular type of alternative standard
that must be provided. Instead, it
permits plan sponsors flexibility to
provide any reasonable alternative. The
Departments expect that plan sponsors
will select alternatives that entail the
minimum net costs (or, stated
differently, the maximum net benefits)
that are possible to achieve derive
offsetting benefits, such as a higher
smoking cessation success rate.
It seems reasonable to presume that
the net cost plan sponsors will incur in
the provision of alternatives, including
transfers as well as new economic costs
and benefits, will not exceed the
transfer cost of waiving surcharges for
all plan participants who qualify for
alternatives. The Departments expect
that many plan sponsors will find more
cost effective ways to satisfy this
requirement, should they exercise the
option to provide incentives through a
health-contingent wellness program and
that the true net cost to them will
therefore be much smaller than the
transfer cost of waiving surcharges for
all plan participants who qualify for
alternatives. The Departments have no
basis for estimating the magnitude of the
cost of providing alternative standards
or of potential offsetting benefits,
however, and therefore solicit
comments from the public on this
question.
The Departments note that plan
sponsors will have strong motivation to
identify and provide alternative
standards that have positive net
economic effects. Plan sponsors will be
disinclined to provide alternatives that
undermine their overall wellness
program and worsen behavioral and
health outcomes, or that make financial
rewards available absent meaningful
efforts by participants to improve their
health habits and overall health. Instead
plan sponsors will be inclined to
provide alternatives that sustain or
reinforce plan participants’ incentive to
improve their health habits and overall
health, and/or that help participants
make such improvements. It therefore
seems likely that gains in economic
welfare from this requirement will equal
or outweigh losses. The Departments
intend that the requirement to provide
reasonable alternatives will reduce
instances where wellness programs
serve only to shift costs to higher risk
individuals and increase instances
where programs succeed at helping high
risk individuals improve their health.
The Departments solicit comments on
its assumption.
In considering the transfers that might
derive from the availability of (and
participants’ satisfaction with)
alternative means of qualifying for the
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
70630
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
reward, the transfers arising from this
requirement may take the form of
transfers to participants who satisfy new
alternative wellness program standards
from plan sponsors, to such participants
from other participants, or some
combination of these. The existence of
a wellness program with a reward
contingent on meeting a standard
related to a health factor creates a
transfer from those who do not meet the
standard to those who do meet the
standard. Allowing individuals to meet
an alternative standard to receive the
reward is a transfer to those who use the
alternative standard from everyone else
in the risk pool.
The reward associated with the
wellness program is an incentive to
encourage individuals to meet health
standards associated with better or
improved health, which in turn is
associated with lower health care costs.
If the rewards are effective, health care
costs will be reduced as an individual’s
health improves. Some of these lower
health care costs could translate into
lower premiums paid by employers and
employees, which could offset some of
the transfers. To the extent larger
rewards are more effective at improving
health and lowering costs, these
proposed regulations would produce
more benefits than the current
regulations.
Rewards also could create costs to
individuals and to the extent the new
larger rewards create more costs than
smaller rewards, these proposed
regulations could increase the costs
relative to the existing regulations. To
the extent an individual does not meet
a standard or satisfy an alternative
standard, they could face higher costs,
for example in the case of a surcharge
for smoking they could face up to a 50
percent increase in their premiums.
Based on the foregoing discussion, the
Departments expect the benefits, costs,
and transfers associated with these
proposed regulations to be minimal.
However, the Departments are not able
to provide aggregate estimates, because
they do not have sufficent data to
estimate the number of plans that will
take advantage of the new limits.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act—
Department of Labor and Department of
Health and Human Services
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) applies to most
Federal rules that are subject to the
notice and comment requirements of
section 553(b) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
Unless an agency certifies that such a
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
number of small entities, section 603 of
the RFA requires the agency to present
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
at the time of the publication of the
notice of proposed rulemaking
describing the impact of the rule on
small entities. Small entities include
small businesses, organizations and
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of analysis under the
RFA, the Departments propose to
continue to consider a small entity to be
an employee benefit plan with fewer
than 100 participants. The basis of this
definition is found in section 104(a)(3)
of ERISA, which permits the Secretary
of Labor to prescribe simplified annual
reports for welfare benefit plans that
cover fewer than 100 participants.45
Further, while some large employers
may have small plans, in general, small
employers maintain most small plans.
Thus, the Departments believe that
assessing the impact of these proposed
regulations on small plans is an
appropriate substitute for evaluating the
effect on small entities.
The definition of small entity
considered appropriate for this purpose
differs, however, from a definition of
small business that is based on size
standards promulgated by the Small
Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR
121.201) pursuant to the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.). The
Departments therefore request
comments on the appropriateness of the
size standard used in evaluating the
impact of these proposed regulations on
small entities. The Departments have
consulted with the SBA Office of
Advocacy concerning use of this
participant count standard for RFA
purposes. See 13 CFR 121.902(b)(4).
The Departments expect that these
proposed regulations will affect few
small plans. While a large number of
small plans offer a wellness program,
the 2011 Kaiser/HRET survey reported
that only 13 percent of employers with
fewer than 200 employees had a
wellness program that offered cash or
cash equivalent incentives (including
gift cards, merchandise, or travel
incentives).46 In addition, only two
45 Under ERISA section 104(a)(2), the Secretary
may also provide exemptions or simplified
reporting and disclosure requirements for pension
plans. Pursuant to the authority of ERISA section
104(a)(3), the Department of Labor has previously
issued at 29 CFR 2520.104–20, 2520.104–21,
2520.104–41, 2520.104–46, and 2520.104b–10
certain simplified reporting provisions and limited
exemptions from reporting and disclosure
requirements for small plans, including unfunded
or insured welfare plans, that cover fewer than 100
participants and satisfy certain other requirements.
46 Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health
Benefits: 2011 Annual Survey. 2011, The Kaiser
Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA; Health
Research & Educational Trust, Chicago, IL.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
percent of these firms offered lower
employee health plan premiums to
wellness participants, one percent
offered lower deductibles, and one
percent offered higher health
reimbursement account or health
savings account contributions.
Therefore, the Departments expect that
few small plans will be affected by
increasing the rewards threshold from
20 percent to 30 percent (50 percent for
programs targeting tobacco use
prevention or reduction), because a
small percentage of plans have rewardsbased wellness programs. Moreover, as
discussed in the Economic Impacts
section earlier in this preamble, few
plans that offer rewards-based wellness
programs come close to reaching the 20
percent limit, and most incentive-based
wellness programs are associated with
completing the health risk assessment
irrespective of the results, which are not
subject to the limitation.
The Kaiser/HRET survey also reports
that about 88 percent of small plans had
their wellness programs provided by the
health plan provider. Industry experts
indicated to the Departments that when
wellness programs are offered by the
health plan provider, they typically
supply alternative education programs
and offer them free of charge. This
finding indicates that the requirement in
the proposed rule for rewards-based
wellness programs to provide and pay
for a reasonable alternative standard for
individuals for whom it is either
unreasonably difficult or medically
inadvisable to meet the original
standard will impose little new costs or
transfers to the affected plans.
Based on the foregoing, the
Departments herby certify that these
proposed regulations will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act—
Department of Labor and Department of
the Treasury
The 2006 final regulations regarding
wellness programs did not include an
information collection request (ICR).
These proposed regulations, like the
2006 final regulations, provide that if a
plan’s wellness program requires
individuals to meet a standard related to
a health factor in order to qualify for a
reward and if the plan materials
describe this standard, the materials
must also disclose the availability of
other means of qualifying for the reward
or the possibility of waiver of the
otherwise applicable standard. If plan
materials merely mention that a
program is available, the disclosure
relating to alternatives is not required.
These proposed regulations include
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
samples of disclosures that could be
used to satisfy this requirement.
In concluding that these proposed
regulations did not include an ICR, the
Departments reasoned that much of the
information required was likely already
provided as a result of state and local
requirements or the usual business
practices of group health plans and
group health insurance issuers in
connection with the offer and
promotion of health care coverage. In
addition, the sample disclosures would
enable group health plans to make any
necessary modifications with minimal
effort.
Finally, although the proposed
regulations do not include an ICR, the
regulations could be interpreted to
require a revision to an existing
collection of information.
Administrators of group health plans
covered under Title I of ERISA are
generally required to make certain
disclosures about the terms of a plan
and material changes in terms through
a Summary Plan Description (SPD) or
Summary of Material Modifications
(SMM) pursuant to sections 101(a) and
102(a) of ERISA and related regulations.
The ICR related to the SPD and SMM is
currently approved by OMB under OMB
control number 1210–0039, which is
currently scheduled to expire on April
30, 2013. While these materials may in
some cases require revisions to comply
with the proposed regulations, the
associated burden is expected to be
negligible, and is already accounted for
in the SPD, SMM, and the ICR by a
burden estimation methodology, which
anticipates ongoing revisions. Based on
the foregoing, the Departments do not
expect that any change to the existing
ICR arising from these proposed
regulations will be substantive or
material. Accordingly, the Departments
have not filed an application for
approval of a revision to the existing
ICR with OMB in connection with these
proposed regulations.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
G. Paperwork Reduction Act—
Department of Health and Human
Services
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, the Department is required to
provide 60-day notice in the Federal
Register and solicit public comment
before a collection of information
requirement is submitted to OMB for
review and approval. In order to fairly
evaluate whether an information
collection should be approved by OMB,
section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 requires the
Department to solicit comment on the
following issues:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
• The need for the information
collection and its usefulness in carrying
out the proper functions of our agency.
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
information collection burden.
• The quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected.
• Recommendations to minimize the
information collection burden on the
affected public, including automated
techniques.
Section 146.121(f)(1)(iv) stipulates
that the plan or issuer disclose in all
plan materials describing the terms of
the program the availability of a
reasonable alternative standard to
qualify for the reward under a wellness
program. However, for plan materials
that merely mention that a program is
available, without describing its terms,
the disclosure is not required. The
burden associated with this requirement
was previously approved under OMB
control number 0938–0819. We are not
seeking reinstatement of the information
collection request under the
aforementioned OMB control number,
since we believe that much of the
information required is likely already
provided as a result of state and local
requirements or the usual business
practices of group health plans and
group health insurance issuers in
connection with the offer and
promotion of health care coverage. In
addition, the sample disclosures would
enable group health plans to make any
necessary modifications with minimal
effort.
H. Special Analyses—Department of the
Treasury
For purposes of the Department of the
Treasury it has been determined that
this notice of proposed rulemaking is
not a significant regulatory action as
defined in Executive Order 12866.
Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not
required. It has also been determined
that section 553(b) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does
not apply to these proposed regulations,
and, because these proposed regulations
do not impose a collection of
information on small entities, a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to
section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice
of proposed rulemaking has been
submitted to the Small Business
Administration for comment on its
impact on small business.
I. Congressional Review Act
These proposed regulations are
subject to the Congressional Review Act
provisions of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
70631
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and, if
finalized, will be transmitted to
Congress and the Comptroller General
for review. These regulations, do not
constitute a ‘‘major rule,’’ as that term
is defined in 5 U.S.C. 804 because they
are unlikely to result in (1) an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more; (2) a major increase in costs or
prices for consumers, individual
industries, or federal, State or local
government agencies, or geographic
regions; or (3) significant adverse effects
on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
For purposes of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4), as well as Executive Order
12875, these proposed regulations do
not include any federal mandate that
may result in expenditures by state,
local, or tribal governments, nor does it
include mandates which may impose an
annual burden of $100 million, adjusted
for inflation,47 or more on the private
sector.
K. Federalism Statement—Department
of Labor and Department of Health and
Human Services
Executive Order 13132 outlines
fundamental principles of federalism,
and requires the adherence to specific
criteria by federal agencies in the
process of their formulation and
implementation of policies that have
‘‘substantial direct effects’’ on the
States, the relationship between the
national government and States, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Federal agencies
promulgating regulations that have
these federalism implications must
consult with State and local officials,
and describe the extent of their
consultation and the nature of the
concerns of State and local officials in
the preamble to the regulation.
In the Departments’ view, these
proposed regulations have federalism
implications, however, in the
Departments’ view, the federalism
implications of these final regulations
are substantially mitigated because,
with respect to health insurance issuers,
the vast majority of States have enacted
laws, which meet or exceed the federal
HIPAA standards prohibiting
discrimination based on health factors.
47 In 2012, that threshold level is approximately
$139 million.
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
70632
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Therefore, the regulations are not likely
to require substantial additional
oversight of States by the Department of
HHS.
In general, through section 514,
ERISA supersedes State laws to the
extent that they relate to any covered
employee benefit plan, and preserves
State laws that regulate insurance,
banking, or securities. While ERISA
prohibits States from regulating a plan
as an insurance or investment company
or bank, HIPAA added a new
preemption provision to ERISA (as well
as to the PHS Act) narrowly preempting
State requirements for group health
insurance coverage. With respect to the
HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions,
States may continue to apply State law
requirements except to the extent that
such requirements prevent the
application of the portability, access,
and renewability requirements of
HIPAA, which include HIPAA’s
nondiscrimination requirements
provisions. HIPAA’s Conference Report
states that the conferees intended the
narrowest preemption of State laws with
regard to health insurance issuers (H.R.
Conf. Rep. No. 736, 104th Cong. 2d
Session 205, 1996). State insurance laws
that are more stringent than the federal
requirements are unlikely to ‘‘prevent
the application of’’ the HIPAA
nondiscrimination provisions, and
therefore are not preempted.
Accordingly, States have significant
latitude to impose requirements on
health insurance issuers that are more
restrictive than the federal law.
Guidance conveying this
interpretation was published in the
Federal Register on April 8, 1997 (62 FR
16904) and on December 30, 2004 (69
FR 78720), and these proposed
regulations clarify and implement the
statute’s minimum standards and do not
significantly reduce the discretion given
the States by the statute. Moreover, the
Departments understand that the vast
majority of States have requirements
that meet or exceed the minimum
requirements of the HIPAA
nondiscrimination provisions.
HIPAA provides that the States may
enforce the provisions of HIPAA as they
pertain to issuers, but that the Secretary
of HHS must enforce any provisions that
a State chooses not to or fails to
substantially enforce. When exercising
its responsibility to enforce provisions
of HIPAA, HHS works cooperatively
with the State for the purpose of
addressing the State’s concerns and
avoiding conflicts with the exercise of
State authority.48 HHS has developed
48 This authority applies to insurance issued with
respect to group health plans generally, including
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
procedures to implement its
enforcement responsibilities, and to
afford the States the maximum
opportunity to enforce HIPAA’s
requirements in the first instance. In
compliance with Executive Order
13132’s requirement that agencies
examine closely any policies that may
have federalism implications or limit
the policy making discretion of the
States, DOL and HHS have engaged in
numerous efforts to consult with and
work cooperatively with affected State
and local officials.
In conclusion, throughout the process
of developing these regulations, to the
extent feasible within the specific
preemption provisions of HIPAA, the
Departments have attempted to balance
the States’ interests in regulating health
plans and health insurance issuers, and
the rights of those individuals that
Congress intended to protect through
the enactment of HIPAA.
IV. Statutory Authority
The Department of the Treasury
regulations are proposed to be adopted
pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 7805 and 9833 of the Code.
The Department of Labor regulations
are proposed to be adopted pursuant to
the authority contained in 29 U.S.C.
1027, 1059, 1135, 1161–1168, 1169,
1181–1183, 1181 note, 1185, 1185a,
1185b, 1185d, 1191, 1191a, 1191b, and
1191c; sec. 101(g), Public Law 104–191,
110 Stat. 1936; sec. 401(b), Public Law
105–200, 112 Stat. 645 (42 U.S.C. 651
note); sec. 512(d), Public Law 110–343,
122 Stat. 3881; sec. 1001, 1201, and
1562(e), Public Law 111–148, 124 Stat.
119, as amended by Public Law 111–
152, 124 Stat. 1029; Secretary of Labor’s
Order 3–2010, 75 FR 55354 (September
10, 2010).
The Department of Health and Human
Services regulations are proposed to be
adopted, with respect to 45 CFR part
146, pursuant to the authority contained
in sections 2702 through 2705, 2711
through 2723, 2791, and 2792 of the
PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–1 through
300gg–5, 300gg–11 through 300gg–23,
300gg–91, and 300gg–92) prior to the
amendments made by the Affordable
Care Act and sections 2701 through
2763, 2791, and 2792 of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg
through 300gg–63, 300gg–91, and
300gg–92), as amended by the
Affordable Care Act; with respect to 45
plans covering employees of church organizations.
Thus, this discussion of federalism applies to all
group health insurance coverage that is subject to
the PHS Act, including those church plans that
provide coverage through a health insurance issuer
(but not to church plans that do not provide
coverage through a health insurance issuer).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
CFR part 147, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 2701 through
2763, 2791, and 2792 of the PHS Act (42
U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg–63, 300gg–
91, and 300gg–92), as amended by the
Affordable Care Act.
List of Subjects
26 CFR Part 54
Excise taxes, Health care, Health
insurance, Pensions, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
29 CFR Part 2590
Continuation coverage, Disclosure,
Employee benefit plans, Group health
plans, Health care, Health insurance,
Medical child support, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
45 CFR Parts 146 and 147
Health care, Health insurance,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and State regulation of
health insurance.
Steven T. Miller,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement, Internal Revenue Service.
Signed this 8th day of November, 2012.
Phyllis C. Borzi,
Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, Department of
Labor.
Dated: August 1, 2012.
Marilyn Tavenner,
Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services.
Dated: August 7, 2012.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Chapter I
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 54 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 54—PENSION EXCISE TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for Part 54 is amended by adding an
entry for § 54.9815–2705 in numerical
order to read in part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
Section 54.9815–2705 also issued under 26
U.S.C. 9833.
Par. 2. In § 54.9802–1, paragraph (f) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 54.9802–1 Prohibiting discrimination
against participants and beneficiaries
based on a health factor.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Nondiscriminatory wellness
programs—in general. A wellness
program is a program of health
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
promotion or disease prevention.
Paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3) of this
section provide exceptions to the
general prohibitions against
discrimination based on a health factor
for plan provisions that vary benefits
(including cost-sharing mechanisms) or
the premium or contribution for
similarly situated individuals in
connection with a wellness program
that satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph (f). If a wellness program is a
participatory wellness program, as
defined in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, that paragraph also makes clear
that the wellness program does not
violate this section if participation in
the program is made available to all
similarly situated individuals. If a
wellness program is a health-contingent
wellness program, as defined in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the
wellness program does not violate this
section if the requirements of paragraph
(f)(3) of this section are met. Except
where expressly provided otherwise,
references in this section to an
individual obtaining a reward include
both obtaining a reward (such as a
premium discount or rebate, a waiver of
all or part of a cost-sharing mechanism,
an additional benefit, or any financial or
other incentive) and avoiding a penalty
(such as the absence of a premium
surcharge, or other financial or
nonfinancial disincentive). References
in this section to a plan providing a
reward include both providing a reward
(such as a premium discount or rebate,
a waiver of all or part of a cost-sharing
mechanism, an additional benefit, or
any financial or other incentive) and
imposing a penalty (such as a surcharge
or other financial or nonfinancial
disincentive).
(1) Participatory wellness programs
defined. If none of the conditions for
obtaining a reward under a wellness
program is based on an individual
satisfying a standard that is related to a
health factor (or if a wellness program
does not provide a reward), the wellness
program is a participatory wellness
program and, if participation in the
program is made available to all
similarly situated individuals, does not
violate this section. Examples of
participatory wellness programs are:
(i) A program that reimburses all or
part of the cost for membership in a
fitness center.
(ii) A diagnostic testing program that
provides a reward for participation and
does not base any part of the reward on
outcomes.
(iii) A program that encourages
preventive care through the waiver of
the copayment or deductible
requirement under a group health plan
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
for the costs of, for example, prenatal
care or well-baby visits. (Note that, with
respect to non-grandfathered plans,
§ 54.9815–2713T requires benefits for
certain preventive health services
without the imposition of cost sharing.)
(iv) A program that reimburses
employees for the costs of participating,
or that otherwise provides a reward for
participating, in a smoking cessation
program without regard to whether the
employee quits smoking.
(v) A program that provides a reward
to employees for attending a monthly
no-cost health education seminar.
(vi) A program that provides a reward
to employees who complete a health
risk assessment regarding current health
status, without any further action
(educational or otherwise) required by
the employee with regard to the health
issues identified as part of the
assessment. (See also § 54.9802–3T for
rules prohibiting collection of genetic
information).
(2) Health-contingent wellness
programs defined. If any of the
conditions for obtaining a reward under
a wellness program is based on an
individual satisfying a standard that is
related to a health factor, the wellness
program is a health-contingent wellness
program and the program is permissible
under this section only if all of the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this
section are satisfied. Examples of
health-contingent wellness programs
are:
(i) A program that imposes a premium
surcharge based on tobacco use.
(ii) A program that uses a biometric
screening or a health risk assessment to
identify employees with specified
medical conditions or risk factors (such
as high cholesterol, high blood pressure,
unhealthy body mass index, or high
glucose level) and provides a reward to
employees identified as within a normal
or healthy range for biometrics (or at
low risk for certain medical conditions),
while requiring employees who are
identified as outside the normal or
healthy range (or at risk) to take
additional steps (such as meeting with
a health coach, taking a health or fitness
course, adhering to a health
improvement action plan, or complying
with a health care provider’s plan of
care) to obtain the same reward.
(3) Requirements for healthcontingent wellness programs. A healthcontingent wellness program does not
violate this section if all of the following
requirements are satisfied:
(i) Frequency of opportunity to
qualify. The program must give
individuals eligible for the program the
opportunity to qualify for the reward
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
70633
under the program at least once per
year.
(ii) Size of reward. The reward for a
health-contingent wellness program,
together with the reward for other
health-contingent wellness programs
with respect to the plan, must not
exceed the applicable percentage of the
total cost of employee-only coverage
under the plan, as defined in this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii). However, if, in
addition to employees, any class of
dependents (such as spouses, or spouses
and dependent children) may
participate in the wellness program, the
reward must not exceed the applicable
percentage of the total cost of the
coverage in which an employee and any
dependents are enrolled. For purposes
of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii), the cost of
coverage is determined based on the
total amount of employer and employee
contributions for the benefit package
under which the employee is (or the
employee and any dependents are)
receiving coverage.
(A) Applicable percentage. For
purposes of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii), the
applicable percentage is 30 percent,
except that the applicable percentage is
increased an additional 20 percentage
points (to 50 percent) to the extent that
the additional percentage is in
connection with a program designed to
prevent or reduce tobacco use.
(B) Examples. The rules of this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) are illustrated by the
following examples:
Example 1. (i) Facts. An employer sponsors
a group health plan. The annual premium for
employee-only coverage is $6,000 (of which
the employer pays $4,500 per year and the
employee pays $1,500 per year). The plan
offers employees a health-contingent
wellness program focused on exercise, blood
sugar, weight, cholesterol, and blood
pressure. The reward for compliance is an
annual premium rebate of $600.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 1, the
program satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because the reward for the
wellness program, $600, does not exceed 30
percent of the total annual cost of employeeonly coverage, $1,800. ($6,000 × 30% =
$1,800.)
Example 2. (i) Facts. Same facts as
Example 1, except the wellness program is
exclusively a tobacco prevention program.
Employees who have used tobacco in the last
12 months and who are not enrolled in the
plan’s tobacco cessation program are charged
a $1,000 premium surcharge (in addition to
their employee contribution towards the
coverage). (Those who participate in the
plan’s tobacco cessation program are not
assessed the $1,000 surcharge.)
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 2, the
program satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because the reward for the
wellness program (absence of a $1,000
surcharge), does not exceed 50 percent of the
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
70634
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
total annual cost of employee-only coverage,
$3,000. ($6,000 × 50% = $3,000.)
Example 3. (i) Facts. Same facts as
Example 1, except that, in addition to the
$600 reward for compliance with the healthcontingent wellness program, the plan also
imposes an additional $2,000 tobacco
premium surcharge on employees who have
used tobacco in the last 12 months and who
are not enrolled in the plan’s tobacco
cessation program. (Those who participate in
the plan’s tobacco cessation program are not
assessed the $2,000 surcharge.)
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 3, the
program satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because both: The total of
all rewards (including absence of a surcharge
for participating in the tobacco program) is
$2,600 ($600 + $2,000 = $2,600), which does
not exceed 50 percent of the total annual cost
of employee-only coverage ($3,000); and,
tested separately, the $600 reward for the
wellness program unrelated to tobacco use
does not exceed 30 percent of the total
annual cost of employee-only coverage,
$1,800.
Example 4. (i) Facts. An employer sponsors
a group health plan. The total annual
premium for employee-only coverage
(including both employer and employee
contributions towards the coverage) is
$5,000. The plan provides a $250 reward to
employees who complete a health risk
assessment, without regard to the health
issues identified as part of the assessment.
The plan also offers a Healthy Heart program,
which is a health-contingent wellness
program under paragraph (f)(2) of this
section, with an opportunity to earn a $1,500
reward.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 4, the plan
satisfies the requirements of this paragraph
(f)(3)(ii). Even though the total reward for all
wellness programs under the plan is $1,750
($250 + $1,500 = $1,750, which exceeds 30
percent of the cost of the annual premium for
employee-only coverage ($5,000 × 30% =
$1,500)), only the reward offered for
compliance with the health-contingent
wellness program ($1,500) is taken into
account in determining whether the rules of
this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) are met. (The $250
reward is offered in connection with a
participatory wellness program and therefore
is not taken into account under this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii)). The health-contingent
wellness program offers a reward that does
not exceed 30 percent of the total annual cost
of employee-only coverage.
(iii) Uniform availability and
reasonable alternative standards. The
reward under the program must be
available to all similarly situated
individuals.
(A) Under this paragraph (f)(3)(iii), a
reward under a program is not available
to all similarly situated individuals for
a period unless the program meets both
of the following requirements:
(1) The program allows a reasonable
alternative standard (or waiver of the
otherwise applicable standard) for
obtaining the reward for any individual
for whom, for that period, it is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
unreasonably difficult due to a medical
condition to satisfy the otherwise
applicable standard; and
(2) The program allows a reasonable
alternative standard (or waiver of the
otherwise applicable standard) for
obtaining the reward for any individual
for whom, for that period, it is
medically inadvisable to attempt to
satisfy the otherwise applicable
standard.
(B) While plans are not required to
determine a particular alternative
standard in advance of an individual’s
request for one, if an individual is
described in either paragraph
(f)(3)(iii)(A)(1) or (2) of this section, a
reasonable alternative standard must be
furnished by the plan upon the
individual’s request or the condition for
obtaining the reward must be waived.
All the facts and circumstances are
taken into account in determining
whether a plan has furnished a
reasonable alternative standard,
including but not limited to the
following:
(1) If the reasonable alternative
standard is completion of an
educational program, the plan must
make the educational program available
instead of requiring an individual to
find such a program unassisted, and
may not require an individual to pay for
the cost of the program.
(2) If the reasonable alternative
standard is a diet program, plans are not
required to pay for the cost of food but
must pay any membership or
participation fee.
(3) If the reasonable alternative
standard is compliance with the
recommendations of a medical
professional who is an employee or
agent of the plan, and an individual’s
personal physician states that the plan’s
recommendations are not medically
appropriate for that individual, the plan
must provide a reasonable alternative
standard that accommodates the
recommendations of the individual’s
personal physician with regard to
medical appropriateness. Plans may
impose standard cost sharing under the
plan or coverage for medical items and
services furnished pursuant to the
physician’s recommendations.
(C) If reasonable under the
circumstances, a plan may seek
verification, such as a statement from an
individual’s personal physician, that a
health factor makes it unreasonably
difficult for the individual to satisfy, or
medically inadvisable for the individual
to attempt to satisfy, the otherwise
applicable standard. It would not be
reasonable, for example, for a plan to
seek verification of a claim that is
obviously valid based on the nature of
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the individual’s medical condition that
is known to the plan. However, plans
may seek verification in the case of
claims for which it is reasonable to
determine that medical judgment is
required to evaluate the validity of the
claim.
(iv) Reasonable design. The program
must be reasonably designed to promote
health or prevent disease. A program
satisfies this standard if it has a
reasonable chance of improving the
health of, or preventing disease in,
participating individuals and it is not
overly burdensome, is not a subterfuge
for discriminating based on a health
factor, and is not highly suspect in the
method chosen to promote health or
prevent disease. This determination is
based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. To the extent a plan’s
initial standard for obtaining a reward
(including a portion of a reward) is
based on the results of a measurement,
test, or screening relating to a health
factor (such as a biometric examination
or a health risk assessment), the plan
must make available to any individual
who does not meet the standard based
on the measurement, test, or screening
a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward.
(v) Notice of availability of other
means of qualifying for the reward. (A)
The plan must disclose in all plan
materials describing the terms of the
program the availability of other means
of qualifying for the reward or the
possibility of waiver of the otherwise
applicable standard. If plan materials
merely mention that a program is
available, without describing its terms,
this disclosure is not required.
(B) The following language, or
substantially similar language, can be
used to satisfy the notice requirement of
this paragraph (f)(3)(v): ‘‘Your health
plan is committed to helping you
achieve your best health status. Rewards
for participating in a wellness program
are available to all employees. If you
think you might be unable to meet a
standard for a reward under this
wellness program, you might qualify for
an opportunity to earn the same reward
by different means. Contact us at [insert
contact information] and we will work
with you to find a wellness program
with the same reward that is right for
you in light of your health status.’’
Additional sample language is provided
in the examples of paragraph (f)(4) of
this section.
(4) Examples. The rules of paragraphs
(f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section are
illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. (i) Facts. A group health plan
provides a reward to individuals who
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
participate in a reasonable specified walking
program. If it is unreasonably difficult due to
a medical condition for an individual to
participate (or if it is medically inadvisable
for an individual to participate), the plan will
waive the walking program requirement and
provide the reward. All materials describing
the terms of the walking program disclose the
availability of the waiver.
(ii) Conclusion. The program satisfies the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this
section because the reward under the
program is available to all similarly situated
individuals because it accommodates
individuals who cannot participate in the
walking program due to a medical condition
(or for whom it would be medically
inadvisable to attempt to participate) by
providing them the reward even if they do
not participate in the walking program (that
is, by waiving the condition). The program
satisfies the requirements of paragraph
(f)(3)(iv) of this section because the walking
program is reasonably designed to promote
health and prevent disease. Last, the plan
complies with the disclosure requirement of
paragraph (f)(3)(v) of this section. Thus, the
plan satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and
(v) of this section.
Example 2. (i) Facts. A group health plan
offers a reward to individuals who achieve a
count under 200 on a cholesterol test. If a
participant does not achieve the targeted
cholesterol count, the plan will make
available a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward. In addition, all
plan materials describing the terms of the
program include the following statement:
‘‘Your health plan wants to help you take
charge of your health. Rewards are available
to all employees who participate in our
Cholesterol Awareness Wellness Program. If
your cholesterol count is under 200, you will
receive the reward. If not, you will still have
an opportunity to qualify for the reward. We
will work with you to find a Health Smart
program that is right for you.’’ Individual D
is identified as having a cholesterol count
above 200. The plan partners D with a nurse
who makes recommendations regarding diet
and exercise, with which it is not
unreasonably difficult due to a medical
condition of D or medically inadvisable for
D to comply, and which is otherwise
reasonably designed, based on all the
relevant facts and circumstances. In addition,
the plan makes available to all other
individuals who do not meet the cholesterol
standard a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward which is not
unreasonably burdensome or impractical. D
will qualify for the discount if D follows the
recommendations regardless of whether D
achieves a cholesterol count that is under
200.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 2, the
program satisfies the requirements of
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section. The program’s initial standard for
obtaining a reward is dependent on the
results of a cholesterol screening, which is
related to a health factor. However, the
program is reasonably designed under
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) and (iv) of this section
because the plan makes available to all
individuals who do not meet the cholesterol
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
standard a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward and because the
program is otherwise reasonably designed
based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. The plan also discloses in all
materials describing the terms of the program
the opportunity to qualify for the reward
through other means. Thus, the program
satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of
this section.
Example 3. (i) Facts. Same facts as
Example 2, except that, following diet and
exercise, D again fails to achieve a cholesterol
count that is under 200, and the program
requires D to visit a doctor and follow any
additional recommendations of D’s doctor
with respect to D’s cholesterol. The program
permits D to select D’s own doctor for this
purpose. D visits D’s doctor, who determines
D should take a prescription medication for
cholesterol. In addition, the doctor
determines that D must be monitored through
periodic blood tests to continually reevaluate
D’s health status. The plan accommodates D
by making the discount available to D, but
only if D actually follows the advice of D’s
doctor’s regarding medication and blood
tests.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 3, the
program’s requirements to follow up with,
and follow the recommendations of, D’s
doctor do not make the program
unreasonable under paragraph (f)(3)(iii) or
(iv) of this section. The program continues to
satisfy the conditions of paragraph (f)(3)(iii),
(iv), and (v) of this section.
Example 4. (i) Facts. A group health plan
will provide a reward to participants who
have a body mass index (BMI) that is 26 or
lower, determined shortly before the
beginning of the year. Any participant who
does not meet the target BMI is given the
same discount if the participant complies
with an exercise program that consists of
walking 150 minutes a week. Any participant
for whom it is unreasonably difficult due to
a medical condition to comply with this
walking program (and any participant for
whom it is medically inadvisable to attempt
to comply with the walking program) during
the year is given the same discount if the
individual satisfies an alternative standard
that is reasonable taking into consideration
the individual’s medical situation, is not
unreasonably burdensome or impractical to
comply with, and is otherwise reasonably
designed based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. All plan materials describing
the terms of the wellness program include
the following statement: ‘‘Fitness is Easy!
Start Walking! Your health plan cares about
your health. If you are overweight, our Start
Walking program will help you lose weight
and feel better. We will help you enroll. (** If
your doctor says that walking isn’t right for
you, that’s okay too. We will develop a
wellness program that is.)’’ Individual is
unable to achieve a BMI that is 26 or lower
within the plan’s timeframe and is also not
reasonably able to comply with the walking
program. E proposes a program based on the
recommendations of E’s physician. The plan
agrees to make the discount available to E,
but only if E actually follows the physician’s
recommendations.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 4, the
program satisfies the requirements of
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
70635
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section. The program’s initial standard for
obtaining a reward is dependent on the
results of a BMI screening, which is related
to a health factor. However, the plan
complies with the requirements of paragraph
(f)(3)(iv) of this section because it makes
available to all individuals who do not satisfy
the BMI standard a different reasonable
means of qualifying for the reward (a walking
program that is not unreasonably
burdensome or impractical for individuals to
comply with and that is otherwise reasonably
designed based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances). In addition, the plan
complies with the requirements of paragraph
(f)(3)(iii) of this section because, if there are
individuals for whom it is unreasonably
difficult due to a medical condition to
comply, or for whom it is medically
inadvisable to attempt to comply, with the
walking program, the plan provides a
reasonable alternative to those individuals.
Moreover, the plan satisfies the requirements
of paragraph (f)(3)(v) of this section because
it discloses, in all materials describing the
terms of the program, the availability of other
means of qualifying for the reward or the
possibility of waiver of the otherwise
applicable standard. Thus, the plan satisfies
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section.
Example 5. (i) Facts. In conjunction with
an annual open enrollment period, a group
health plan provides a premium differential
based on tobacco use, determined using a
health risk assessment. The following
statement is included in all plan materials
describing the tobacco premium differential:
‘‘Stop smoking today! We can help! If you are
a smoker, we offer a smoking cessation
program. If you complete the program, you
can avoid this surcharge.’’ The plan
accommodates participants who smoke by
facilitating their enrollment in a smoking
cessation program that requires participation
at a time and place that are not unreasonably
burdensome or impractical for participants,
and that is otherwise reasonably designed
based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. The plan pays the cost of the
program. Any participant can avoid the
surcharge by participating in the program,
regardless of whether the participant stops
smoking.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 5, the
premium differential satisfies the
requirements of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv),
and (v) of this section. The program’s initial
standard for obtaining a reward is dependent
on the results of a health risk assessment,
which is a screening. However, the plan is
reasonably designed under paragraph
(f)(3)(iv) because the plan provides a
different, reasonable means of qualifying for
the reward to all tobacco users. The plan
discloses, in all materials describing the
terms of the program, the availability of other
means of qualifying for the reward. Thus, the
plan satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and
(v) of this section.
Example 6. (i) Facts. Same facts as
Example 5, except the plan does not facilitate
F’s enrollment in any program. Instead the
plan advises F to find a program, pay for it,
and provide a certificate of completion to the
plan.
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
70636
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 6, the
requirement for F to find and pay for F’s own
smoking cessation program means that the
alternative program is not reasonable.
Accordingly, the plan has not offered a
reasonable alternative standard that complies
with paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) and (iv) of this
section and the premium differential violates
paragraph (c) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
Par. 3. Section 54.9815–2705 is added
to read as follows:
§ 54.9815–2705 Prohibiting discrimination
against participants and beneficiaries
based on a health factor.
(a) In general. A group health plan
and a health insurance issuer offering
group health insurance coverage must
comply with the requirements of
§ 54.9802–1. Accordingly, with respect
to health insurance issuers offering
group health insurance coverage, the
issuer is subject to the requirements of
§ 54.9802–1 to the same extent as a
group health plan.
(b) Applicability date. This section is
applicable to group health plans and
health insurance issuers offering group
health insurance coverage for plan years
beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
See § 54.9815–1251T, which provides
that the rules of this section do not
apply to grandfathered health plans.
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
29 CFR Chapter XXV
29 CFR Part 2590 is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 2590—RULES AND
REGULATIONS FOR GROUP HEALTH
PLANS
1. The authority citation for Part 2590
continues to read as follows:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1027, 1059, 1135,
1161–1168, 1169, 1181–1183, 1181 note,
1185, 1185a, 1185b, 1185d, 1191, 1191a,
1191b, and 1191c; sec. 101(g), Pub. L. 104–
191, 110 Stat. 1936; sec. 401(b), Pub. L. 105–
200, 112 Stat. 645 (42 U.S.C. 651 note); sec.
12(d), Pub. L. 110–343, 122 Stat. 3881; sec.
1001, 1201, and 1562(e), Pub. L. 111–148,
124 Stat. 119, as amended by Pub. L. 111–
152, 124 Stat. 1029; Secretary of Labor’s
Order 3–2010, 75 FR 55354 (September 10,
2010).
Subpart B—Health Coverage
Portability, Nondiscrimination, and
Renewability
2. Section 2590.702 is amended by
revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 2590.702 Prohibiting discrimination
against participants and beneficiaries
based on a health factor.
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
(f) Nondiscriminatory wellness
programs—in general. A wellness
program is a program of health
promotion or disease prevention.
Paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3) of this
section provide exceptions to the
general prohibitions against
discrimination based on a health factor
for plan provisions that vary benefits
(including cost-sharing mechanisms) or
the premium or contribution for
similarly situated individuals in
connection with a wellness program
that satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph (f). If a wellness program is a
participatory wellness program, as
defined in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, that paragraph also makes clear
that the wellness program does not
violate this section if participation in
the program is made available to all
similarly situated individuals. If a
wellness program is a health-contingent
wellness program, as defined in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the
wellness program does not violate this
section if the requirements of paragraph
(f)(3) of this section are met. Except
where expressly provided otherwise,
references in this section to an
individual obtaining a reward include
both obtaining a reward (such as a
premium discount or rebate, a waiver of
all or part of a cost-sharing mechanism,
an additional benefit, or any financial or
other incentive) and avoiding a penalty
(such as the absence of a premium
surcharge, or other financial or
nonfinancial disincentive). References
in this section to a plan providing a
reward include both providing a reward
(such as a premium discount or rebate,
a waiver of all or part of a cost-sharing
mechanism, an additional benefit, or
any financial or other incentive) and
imposing a penalty (such as a surcharge
or other financial or nonfinancial
disincentive).
(1) Participatory wellness programs
defined. If none of the conditions for
obtaining a reward under a wellness
program is based on an individual
satisfying a standard that is related to a
health factor (or if a wellness program
does not provide a reward), the wellness
program is a participatory wellness
program and, if participation in the
program is made available to all
similarly situated individuals, does not
violate this section. Examples of
participatory wellness programs are:
(i) A program that reimburses all or
part of the cost for membership in a
fitness center.
(ii) A diagnostic testing program that
provides a reward for participation and
does not base any part of the reward on
outcomes.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(iii) A program that encourages
preventive care through the waiver of
the copayment or deductible
requirement under a group health plan
for the costs of, for example, prenatal
care or well-baby visits. (Note that, with
respect to non-grandfathered plans,
section 2590.715–2713 of this Part
requires benefits for certain preventive
health services without the imposition
of cost sharing.)
(iv) A program that reimburses
employees for the costs of participating,
or that otherwise provides a reward for
participating, in a smoking cessation
program without regard to whether the
employee quits smoking.
(v) A program that provides a reward
to employees for attending a monthly
no-cost health education seminar.
(vi) A program that provides a reward
to employees who complete a health
risk assessment regarding current health
status, without any further action
(educational or otherwise) required by
the employee with regard to the health
issues identified as part of the
assessment. (See also § 2590.702–1 for
rules prohibiting collection of genetic
information).
(2) Health-contingent wellness
programs defined. If any of the
conditions for obtaining a reward under
a wellness program is based on an
individual satisfying a standard that is
related to a health factor, the wellness
program is a health-contingent wellness
program and the program is permissible
under this section only if all of the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this
section are satisfied. Examples of
health-contingent wellness programs
are:
(i) A program that imposes a premium
surcharge based on tobacco use.
(ii) A program that uses a biometric
screening or a health risk assessment to
identify employees with specified
medical conditions or risk factors (such
as high cholesterol, high blood pressure,
unhealthy body mass index, or high
glucose level) and provides a reward to
employees identified as within a normal
or healthy range for biometrics (or at
low risk for certain medical conditions),
while requiring employees who are
identified as outside the normal or
healthy range (or at risk) to take
additional steps (such as meeting with
a health coach, taking a health or fitness
course, adhering to a health
improvement action plan, or complying
with a health care provider’s plan of
care) to obtain the same reward.
(3) Requirements for healthcontingent wellness programs. A healthcontingent wellness program does not
violate this section if all of the following
requirements are satisfied:
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
(i) Frequency of opportunity to
qualify. The program must give
individuals eligible for the program the
opportunity to qualify for the reward
under the program at least once per
year.
(ii) Size of reward. The reward for a
health-contingent wellness program,
together with the reward for other
health-contingent wellness programs
with respect to the plan, must not
exceed the applicable percentage of the
total cost of employee-only coverage
under the plan, as defined in this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii). However, if, in
addition to employees, any class of
dependents (such as spouses, or spouses
and dependent children) may
participate in the wellness program, the
reward must not exceed the applicable
percentage of the total cost of the
coverage in which an employee and any
dependents are enrolled. For purposes
of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii), the cost of
coverage is determined based on the
total amount of employer and employee
contributions for the benefit package
under which the employee is (or the
employee and any dependents are)
receiving coverage.
(A) Applicable percentage. For
purposes of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii), the
applicable percentage is 30 percent,
except that the applicable percentage is
increased an additional 20 percentage
points (to 50 percent) to the extent that
the additional percentage is in
connection with a program designed to
prevent or reduce tobacco use.
(B) Examples. The rules of this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) are illustrated by the
following examples:
Example 1. (i) Facts. An employer sponsors
a group health plan. The annual premium for
employee-only coverage is $6,000 (of which
the employer pays $4,500 per year and the
employee pays $1,500 per year). The plan
offers employees a health-contingent
wellness program focused on exercise, blood
sugar, weight, cholesterol, and blood
pressure. The reward for compliance is an
annual premium rebate of $600.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 1, the
program satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because the reward for the
wellness program, $600, does not exceed 30
percent of the total annual cost of employeeonly coverage, $1,800. ($6,000 × 30% =
$1,800.)
Example 2. (i) Facts. Same facts as
Example 1, except the wellness program is
exclusively a tobacco prevention program.
Employees who have used tobacco in the last
12 months and who are not enrolled in the
plan’s tobacco cessation program are charged
a $1,000 premium surcharge (in addition to
their employee contribution towards the
coverage). (Those who participate in the
plan’s tobacco cessation program are not
assessed the $1,000 surcharge.)
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 2, the
program satisfies the requirements of this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because the reward for the
wellness program (absence of a $1,000
surcharge), does not exceed 50 percent of the
total annual cost of employee-only coverage,
$3,000. ($6,000 × 50% = $3,000.)
Example 3. (i) Facts. Same facts as
Example 1, except that, in addition to the
$600 reward for compliance with the healthcontingent wellness program, the plan also
imposes an additional $2,000 tobacco
premium surcharge on employees who have
used tobacco in the last 12 months and who
are not enrolled in the plan’s tobacco
cessation program. (Those who participate in
the plan’s tobacco cessation program are not
assessed the $2,000 surcharge.)
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 3, the
program satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because: Both the total of
all rewards (including absence of a surcharge
for participating in the tobacco program) is
$2,600 ($600 + $2,000 = $2,600), which does
not exceed 50 percent of the total annual cost
of employee-only coverage ($3,000); and,
tested separately, the $600 reward for the
wellness program unrelated to tobacco use
does not exceed 30 percent of the total
annual cost of employee-only coverage,
$1,800.
Example 4. (i) Facts. An employer sponsors
a group health plan. The total annual
premium for employee-only coverage
(including both employer and employee
contributions towards the coverage) is
$5,000. The plan provides a $250 reward to
employees who complete a health risk
assessment, without regard to the health
issues identified as part of the assessment.
The plan also offers a Healthy Heart program,
which is a health-contingent wellness
program under paragraph (f)(2) of this
section, with an opportunity to earn a $1,500
reward.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 4, the plan
satisfies the requirements of this paragraph
(f)(3)(ii). Even though the total reward for all
wellness programs under the plan is $1,750
($250 + $1,500 = $1,750, which exceeds 30
percent of the cost of the annual premium for
employee-only coverage ($5,000 × 30% =
$1,500)), only the reward offered for
compliance with the health-contingent
wellness program ($1,500) is taken into
account in determining whether the rules of
this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) are met. (The $250
reward is offered in connection with a
participatory wellness program and therefore
is not taken into account under this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii)). The health-contingent
wellness program offers a reward that does
not exceed 30 percent of the total annual cost
of employee-only coverage.
(iii) Uniform availability and
reasonable alternative standards. The
reward under the program must be
available to all similarly situated
individuals.
(A) Under this paragraph (f)(3)(iii), a
reward under a program is not available
to all similarly situated individuals for
a period unless the program meets both
of the following requirements:
(1) The program allows a reasonable
alternative standard (or waiver of the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
70637
otherwise applicable standard) for
obtaining the reward for any individual
for whom, for that period, it is
unreasonably difficult due to a medical
condition to satisfy the otherwise
applicable standard; and
(2) The program allows a reasonable
alternative standard (or waiver of the
otherwise applicable standard) for
obtaining the reward for any individual
for whom, for that period, it is
medically inadvisable to attempt to
satisfy the otherwise applicable
standard.
(B) While plans and issuers are not
required to determine a particular
alternative standard in advance of an
individual’s request for one, if an
individual is described in either
paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(A)(1) or (2) of this
section, a reasonable alternative
standard must be furnished by the plan
or issuer upon the individual’s request
or the condition for obtaining the
reward must be waived. All the facts
and circumstances are taken into
account in determining whether a plan
or issuer has furnished a reasonable
alternative standard, including but not
limited to the following:
(1) If the reasonable alternative
standard is completion of an
educational program, the plan or issuer
must make the educational program
available instead of requiring an
individual to find such a program
unassisted, and may not require an
individual to pay for the cost of the
program.
(2) If the reasonable alternative
standard is a diet program, plans and
issuers are not required to pay for the
cost of food but must pay any
membership or participation fee.
(3) If the reasonable alternative
standard is compliance with the
recommendations of a medical
professional who is an employee or
agent of the plan or issuer, and an
individual’s personal physician states
that the plan’s recommendations are not
medically appropriate for that
individual, the plan or issuer must
provide a reasonable alternative
standard that accommodates the
recommendations of the individual’s
personal physician with regard to
medical appropriateness. Plans and
issuers may impose standard cost
sharing under the plan or coverage for
medical items and services furnished
pursuant to the physician’s
recommendations.
(C) If reasonable under the
circumstances, a plan or issuer may seek
verification, such as a statement from an
individual’s personal physician, that a
health factor makes it unreasonably
difficult for the individual to satisfy, or
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
70638
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
medically inadvisable for the individual
to attempt to satisfy, the otherwise
applicable standard. It would not be
reasonable, for example, for a plan and
issuer to seek verification of a claim that
is obviously valid based on the nature
of the individual’s medical condition
that is known to the plan or issuer.
However, plans and issuers may seek
verification in the case of claims for
which it is reasonable to determine that
medical judgment is required to
evaluate the validity of the claim.
(iv) Reasonable design. The program
must be reasonably designed to promote
health or prevent disease. A program
satisfies this standard if it has a
reasonable chance of improving the
health of, or preventing disease in,
participating individuals and it is not
overly burdensome, is not a subterfuge
for discriminating based on a health
factor, and is not highly suspect in the
method chosen to promote health or
prevent disease. This determination is
based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. To the extent a plan’s
initial standard for obtaining a reward
(including a portion of a reward) is
based on the results of a measurement,
test, or screening relating to a health
factor (such as a biometric examination
or a health risk assessment), the plan
must make available to any individual
who does not meet the standard based
on the measurement, test, or screening
a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward.
(v) Notice of availability of other
means of qualifying for the reward. (A)
The plan or issuer must disclose in all
plan materials describing the terms of
the program the availability of other
means of qualifying for the reward or
the possibility of waiver of the
otherwise applicable standard. If plan
materials merely mention that a
program is available, without describing
its terms, this disclosure is not required.
(B) The following language, or
substantially similar language, can be
used to satisfy the notice requirement of
this paragraph (f)(3)(v): ‘‘Your health
plan is committed to helping you
achieve your best health status. Rewards
for participating in a wellness program
are available to all employees. If you
think you might be unable to meet a
standard for a reward under this
wellness program, you might qualify for
an opportunity to earn the same reward
by different means. Contact us at [insert
contact information] and we will work
with you to find a wellness program
with the same reward that is right for
you in light of your health status.’’
Additional sample language is provided
in the examples of paragraph (f)(4) of
this section.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
(4) Examples. The rules of paragraphs
(f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section are
illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. (i) Facts. A group health plan
provides a reward to individuals who
participate in a reasonable specified walking
program. If it is unreasonably difficult due to
a medical condition for an individual to
participate (or if it is medically inadvisable
for an individual to participate), the plan will
waive the walking program requirement and
provide the reward. All materials describing
the terms of the walking program disclose the
availability of the waiver.
(ii) Conclusion. The program satisfies the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this
section because the reward under the
program is available to all similarly situated
individuals because it accommodates
individuals who cannot participate in the
walking program due to a medical condition
(or for whom it would be medically
inadvisable to attempt to participate) by
providing them the reward even if they do
not participate in the walking program (that
is, by waiving the condition). The program
satisfies the requirements of paragraph
(f)(3)(iv) of this section because the walking
program is reasonably designed to promote
health and prevent disease. Last, the plan
complies with the disclosure requirement of
paragraph (f)(3)(v) of this section. Thus, the
plan satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and
(v) of this section.
Example 2. (i) Facts. A group health plan
offers a reward to individuals who achieve a
count under 200 on a cholesterol test. If a
participant does not achieve the targeted
cholesterol count, the plan will make
available a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward. In addition, all
plan materials describing the terms of the
program include the following statement:
‘‘Your health plan wants to help you take
charge of your health. Rewards are available
to all employees who participate in our
Cholesterol Awareness Wellness Program. If
your cholesterol count is under 200, you will
receive the reward. If not, you will still have
an opportunity to qualify for the reward. We
will work with you to find a Health Smart
program that is right for you.’’ Individual D
is identified as having a cholesterol count
above 200. The plan partners D with a nurse
who makes recommendations regarding diet
and exercise, with which it is not
unreasonably difficult due to a medical
condition of D or medically inadvisable for
D to comply, and which is otherwise
reasonably designed, based on all the
relevant facts and circumstances. In addition,
the plan makes available to all other
individuals who do not meet the cholesterol
standard a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward which is not
unreasonably burdensome or impractical. D
will qualify for the discount if D follows the
recommendations regardless of whether D
achieves a cholesterol count that is under
200.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 2, the
program satisfies the requirements of
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section. The program’s initial standard for
obtaining a reward is dependent on the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
results of a cholesterol screening, which is
related to a health factor. However, the
program is reasonably designed under
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) and (iv) of this section
because the plan makes available to all
individuals who do not meet the cholesterol
standard a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward and because the
program is otherwise reasonably designed
based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. The plan also discloses in all
materials describing the terms of the program
the opportunity to qualify for the reward
through other means. Thus, the program
satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of
this section.
Example 3. (i) Facts. Same facts as
Example 2, except that, following diet and
exercise, D again fails to achieve a cholesterol
count that is under 200, and the program
requires D to visit a doctor and follow any
additional recommendations of D’s doctor
with respect to D’s cholesterol. The program
permits D to select D’s own doctor for this
purpose. D visits D’s doctor, who determines
D should take a prescription medication for
cholesterol. In addition, the doctor
determines that D must be monitored through
periodic blood tests to continually reevaluate
D’s health status. The plan accommodates D
by making the discount available to D, but
only if D actually follows the advice of D’s
doctor’s regarding medication and blood
tests.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 3, the
program’s requirements to follow up with,
and follow the recommendations of, D’s
doctor do not make the program
unreasonable under paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) or
(iv) of this section. The program continues to
satisfy the conditions of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii),
(iv), and (v) of this section.
Example 4. (i) Facts. A group health plan
will provide a reward to participants who
have a body mass index (BMI) that is 26 or
lower, determined shortly before the
beginning of the year. Any participant who
does not meet the target BMI is given the
same discount if the participant complies
with an exercise program that consists of
walking 150 minutes a week. Any participant
for whom it is unreasonably difficult due to
a medical condition to comply with this
walking program (and any participant for
whom it is medically inadvisable to attempt
to comply with the walking program) during
the year is given the same discount if the
individual satisfies an alternative standard
that is reasonable taking into consideration
the individual’s medical situation, is not
unreasonably burdensome or impractical to
comply with, and is otherwise reasonably
designed based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. All plan materials describing
the terms of the wellness program include
the following statement: ‘‘Fitness is Easy!
Start Walking! Your health plan cares about
your health. If you are overweight, our Start
Walking program will help you lose weight
and feel better. We will help you enroll. (**If
your doctor says that walking isn’t right for
you, that’s okay too. We will develop a
wellness program that is.)’’ Individual E is
unable to achieve a BMI that is 26 or lower
within the plan’s timeframe and is also not
reasonably able to comply with the walking
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
program. E proposes a program based on the
recommendations of E’s physician. The plan
agrees to make the discount available to E,
but only if E actually follows the physician’s
recommendations.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 4, the
program satisfies the requirements of
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section. The program’s initial standard for
obtaining a reward is dependent on the
results of a BMI screening, which is related
to a health factor. However, the plan
complies with the requirements of paragraph
(f)(3)(iv) of this section because it makes
available to all individuals who do not satisfy
the BMI standard a different reasonable
means of qualifying for the reward (a walking
program that is not unreasonably
burdensome or impractical for individuals to
comply with and that is otherwise reasonably
designed based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances). In addition, the plan
complies with the requirements of paragraph
(f)(3)(iii) of this section because, if there are
individuals for whom it is unreasonably
difficult due to a medical condition to
comply, or for whom it is medically
inadvisable to attempt to comply, with the
walking program, the plan provides a
reasonable alternative to those individuals.
Moreover, the plan satisfies the requirements
of paragraph (f)(3)(v) of this section because
it discloses, in all materials describing the
terms of the program, the availability of other
means of qualifying for the reward or the
possibility of waiver of the otherwise
applicable standard. Thus, the plan satisfies
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section.
Example 5. (i) Facts. In conjunction with
an annual open enrollment period, a group
health plan provides a premium differential
based on tobacco use, determined using a
health risk assessment. The following
statement is included in all plan materials
describing the tobacco premium differential:
‘‘Stop smoking today! We can help! If you are
a smoker, we offer a smoking cessation
program. If you complete the program, you
can avoid this surcharge.’’ The plan
accommodates participants who smoke by
facilitating their enrollment in a smoking
cessation program that requires participation
at a time and place that are not unreasonably
burdensome or impractical for participants,
and that is otherwise reasonably designed
based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. The plan pays the cost of the
program. Any participant can avoid the
surcharge by participating in the program,
regardless of whether the participant stops
smoking.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 5, the
premium differential satisfies the
requirements of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv),
and (v) of this section. The program’s initial
standard for obtaining a reward is dependent
on the results of a health risk assessment,
which is a screening. However, the plan is
reasonably designed under paragraph
(f)(3)(iv) because the plan provides a
different, reasonable means of qualifying for
the reward to all tobacco users. The plan
discloses, in all materials describing the
terms of the program, the availability of other
means of qualifying for the reward. Thus, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
plan satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and
(v) of this section.
Example 6. (i) Facts. Same facts as
Example 5, except the plan does not facilitate
F’s enrollment in any program. Instead the
plan advises F to find a program, pay for it,
and provide a certificate of completion to the
plan.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 6, the
requirement for F to find and pay for F’s own
smoking cessation program means that the
alternative program is not reasonable.
Accordingly, the plan has not offered a
reasonable alternative standard that complies
with paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) and (iv) of this
section and the premium differential violates
paragraph (c) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart C—Other Requirements
3. Section 2590.715–2705 is added to
read as follows:
§ 2590.715–2705 Prohibiting
discrimination against participants and
beneficiaries based on a health factor.
(a) In general. A group health plan
and a health insurance issuer offering
group health insurance coverage must
comply with the requirements of
§ 2590.702.
(b) Applicability date. This section is
applicable to group health plans and
health insurance issuers offering group
health insurance coverage for plan years
beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
See § 2590.715–1251, which provides
that the rules of this section do not
apply to grandfathered health plans.
Department of Health and Human
Services
45 CFR Subtitle A
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Department of Health and
Human Services proposes to amend 45
CFR Parts 146 and 147 as follows:
PART 146—REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE
MARKET
1. The authority citation for Part 146
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 2702 through 2705, 2711
through 2723, 2791, and 2792 of the PHS Act
(42 U.S.C. 300gg–1 through 300gg–5, 300gg–
11 through 300gg–23, 300gg–91, and 300gg–
92) (1996).
Section 146.121 is also issued under secs.
2701 through 2763, 2791, and 2792 of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg
through 300gg–63, 300gg–91, and 300gg–92),
as amended (2010).
2. In § 146.121, paragraph (f) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 146.121 Prohibiting discrimination
against participants and beneficiaries
based on a health factor.
*
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00021
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4702
70639
(f) Nondiscriminatory wellness
programs—in general. A wellness
program is a program of health
promotion or disease prevention.
Paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3) of this
section provide exceptions to the
general prohibitions against
discrimination based on a health factor
for plan provisions that vary benefits
(including cost-sharing mechanisms) or
the premium or contribution for
similarly situated individuals in
connection with a wellness program
that satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph (f). If a wellness program is a
participatory wellness program, as
defined in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, that paragraph also makes clear
that the wellness program does not
violate this section if participation in
the program is made available to all
similarly situated individuals. If a
wellness program is a health-contingent
wellness program, as defined in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the
wellness program does not violate this
section if the requirements of paragraph
(f)(3) of this section are met. Except
where expressly provided otherwise,
references in this section to an
individual obtaining a reward include
both obtaining a reward (such as a
premium discount or rebate, a waiver of
all or part of a cost-sharing mechanism,
an additional benefit, or any financial or
other incentive) and avoiding a penalty
(such as the absence of a premium
surcharge, or other financial or
nonfinancial disincentive). References
in this section to a plan providing a
reward include both providing a reward
(such as a premium discount or rebate,
a waiver of all or part of a cost-sharing
mechanism, an additional benefit, or
any financial or other incentive) and
imposing a penalty (such as a surcharge
or other financial or nonfinancial
disincentive).
(1) Participatory wellness programs
defined. If none of the conditions for
obtaining a reward under a wellness
program is based on an individual
satisfying a standard that is related to a
health factor (or if a wellness program
does not provide a reward), the wellness
program is a participatory wellness
program and, if participation in the
program is made available to all
similarly situated individuals, does not
violate this section. Examples of
participatory wellness programs are:
(i) A program that reimburses all or
part of the cost for membership in a
fitness center.
(ii) A diagnostic testing program that
provides a reward for participation and
does not base any part of the reward on
outcomes.
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
70640
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(iii) A program that encourages
preventive care through the waiver of
the copayment or deductible
requirement under a group health plan
for the costs of, for example, prenatal
care or well-baby visits. (Note that, with
respect to non-grandfathered plans,
§ 147.130 of this subchapter requires
benefits for certain preventive health
services without the imposition of cost
sharing.)
(iv) A program that reimburses
employees for the costs of participating,
or that otherwise provides a reward for
participating, in a smoking cessation
program without regard to whether the
employee quits smoking.
(v) A program that provides a reward
to employees for attending a monthly
no-cost health education seminar.
(vi) A program that provides a reward
to employees who complete a health
risk assessment regarding current health
status, without any further action
(educational or otherwise) required by
the employee with regard to the health
issues identified as part of the
assessment. (See also § 146.122 for rules
prohibiting collection of genetic
information).
(2) Health-contingent wellness
programs defined. If any of the
conditions for obtaining a reward under
a wellness program is based on an
individual satisfying a standard that is
related to a health factor, the wellness
program is a health-contingent wellness
program and the program is permissible
under this section only if all of the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this
section are satisfied. Examples of
health-contingent wellness programs
are:
(i) A program that imposes a premium
surcharge based on tobacco use.
(ii) A program that uses a biometric
screening or a health risk assessment to
identify employees with specified
medical conditions or risk factors (such
as high cholesterol, high blood pressure,
unhealthy body mass index, or high
glucose level) and provides a reward to
employees identified as within a normal
or healthy range for biometrics (or at
low risk for certain medical conditions),
while requiring employees who are
identified as outside the normal or
healthy range (or at risk) to take
additional steps (such as meeting with
a health coach, taking a health or fitness
course, adhering to a health
improvement action plan, or complying
with a health care provider’s plan of
care) to obtain the same reward.
(3) Requirements for healthcontingent wellness programs. A healthcontingent wellness program does not
violate this section if all of the following
requirements are satisfied:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) Frequency of opportunity to
qualify. The program must give
individuals eligible for the program the
opportunity to qualify for the reward
under the program at least once per
year.
(ii) Size of reward. The reward for a
health-contingent wellness program,
together with the reward for other
health-contingent wellness programs
with respect to the plan, must not
exceed the applicable percentage of the
total cost of employee-only coverage
under the plan, as defined in this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii). However, if, in
addition to employees, any class of
dependents (such as spouses, or spouses
and dependent children) may
participate in the wellness program, the
reward must not exceed the applicable
percentage of the total cost of the
coverage in which an employee and any
dependents are enrolled. For purposes
of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii), the cost of
coverage is determined based on the
total amount of employer and employee
contributions for the benefit package
under which the employee is (or the
employee and any dependents are)
receiving coverage.
(A) Applicable percentage. For
purposes of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii), the
applicable percentage is 30 percent,
except that the applicable percentage is
increased an additional 20 percentage
points (to 50 percent) to the extent that
the additional percentage is in
connection with a program designed to
prevent or reduce tobacco use.
(B) Examples. The rules of this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) are illustrated by the
following examples:
Example 1. (i) Facts. An employer sponsors
a group health plan. The annual premium for
employee-only coverage is $6,000 (of which
the employer pays $4,500 per year and the
employee pays $1,500 per year). The plan
offers employees a health-contingent
wellness program focused on exercise, blood
sugar, weight, cholesterol, and blood
pressure. The reward for compliance is an
annual premium rebate of $600.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 1, the
program satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because the reward for the
wellness program, $600, does not exceed 30
percent of the total annual cost of employeeonly coverage, $1,800. ($6,000 × 30% =
$1,800.)
Example 2. (i) Facts. Same facts as
Example 1, except the wellness program is
exclusively a tobacco prevention program.
Employees who have used tobacco in the last
12 months and who are not enrolled in the
plan’s tobacco cessation program are charged
a $1,000 premium surcharge (in addition to
their employee contribution towards the
coverage). (Those who participate in the
plan’s tobacco cessation program are not
assessed the $1,000 surcharge.)
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 2, the
program satisfies the requirements of this
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because the reward for the
wellness program (absence of a $1,000
surcharge), does not exceed 50 percent of the
total annual cost of employee-only coverage,
$3,000. ($6,000 × 50% = $3,000.)
Example 3. (i) Facts. Same facts as
Example 1, except that, in addition to the
$600 reward for compliance with the healthcontingent wellness program, the plan also
imposes an additional $2,000 tobacco
premium surcharge on employees who have
used tobacco in the last 12 months and who
are not enrolled in the plan’s tobacco
cessation program. (Those who participate in
the plan’s tobacco cessation program are not
assessed the $2,000 surcharge.)
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 3, the
program satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because both: The total of
all rewards (including absence of a surcharge
for participating in the tobacco program) is
$2,600 ($600 + $2,000 = $2,600), which does
not exceed 50 percent of the total annual cost
of employee-only coverage ($3,000); and,
tested separately, the $600 reward for the
wellness program unrelated to tobacco use
does not exceed 30 percent of the total
annual cost of employee-only coverage,
$1,800.
Example 4. (i) Facts. An employer sponsors
a group health plan. The total annual
premium for employee-only coverage
(including both employer and employee
contributions towards the coverage) is
$5,000. The plan provides a $250 reward to
employees who complete a health risk
assessment, without regard to the health
issues identified as part of the assessment.
The plan also offers a Healthy Heart program,
which is a health-contingent wellness
program under paragraph (f)(2) of this
section, with an opportunity to earn a $1,500
reward.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 4, the plan
satisfies the requirements of this paragraph
(f)(3)(ii). Even though the total reward for all
wellness programs under the plan is $1,750
($250 + $1,500 = $1,750, which exceeds 30
percent of the cost of the annual premium for
employee-only coverage ($5,000 × 30% =
$1,500)), only the reward offered for
compliance with the health-contingent
wellness program ($1,500) is taken into
account in determining whether the rules of
this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) are met. (The $250
reward is offered in connection with a
participatory wellness program and therefore
is not taken into account under this
paragraph (f)(3)(ii)). The health-contingent
wellness program offers a reward that does
not exceed 30 percent of the total annual cost
of employee-only coverage.
(iii) Uniform availability and
reasonable alternative standards. The
reward under the program must be
available to all similarly situated
individuals.
(A) Under this paragraph (f)(3)(iii), a
reward under a program is not available
to all similarly situated individuals for
a period unless the program meets both
of the following requirements:
(1) The program allows a reasonable
alternative standard (or waiver of the
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
otherwise applicable standard) for
obtaining the reward for any individual
for whom, for that period, it is
unreasonably difficult due to a medical
condition to satisfy the otherwise
applicable standard; and
(2) The program allows a reasonable
alternative standard (or waiver of the
otherwise applicable standard) for
obtaining the reward for any individual
for whom, for that period, it is
medically inadvisable to attempt to
satisfy the otherwise applicable
standard.
(B) While plans and issuers are not
required to determine a particular
alternative standard in advance of an
individual’s request for one, if an
individual is described in either
paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(A)(1) or (2) of this
section, a reasonable alternative
standard must be furnished by the plan
or issuer upon the individual’s request
or the condition for obtaining the
reward must be waived. All the facts
and circumstances are taken into
account in determining whether a plan
or issuer has furnished a reasonable
alternative standard, including but not
limited to the following:
(1) If the reasonable alternative
standard is completion of an
educational program, the plan or issuer
must make the educational program
available instead of requiring an
individual to find such a program
unassisted, and may not require an
individual to pay for the cost of the
program.
(2) If the reasonable alternative
standard is a diet program, plans and
issuers are not required to pay for the
cost of food but must pay any
membership or participation fee.
(3) If the reasonable alternative
standard is compliance with the
recommendations of a medical
professional who is an employee or
agent of the plan or issuer, and an
individual’s personal physician states
that the plan’s recommendations are not
medically appropriate for that
individual, the plan or issuer must
provide a reasonable alternative
standard that accommodates the
recommendations of the individual’s
personal physician with regard to
medical appropriateness. Plans and
issuers may impose standard cost
sharing under the plan or coverage for
medical items and services furnished
pursuant to the physician’s
recommendations.
(C) If reasonable under the
circumstances, a plan or issuer may seek
verification, such as a statement from an
individual’s personal physician, that a
health factor makes it unreasonably
difficult for the individual to satisfy, or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
medically inadvisable for the individual
to attempt to satisfy, the otherwise
applicable standard. It would not be
reasonable, for example, for a plan and
issuer to seek verification of a claim that
is obviously valid based on the nature
of the individual’s medical condition
that is known to the plan or issuer.
However, plans and issuers may seek
verification in the case of claims for
which it is reasonable to determine that
medical judgment is required to
evaluate the validity of the claim.
(iv) Reasonable design. The program
must be reasonably designed to promote
health or prevent disease. A program
satisfies this standard if it has a
reasonable chance of improving the
health of, or preventing disease in,
participating individuals and it is not
overly burdensome, is not a subterfuge
for discriminating based on a health
factor, and is not highly suspect in the
method chosen to promote health or
prevent disease. This determination is
based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. To the extent a plan’s
initial standard for obtaining a reward
(including a portion of a reward) is
based on the results of a measurement,
test, or screening relating to a health
factor (such as a biometric examination
or a health risk assessment), the plan
must make available to any individual
who does not meet the standard based
on the measurement, test, or screening
a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward.
(v) Notice of availability of other
means of qualifying for the reward. (A)
The plan or issuer must disclose in all
plan materials describing the terms of
the program the availability of other
means of qualifying for the reward or
the possibility of waiver of the
otherwise applicable standard. If plan
materials merely mention that a
program is available, without describing
its terms, this disclosure is not required.
(B) The following language, or
substantially similar language, can be
used to satisfy the notice requirement of
this paragraph (f)(3)(v): ‘‘Your health
plan is committed to helping you
achieve your best health status. Rewards
for participating in a wellness program
are available to all employees. If you
think you might be unable to meet a
standard for a reward under this
wellness program, you might qualify for
an opportunity to earn the same reward
by different means. Contact us at [insert
contact information] and we will work
with you to find a wellness program
with the same reward that is right for
you in light of your health status.’’
Additional sample language is provided
in the examples of paragraph (f)(4) of
this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
70641
(4) Examples. The rules of paragraphs
(f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section are
illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. (i) Facts. A group health plan
provides a reward to individuals who
participate in a reasonable specified walking
program. If it is unreasonably difficult due to
a medical condition for an individual to
participate (or if it is medically inadvisable
for an individual to participate), the plan will
waive the walking program requirement and
provide the reward. All materials describing
the terms of the walking program disclose the
availability of the waiver.
(ii) Conclusion. The program satisfies the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this
section because the reward under the
program is available to all similarly situated
individuals because it accommodates
individuals who cannot participate in the
walking program due to a medical condition
(or for whom it would be medically
inadvisable to attempt to participate) by
providing them the reward even if they do
not participate in the walking program (that
is, by waiving the condition). The program
satisfies the requirements of paragraph
(f)(3)(iv) of this section because the walking
program is reasonably designed to promote
health and prevent disease. Last, the plan
complies with the disclosure requirement of
paragraph (f)(3)(v) of this section. Thus, the
plan satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and
(v) of this section.
Example 2. (i) Facts. A group health plan
offers a reward to individuals who achieve a
count under 200 on a cholesterol test. If a
participant does not achieve the targeted
cholesterol count, the plan will make
available a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward. In addition, all
plan materials describing the terms of the
program include the following statement:
‘‘Your health plan wants to help you take
charge of your health. Rewards are available
to all employees who participate in our
Cholesterol Awareness Wellness Program. If
your cholesterol count is under 200, you will
receive the reward. If not, you will still have
an opportunity to qualify for the reward. We
will work with you to find a Health Smart
program that is right for you.’’ Individual D
is identified as having a cholesterol count
above 200. The plan partners D with a nurse
who makes recommendations regarding diet
and exercise, with which it is not
unreasonably difficult due to a medical
condition of D or medically inadvisable for
D to comply, and which is otherwise
reasonably designed, based on all the
relevant facts and circumstances. In addition,
the plan makes available to all other
individuals who do not meet the cholesterol
standard a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward which is not
unreasonably burdensome or impractical. D
will qualify for the discount if D follows the
recommendations regardless of whether D
achieves a cholesterol count that is under
200.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 2, the
program satisfies the requirements of
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section. The program’s initial standard for
obtaining a reward is dependent on the
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
70642
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
results of a cholesterol screening, which is
related to a health factor. However, the
program is reasonably designed under
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) and (iv) of this section
because the plan makes available to all
individuals who do not meet the cholesterol
standard a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward and because the
program is otherwise reasonably designed
based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. The plan also discloses in all
materials describing the terms of the program
the opportunity to qualify for the reward
through other means. Thus, the program
satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of
this section.
Example 3. (i) Facts. Same facts as
Example 2, except that, following diet and
exercise, D again fails to achieve a cholesterol
count that is under 200, and the program
requires D to visit a doctor and follow any
additional recommendations of D’s doctor
with respect to D’s cholesterol. The program
permits D to select D’s own doctor for this
purpose. D visits D’s doctor, who determines
D should take a prescription medication for
cholesterol. In addition, the doctor
determines that D must be monitored through
periodic blood tests to continually reevaluate
D’s health status. The plan accommodates D
by making the discount available to D, but
only if D actually follows the advice of D’s
doctor’s regarding medication and blood
tests.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 3, the
program’s requirements to follow up with,
and follow the recommendations of, D’s
doctor do not make the program
unreasonable under paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) or
(iv) of this section. The program continues to
satisfy the conditions of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii),
(iv), and (v) of this section.
Example 4. (i) Facts. A group health plan
will provide a reward to participants who
have a body mass index (BMI) that is 26 or
lower, determined shortly before the
beginning of the year. Any participant who
does not meet the target BMI is given the
same discount if the participant complies
with an exercise program that consists of
walking 150 minutes a week. Any participant
for whom it is unreasonably difficult due to
a medical condition to comply with this
walking program (and any participant for
whom it is medically inadvisable to attempt
to comply with the walking program) during
the year is given the same discount if the
individual satisfies an alternative standard
that is reasonable taking into consideration
the individual’s medical situation, is not
unreasonably burdensome or impractical to
comply with, and is otherwise reasonably
designed based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. All plan materials describing
the terms of the wellness program include
the following statement: ‘‘Fitness is Easy!
Start Walking! Your health plan cares about
your health. If you are overweight, our Start
Walking program will help you lose weight
and feel better. We will help you enroll. (**If
your doctor says that walking isn’t right for
you, that’s okay too. We will develop a
wellness program that is.)’’ Individual E is
unable to achieve a BMI that is 26 or lower
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
within the plan’s timeframe and is also not
reasonably able to comply with the walking
program. E proposes a program based on the
recommendations of E’s physician. The plan
agrees to make the discount available to E,
but only if E actually follows the physician’s
recommendations.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 4, the
program satisfies the requirements of
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section. The program’s initial standard for
obtaining a reward is dependent on the
results of a BMI screening, which is related
to a health factor. However, the plan
complies with the requirements of paragraph
(f)(3)(iv) of this section because it makes
available to all individuals who do not satisfy
the BMI standard a different reasonable
means of qualifying for the reward (a walking
program that is not unreasonably
burdensome or impractical for individuals to
comply with and that is otherwise reasonably
designed based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances). In addition, the plan
complies with the requirements of paragraph
(f)(3)(iii) of this section because, if there are
individuals for whom it is unreasonably
difficult due to a medical condition to
comply, or for whom it is medically
inadvisable to attempt to comply, with the
walking program, the plan provides a
reasonable alternative to those individuals.
Moreover, the plan satisfies the requirements
of paragraph (f)(3)(v) of this section because
it discloses, in all materials describing the
terms of the program, the availability of other
means of qualifying for the reward or the
possibility of waiver of the otherwise
applicable standard. Thus, the plan satisfies
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section.
Example 5. (i) Facts. In conjunction with
an annual open enrollment period, a group
health plan provides a premium differential
based on tobacco use, determined using a
health risk assessment. The following
statement is included in all plan materials
describing the tobacco premium differential:
‘‘Stop smoking today! We can help! If you are
a smoker, we offer a smoking cessation
program. If you complete the program, you
can avoid this surcharge.’’ The plan
accommodates participants who smoke by
facilitating their enrollment in a smoking
cessation program that requires participation
at a time and place that are not unreasonably
burdensome or impractical for participants,
and that is otherwise reasonably designed
based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. The plan pays the cost of the
program. Any participant can avoid the
surcharge by participating in the program,
regardless of whether the participant stops
smoking.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 5, the
premium differential satisfies the
requirements of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv),
and (v) of this section. The program’s initial
standard for obtaining a reward is dependent
on the results of a health risk assessment,
which is a screening. However, the plan is
reasonably designed under paragraph
(f)(3)(iv) because the plan provides a
different, reasonable means of qualifying for
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
the reward to all tobacco users. The plan
discloses, in all materials describing the
terms of the program, the availability of other
means of qualifying for the reward. Thus, the
plan satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and
(v) of this section.
Example 6. (i) Facts. Same facts as
Example 5, except the plan does not facilitate
F’s enrollment in any program. Instead the
plan advises F to find a program, pay for it,
and provide a certificate of completion to the
plan.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 6, the
requirement for F to find and pay for F’s own
smoking cessation program means that the
alternative program is not reasonable.
Accordingly, the plan has not offered a
reasonable alternative standard that complies
with paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) and (iv) of this
section and the premium differential violates
paragraph (c) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 147—HEALTH INSURANCE
REFORM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL HEALTH
INSURANCE MARKETS
3. The authority citation for Part 147
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 2701 through 2763, 2791,
and 2792 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg–63, 300gg–91,
and 300gg–92), as amended (2010).
4. Section 147.110 is added to read as
follows:
§ 147.110 Prohibiting discrimination
against participants, beneficiaries, and
individuals based on a health factor.
(a) In general. A group health plan
and a health insurance issuer offering
group or individual health insurance
coverage must comply with all the
requirements under 45 CFR 146.121
applicable to a group health plan and a
health insurance issuer offering group
health insurance coverage. Accordingly,
with respect to an issuer offering health
insurance coverage in the individual
market, the issuer is subject to the
requirements of § 146.121 to the same
extent as an issuer offering group health
insurance coverage, except that the
exception contained in § 146.121(f) does
not apply.
(b) Applicability date. This section is
applicable to a group health plan and a
health insurance issuer offering group or
individual health insurance coverage for
plan years (in the individual market,
policy years) beginning on or after
January 1, 2014. See § 147.140, which
provides that the rules of this section do
not apply to grandfathered health plans.
[FR Doc. 2012–28361 Filed 11–20–12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P; 4510–029–P; 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\26NOP4.SGM
26NOP4
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70619-70642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28361]
[[Page 70619]]
Vol. 77
Monday,
No. 227
November 26, 2012
Part IV
Department of the Treasury
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Revenue Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
26 CFR Part 54
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Employee Benefits Security Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Part 2590
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
45 CFR Parts 146 and 147
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Incentives for Nondiscriminatory Wellness Programs in Group Health
Plans; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 70620]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 54
[REG-122707-12]
RIN 1545-BL07
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security Administration
29 CFR Part 2590
RIN 1210-AB55
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
45 CFR Parts 146 and 147
[CMS-9979-P]
RIN 0938-AR48
Incentives for Nondiscriminatory Wellness Programs in Group
Health Plans
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury; Employee
Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor; Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to regulations, consistent
with the Affordable Care Act, regarding nondiscriminatory wellness
programs in group health coverage. Specifically, these proposed
regulations would increase the maximum permissible reward under a
health-contingent wellness program offered in connection with a group
health plan (and any related health insurance coverage) from 20 percent
to 30 percent of the cost of coverage. The proposed regulations would
further increase the maximum permissible reward to 50 percent for
wellness programs designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use. These
regulations also include other proposed clarifications regarding the
reasonable design of health-contingent wellness programs and the
reasonable alternatives they must offer in order to avoid prohibited
discrimination.
DATES: Comments are due on or before January 25, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted to the Department of Labor
as specified below. Any comment that is submitted will be shared with
the other Departments and will also be made available to the public.
Warning: Do not include any personally identifiable information (such
as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential
business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All
comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most
Internet search engines. No deletions, modifications, or redactions
will be made to the comments received, as they are public records.
Comments may be submitted anonymously.
Comments, identified by ``Wellness Programs'', may be submitted by
one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail or Hand Delivery: Office of Health Plan Standards and
Compliance Assistance, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room
N-5653, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, Attention: Wellness Programs.
Comments received will be posted without change to
www.regulations.gov and www.dol.gov/ebsa, and available for public
inspection at the Public Disclosure Room, N-1513, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20210, including any personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Turner or Beth Baum, Employee
Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor, at (202) 693-
8335; Karen Levin, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the
Treasury, at (202) 622-6080; or Jacob Ackerman, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, at (410)
786-1565.
Customer Service Information: Individuals interested in obtaining
information from the Department of Labor concerning employment-based
health coverage laws may call the EBSA Toll-Free Hotline at 1-866-444-
EBSA (3272) or visit the Department of Labor's Web site (www.dol.gov/ebsa). In addition, information from HHS on private health insurance
for consumers can be found on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) Web site (www.cciio.cms.gov/) and information on health
reform can be found at www.HealthCare.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Introduction
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148,
was enacted on March 23, 2010; the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act, Public Law 111-152, was enacted on March 30, 2010
(these are collectively known as the ``Affordable Care Act''). The
Affordable Care Act reorganizes, amends, and adds to the provisions of
part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act)
relating to group health plans and health insurance issuers in the
group and individual markets. The term ``group health plan'' includes
both insured and self-insured group health plans.\1\ The Affordable
Care Act adds section 715(a)(1) to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and section 9815(a)(1) to the Internal Revenue
Code (the Code) to incorporate the provisions of part A of title XXVII
of the PHS Act into ERISA and the Code, and to make them applicable to
group health plans and health insurance issuers providing health
insurance coverage in connection with group health plans. The PHS Act
sections incorporated by these references are sections 2701 through
2728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``group health plan'' is used in title XXVII of the
PHS Act, part 7 of ERISA, and chapter 100 of the Code, and is
distinct from the term ``health plan,'' as used in other provisions
of title I of the Affordable Care Act. The term ``health plan'' does
not include self-insured group health plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Wellness Exception to HIPAA Nondiscrimination Provisions
Prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, Titles I and IV
of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, added section 9802 of the Code, section
702 of ERISA, and section 2702 of the PHS Act (HIPAA nondiscrimination
and wellness provisions). These provisions generally prohibit group
health plans and group health insurance issuers from discriminating
against individual participants and beneficiaries in eligibility,
benefits, or premiums based on a health factor.\2\ An exception to the
general rule allows premium discounts or rebates or modification to
otherwise applicable cost sharing (including copayments, deductibles or
coinsurance) in return for adherence to certain programs of health
promotion and disease prevention. The Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services (HHS), and the
[[Page 70621]]
Treasury (collectively, the Departments) have implemented this
exception by allowing benefits (including cost sharing), premiums, or
contributions to vary based on participation in a wellness program if
such a program adheres to certain conditions set forth in regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions set forth eight
health status-related factors, which the December 13, 2006 final
regulations on nondiscrimination and wellness programs refer to as
``health factors.'' Under HIPAA and the 2006 regulations, the eight
health factors are health status, medical condition (including both
physical and mental illnesses), claims experience, receipt of health
care, medical history, genetic information, evidence of insurability
(including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence), and
disability. See 66 FR 1379, January 8, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Departments published joint final regulations on December 13,
2006 at 71 FR 75014 (the 2006 regulations) regarding the HIPAA
nondiscrimination and wellness provisions.\3\ The 2006 regulations
divide wellness programs into two general categories. The first
category is programs that either do not require an individual to meet a
standard related to a health factor in order to obtain a reward or that
do not offer a reward at all (``participatory wellness programs'').
Participatory wellness programs comply with the nondiscrimination
requirements without having to satisfy any additional standards if
participation in the program is made available to all similarly
situated individuals.\4\ Examples of participatory wellness programs in
the 2006 regulations include a fitness center reimbursement program,\5\
a diagnostic testing program that does not base any reward on test
outcomes, a program that waives cost sharing for prenatal or well-baby
visits,\6\ a program that reimburses employees for the costs of smoking
cessation programs regardless of whether the employee quits smoking,
and a program that provides rewards for attending a free health
education seminar. There is no limit on the financial incentives for
participatory wellness programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 26 CFR 54.9802-1; 29 CFR 2590.702; 45 CFR 146.121. Prior
to issuance of the final 2006 regulations, the Departments published
interim final regulations with request for comment implementing the
HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions on April 8, 1997 at 62 FR 16894,
followed by proposed regulations regarding wellness programs on
January 8, 2001 at 66 FR 1421.
\4\ See paragraph (f)(1) of the 2006 regulations. See also 26
CFR 54.9802-1(d), 29 CFR 2590.702(d), and 45 CFR 146.121(d), which
provide that, generally, distinctions among groups of similarly
situated participants in a health plan must be based on bona fide
employment-based classifications consistent with the employer's
usual business practice. A plan may also distinguish between
beneficiaries based on, for example, their relationship to the plan
participant (such as spouse or dependent child) or based on the age
of dependent children. Distinctions are not permitted to be based on
any of the health factors noted earlier.
\5\ The Treasury and the IRS note that satisfying the rules for
wellness programs does not determine the tax treatment of benefits
provided by the wellness program. For example, fitness center fees
are generally considered expenses for general good health and thus
payment of the fee by the employer is not excluded from income as
the reimbursement of a medical expense.
\6\ Note that section 2713 of the PHS Act, as added by the
Affordable Care Act, and the Departments' interim final regulations
at 26 CFR 54.9815-2713T, 29 CFR 2590.715-2713, and 45 CFR 147.130
require non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance
issuers offering non-grandfathered group or individual health
insurance coverage to provide benefits for certain preventive health
services without the imposition of cost sharing. See also 26 CFR
54.9815-1251T, 29 CFR 2590.715-1251, and 45 CFR 147.140 (regarding
the definition of grandfathered health plan coverage).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second category of wellness programs under the 2006 regulations
consists of programs that require individuals to satisfy a standard
related to a health factor in order to obtain a reward (``health-
contingent wellness programs''). This category includes wellness
programs that require an individual to attain or maintain a certain
health outcome in order to obtain a reward (such as not smoking,
attaining certain results on biometric screenings, or meeting targets
for exercise). As outlined in the 2006 regulations,\7\ plans and
issuers may vary benefits (including cost-sharing mechanisms),
premiums, or contributions based on whether an individual has met the
standards of a wellness program that meets the requirements of
paragraph (f). Paragraph (f)(2) of the 2006 regulations prescribes the
following consumer-protection conditions for health-contingent wellness
programs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 26 CFR 54.9802-1(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3); 29 CFR
2590.702(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3); and 45 CFR 146.121(b)(2)(ii) and
(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The total reward for such wellness programs offered by a plan
sponsor does not exceed 20 percent of the total cost of coverage under
the plan.
2. The program is reasonably designed to promote health or prevent
disease. For this purpose, it must have a reasonable chance of
improving health or preventing disease, not be overly burdensome, not
be a subterfuge for discriminating based on a health factor, and not be
highly suspect in method.
3. The program gives eligible individuals an opportunity to qualify
for the reward at least once per year.
4. The reward is available to all similarly situated individuals.
For this purpose, a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the
otherwise applicable standard) must be made available to any individual
for whom it is unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition to
satisfy the otherwise applicable standard during that period (or for
whom it is medically inadvisable to attempt to satisfy the otherwise
applicable standard).
5. In all plan materials describing the terms of the program, the
availability of a reasonable alternative standard (or the possibility
of waiver of the otherwise applicable standard) is disclosed.
C. Amendments Made by the Affordable Care Act
The Affordable Care Act (section 1201) amended the
nondiscrimination and wellness program provisions of the PHS Act (but
not of ERISA section 702 or Code section 9802). (Affordable Care Act
section 1201 also moved those provisions from PHS Act section 2702 to
PHS Act section 2705). As amended by the Affordable Care Act, the
nondiscrimination and wellness provisions of PHS Act section 2705
largely reflect the 2006 regulations (except as discussed later in this
preamble), and extend the nondiscrimination protections to the
individual market.\8\ The wellness program exception to the prohibition
on discrimination under PHS Act section 2705 applies with respect to
group health plans (and any health insurance coverage offered in
connection with such plans). Section 2705(l) separately provides for a
10-State wellness program demonstration project in the individual
market, to be established not later than July 1, 2014 (as such, this
proposed rule does not include wellness program policy for the
individual market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Section 1201 of the Affordable Care Act also moved the
guaranteed availability provisions that were previously codified in
PHS Act section 2711 to PHS Act section 2702, and extended those
requirements to the individual market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Application to Grandfathered Plans
Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act provides that certain
amendments made by the Affordable Care Act generally do not apply to
plans or health insurance coverage that are in effect on the date of
enactment (and that are not changed in ways specified in implementing
regulations),\9\ except as specified in section 1251(a)(3) and (4) of
the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, section 1251(a)(2) of the
Affordable Care Act provides that subtitles A and C of title I of the
Affordable Care Act, and the amendments made by such subtitles, ``shall
not apply'' to such grandfathered health plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 26 CFR 54.9815-1251T, 29 CFR 2590.715-1251, and 45 CFR
147.140 (75 FR 34538, June 17, 2010), as amended (75 FR 70114,
November 17, 2010). See also Q5 of Affordable Care Act
Implementation FAQs Part II (October 8, 2010), available at http;//
www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca2.html and http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/factsheets/aca_implementation_faqs2.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the amendments made to the PHS Act in section 1201 of the
Affordable Care Act do not apply to grandfathered health plans, the
version of PHS Act section 2702 in effect at the time of enactment of
the Affordable Care Act (and the 2006 regulations under that section)
continues to apply to
[[Page 70622]]
grandfathered health plans, while the provisions of the new PHS Act
section 2705 apply to non-grandfathered health plans for plan years (in
the individual market, policy years) beginning on or after January 1,
2014.\10\ ERISA section 702 and Code section 9802 continue to govern
all group health plans, including grandfathered health plans, and, for
plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, ERISA section
715(a)(1) and Code section 9815(a)(1) will also apply new PHS Act
section 2705 to non-grandfathered health plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 26 CFR 54.9815-1251T(c)(2), 29 CFR 2590.715-1251(c)(2),
and 45 CFR 147.140(c)(2), providing that a grandfathered health plan
must comply with the requirements of the PHS Act, ERISA, and the
Code applicable prior to the changes enacted by the Affordable Care
Act, to the extent not inconsistent with the rules applicable to a
grandfathered health plan (75 FR 34538, June 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, because the Departments believe that the provisions of
these proposed regulations would be authorized under either HIPAA or
the Affordable Care Act, the Departments are proposing in this
rulemaking to apply the same set of standards to both grandfathered and
non-grandfathered health plans. As noted, PHS Act section 2705(j)
largely adopts the wellness program provisions of the 2006 regulations
with some modification and clarification. Consistent with the statutory
approach, these proposed regulations would apply the rules of PHS Act
section 2705, governing rewards for adherence to certain wellness
programs, to grandfathered health plans by regulation under authority
in the HIPAA nondiscrimination and wellness provisions as was done in
the 2006 regulations. This approach is intended to avoid inconsistency
across group health coverage and to provide grandfathered plans the
same flexibility to promote health and prevent disease as non-
grandfathered plans.
II. Overview of the Proposed Rule
These regulations generally propose standards for group health
plans and health insurance issuers offering group health insurance
coverage with respect to wellness programs. These proposed regulations
would replace the wellness program provisions of paragraph (f) of the
2006 regulations and would apply to both grandfathered and non-
grandfathered group health plans and group health insurance coverage
for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. These regulations
also propose to implement the nondiscrimination provisions made
applicable to the individual market by section 1201 of the Affordable
Care Act. This rulemaking does not propose to modify provisions of the
2006 regulations other than paragraph (f).
A. Two Categories of Wellness Programs
Consistent with the 2006 regulations and PHS Act section 2705(j),
these proposed regulations would continue to divide wellness programs
into two categories: ``Participatory wellness programs'', which are a
majority of wellness programs (as noted below) and ``health-contingent
wellness programs.'' Participatory wellness programs are programs that
are made available to all similarly situated individuals and that
either do not provide a reward or do not include any conditions for
obtaining a reward that are based on an individual satisfying a
standard that is related to a health factor. Several examples of
participatory wellness programs are provided in these proposed
regulations, including: (1) A program that reimburses for all or part
of the cost of membership in a fitness center; and (2) a program that
provides a reward to employees for attending a monthly, no-cost health
education seminar. Participatory programs are not required to meet the
five requirements applicable to health-contingent wellness programs.
In contrast, health-contingent wellness programs require an
individual to satisfy a standard related to a health factor to obtain a
reward (or require an individual to do more than a similarly situated
individual based on a health factor in order to obtain the same
reward). Like the 2006 regulations, these proposed regulations would
continue to permit rewards to be in the form of a discount or rebate of
a premium or contribution, a waiver of all or part of a cost-sharing
mechanism (such as deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance), the
absence of a surcharge, the value of a benefit that otherwise would not
be provided under the plan, or other financial or nonfinancial
incentives or disincentives. Examples of health-contingent wellness
programs in these proposed regulations are: (1) A program that imposes
a premium surcharge based on tobacco use; and (2) a program that uses a
biometric screening or a health risk assessment to identify employees
with specified medical conditions or risk factors (such as high
cholesterol, high blood pressure, abnormal body mass index, or high
glucose level) and provides a reward to employees identified as within
a normal or healthy range (or at low risk for certain medical
conditions), while requiring employees who are identified as outside
the normal or healthy range (or at risk) to take additional steps (such
as meeting with a health coach, taking a health or fitness course,
adhering to a health improvement action plan, or complying with a
health care provider's plan of care) to obtain the same reward. Under
paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3) of the 2006 regulations (which remain
unchanged),\11\ health-contingent wellness programs are permissible
only if they comply with the provisions of paragraph (f)(3), which are
proposed to be amended in this rulemaking.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 26 CFR 54.9802-1(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3); 29 CFR
2590.702(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3); and 45 CFR 146.121(b)(2)(ii) and
(c)(3).
\12\ Until these proposed regulations are finalized and
effective, the provisions of the 2006 regulations, at 26 CFR
54.9802-1(f), 29 CFR 2590.702(f), and 45 CFR 146.121(f) generally
remain applicable to group health plans and group health insurance
issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Departments believe that appropriately designed wellness
programs have the potential to contribute importantly to promoting
health and preventing disease. Even after the issuance of the 2006
regulations and the enactment of the Affordable Care Act wellness
provisions, however, stakeholder feedback suggests that there continues
to be a degree of confusion regarding the scope of the rules governing
wellness programs. The Departments hope that these proposed regulations
will help dispel the confusion by reiterating that the five regulatory
requirements relating to frequency of opportunity to qualify, size of
reward, uniform availability and reasonable alternative standards,
reasonable design, and notice of other means of qualifying for the
reward (summarized below and contained in paragraph (f)(3) of the
proposed regulations) apply only to those wellness programs that meet
the definition of ``health-contingent'' programs. As discussed above,
these are wellness programs that both provide a reward and condition
the reward on satisfying a standard that is related to a health factor.
Many wellness programs (those characterized in these regulations as
``participatory wellness programs'') do not both provide a reward and
condition the reward on satisfying a standard that is related to a
health factor. Accordingly, as noted, participatory wellness programs
are not required to meet the five enumerated requirements applicable to
health-contingent wellness programs, but they are required to be made
available to all similarly situated individuals.
[[Page 70623]]
B. Requirements for Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
Consistent with the 2006 regulations, these proposed regulations
generally would maintain the five requirements for health-contingent
wellness programs with one significant modification relating to the
size of the reward. In addition, several regulatory provisions have
been re-ordered, and clarifications are proposed to address questions
and issues raised by stakeholders since the 2006 regulations were
issued and to be consistent with the amendments made by the Affordable
Care Act, as discussed below.
(1) Frequency of Opportunity to Qualify.
These proposed regulations would, consistent with the 2006
regulations and the amendments made by the Affordable Care Act, require
health-contingent wellness programs to give individuals eligible for
the program the opportunity to qualify for the reward at least once per
year. As stated in the preamble to the 2006 regulations, the once-per-
year requirement was included as a bright-line standard for determining
the minimum frequency that is consistent with a reasonable design for
promoting good health or preventing disease.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 71 FR at 75018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Size of Reward.
Like the 2006 regulations, these proposed regulations would
continue to limit the total amount of the reward for health-contingent
wellness programs with respect to a plan, whether offered alone or
coupled with the reward for other health-contingent wellness programs.
Specifically, the total reward offered to an individual under an
employer's health-contingent wellness programs could not exceed a
specified percentage (referred to as the ``applicable percentage'' in
the proposed regulations) of the total cost of employee-only coverage
under the plan, taking into account both employer and employee
contributions towards the cost of coverage. If, in addition to
employees, any class of dependents (such as spouses, or spouses and
dependent children) may participate in the health-contingent wellness
program, the reward could not exceed the applicable percentage of the
total cost of the coverage in which the employee and any dependents are
enrolled (such as family coverage or employee-plus-one coverage).
Some stakeholders have raised questions about health-contingent
wellness programs that allow dependents to participate, and what
portion of the reward should be attributable to each participating
dependent. If a class of dependents may participate in a health-
contingent wellness program, some have suggested that there be a
maximum reward attributable to the employee's participation in the
wellness program, such as an amount that does not exceed the applicable
percentage of the cost of employee-only coverage. The proposed
regulation being issued contemporaneously by HHS proposes that, to
comply with PHS Act section 2701, with respect to family coverage, any
premium variation for tobacco use must be applied to the portion of
premium attributable to each family member. The Departments invite
comments on apportionment of rewards in health-contingent wellness
programs (which may involve tobacco use and/or other health factors)--
for example, should the reward be prorated if only one family member
fails to qualify for it.
The 2006 regulations specify 20 percent as the maximum permissible
reward for participation in a health-contingent wellness program. PHS
Act section 2705(j)(3)(A), effective for plan years beginning on or
after January 1, 2014, increases the maximum reward to 30 percent and
authorizes the Departments to increase the maximum reward to as much as
50 percent if the Departments determine that such an increase is
appropriate. In these proposed regulations, the increase in the
applicable percentage from 20 percent to 30 percent, which is effective
for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, conforms to the
new PHS Act section 2705(j)(3)(A). In addition, the Departments have
determined that an increase of an additional 20 percentage points (to
50 percent) for health-contingent wellness programs designed to prevent
or reduce tobacco use is warranted to conform to the new PHS Act
section 2701, to avoid inconsistency across group health coverage,
whether insured or self-insured, or offered in the small group or large
group market, and to provide grandfathered plans the same flexibility
to promote health and prevent disease as non-grandfathered plans.
Specifically, PHS Act section 2701, the ``fair health insurance
premium'' provision, sets forth the factors that issuers may use to
vary premium rates in the individual or small group market.\14\ PHS Act
section 2701(a)(1)(A)(iv) provides that issuers in the individual and
small group markets cannot vary rates for tobacco use by more than a
ratio of 1.5 to 1 (that is, allowing up to a 50 percent premium
surcharge for tobacco use). Contemporaneously with the publication of
these proposed wellness program regulations, HHS is publishing a
proposed regulation that would implement PHS Act section 2701. HHS
proposes that a health insurance issuer in the small group market would
be able to implement the tobacco use surcharge under PHS Act section
2701 to employees only in connection with a wellness program meeting
the standards of PHS Act section 2705(j) and its implementing
regulations. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed regulation
implementing PHS Act section 2701, HHS is proposing in that rule that
the definition of ``tobacco use'' for purposes of section 2701 be
consistent with the approach taken with respect to health-contingent
wellness programs designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use under
section 2705(j). Comments are solicited in the preamble to the proposed
rules implementing section 2701 on possible definitions of ``tobacco
use'' that would be applied for purposes of PHS Act sections 2701 and
2705(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Small group market means the health insurance market under
which individuals obtain health insurance coverage (directly or
through any arrangement) on behalf of themselves (and their
dependents) through a group health plan maintained by a small
employer. See PHS Act section 2791(e)(5); 45 CFR 144.103. For plan
years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, amendments made by the
Affordable Care Act provide that the term ``small employer'' means,
in connection with a group health plan with respect to a calendar
year and a plan year, an employer who employed an average of at
least 1 but not more than 100 employees on business days during the
preceding calendar year and who employs at least 1 employee on the
first day of the plan year. See PHS Act section 2791(e)(4). In the
case of plan years beginning before January 1, 2016, a State may
elect to substitute ``50 employees'' for ``100 employees'' in its
definition of a small employer. See section 1304(b)(3) of the
Affordable Care Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To coordinate these proposed regulations with the tobacco use
rating provisions of PHS Act section 2701, as proposed by HHS, these
proposed wellness program regulations would use the new authority in
PHS Act section 2705(j)(3)(A) (and, with respect to grandfathered
health plans, the preexisting authority in the HIPAA nondiscrimination
and wellness provisions) to increase the applicable percentage for
determining the size of the reward for participating in a health-
contingent wellness program by an additional 20 percentage points (to
50 percent) to the extent that the additional percentage is attributed
to tobacco use prevention or reduction. Applying these proposed
regulations to all group health plans would provide consistency across
markets, giving large, self-insured, and grandfathered employment-based
health
[[Page 70624]]
plans the same added flexibility to promote tobacco-free workforces as
small, insured, non-grandfathered health plans.
Examples included in these proposed regulations illustrate how to
calculate the applicable percentage. The Departments invite comments on
the proposed approach in general and other ideas for coordinating the
implementation of the tobacco rating factor under PHS Act section 2701
with the nondiscrimination and wellness program provisions. The
Departments also invite comments as to whether additional rules or
examples would be helpful to demonstrate compliance with the limitation
on the size of the reward when the amount of the reward is variable and
is not determinable at the time the reward is established (for example,
when the reward is waiver of a copayment for outpatient office visits,
the frequency of which will not be predictable for any particular
participant or beneficiary under the plan).
(3) Uniform Availability and Reasonable Alternative Standards.
A critical element of these proposed regulations is the requirement
that the reward under a health-contingent wellness program be available
to all similarly situated individuals. To meet this requirement, a
``reasonable alternative standard'' (or waiver of the otherwise
applicable standard) for obtaining the reward must be provided for any
individual for whom, for that period, it is either unreasonably
difficult due to a medical condition to meet the otherwise applicable
standard, or for whom it is medically inadvisable to attempt to satisfy
the otherwise applicable standard. That is, the same, full reward must
be available to individuals who qualify by satisfying a reasonable
alternative standard as is provided to individuals who qualify by
satisfying the program's otherwise applicable standard. These proposed
regulations would generally reiterate the requirements set forth in the
2006 regulations and codified in PHS Act section 2705(j), and provide
several additional clarifications.
First, under these proposed regulations, as under the 2006
regulations, in lieu of providing a reasonable alternative standard, a
plan or issuer may always waive the otherwise applicable standard and
provide the reward. The plan or issuer may waive the otherwise
applicable standard and provide a reward for an entire class of
individuals or may do so on an individual-by-individual basis based on
the facts and circumstances presented.
Second, these proposed regulations would not require plans and
issuers to establish a particular alternative standard in advance of an
individual's specific request for one. However, a reasonable
alternative standard would have to be provided by the plan or issuer
(or the condition for obtaining the reward would be required to be
waived) upon an individual's request. In this connection, the
Departments note that, as stated in the preamble to the 2006
regulations with respect to tobacco cessation, ``overcoming an
addiction sometimes requires a cycle of failure and renewed effort.''
\15\ Plans and issuers cannot cease to provide a reasonable alternative
standard merely because one was not successful before; they must
continue to offer a reasonable alternative standard, whether it is the
same standard or a new reasonable alternative standard (such as a new
weight-loss class or a new nicotine replacement therapy).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 71 FR 75019.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the facts and circumstances would be taken into account in
determining whether a plan or issuer has provided a reasonable
alternative standard, including but not limited to the following
proposed factors:
If the reasonable alternative standard is completion of an
educational program, the plan or issuer must make the educational
program available instead of requiring an individual to find such a
program unassisted, and may not require an individual to pay for the
cost of the program.
If the reasonable alternative standard is a diet program,
the plan or issuer is not required to pay for the cost of food but must
pay any membership or participation fee.
If the reasonable alternative standard is compliance with
the recommendations of a medical professional who is an employee or
agent of the plan or issuer, and an individual's personal physician
states that the medical professional's recommendations are not
medically appropriate for that individual, the plan or issuer must
provide a reasonable alternative standard that accommodates the
recommendations of the individual's physician with regard to medical
appropriateness.\17\ Plans and issuers may impose standard cost sharing
under the plan or coverage for medical items and services furnished in
accordance with the physician's recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As stated in the preamble to the Departments' regulations
on internal claims and appeals and external review processes,
adverse benefit determinations based on whether a participant or
beneficiary is entitled to a reasonable alternative standard for a
reward under a plan's wellness program are situations in which a
claim is considered to involve medical judgment and therefore is
eligible for Federal external review. See 76 FR 37216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Departments intend that these clarifications with respect to
offering reasonable alternative standards will help prevent health-
contingent wellness programs that provide little to no support to
enrollees to improve individuals' health. In addition, as explained
later in this preamble, clarifications are proposed to ensure that a
health-contingent wellness program is reasonably designed to improve
health and is not a subterfuge for underwriting or reducing benefits
based on health status. Comments are invited on these provisions, as
well as whether other facts and circumstances should be specifically
addressed. For example, the Departments seek comment on whether any
additional rules or clarifications are needed with respect to the
process for determining a reasonable alternative standard.
Finally, the 2006 regulations provided that it is permissible for a
plan or issuer to seek verification, such as a statement from the
individual's personal physician, that a health factor makes it
unreasonably difficult for the individual to satisfy, or medically
inadvisable for the individual to attempt to satisfy, the otherwise
applicable standard. The Affordable Care Act amendments codified this
provision with one modification: PHS Act section 2705(j)(3)(D)(ii)
makes clear that physician verification may be required by a plan or
issuer ``if reasonable under the circumstances.'' These proposed
regulations clarify that it would not be reasonable for a plan or
issuer to seek verification of a claim that is obviously valid based on
the nature of the individual's medical condition that is known to the
plan or issuer. Plans and issuers are permitted under the proposed
regulations to seek verification of claims that require the use of
medical judgment to evaluate. The Departments solicit comments on
whether additional clarifications would be helpful regarding the
reasonableness of physician verification.
(4) Reasonable Design.
Consistent with the 2006 regulations and PHS Act section 2705(j),
these proposed regulations would continue to require that health-
contingent wellness programs be reasonably designed to promote health
or prevent disease, not be overly burdensome, not be a subterfuge for
discrimination based on a health factor, and not be highly suspect
[[Page 70625]]
in the method chosen to promote health or prevent disease. The preamble
to the 2006 regulations stated that the ``reasonably designed''
standard was designed to prevent abuse, but otherwise was ``intended to
be an easy standard to satisfy * * *. There does not need to be a
scientific record that the method promotes wellness to satisfy this
standard. The standard is intended to allow experimentation in diverse
ways of promoting wellness.'' \18\ The preamble also stated that the
Departments did not ``want plans and issuers to be constrained by a
narrow range of programs * * * but want plans and issuers to feel free
to consider innovative programs for motivating individuals to make
efforts to improve their health.'' \19\ These proposed regulations
would continue to provide plans and issuers flexibility and encourage
innovation. Also, as discussed later in this preamble, the regulations
include several clarifications to ensure against subterfuge and
discrimination. Comments are welcome on whether certain standards,
including evidence- or practice-based standards, are needed to ensure
that wellness programs are reasonably designed to promote health or
prevent disease. The Departments also welcome comments on best
practices guidance regarding evidence- and practice-based strategies in
order to increase the likelihood of wellness program success. Resources
for employers and plans include the Healthier Worksite Initiative of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/hwi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 71 FR 75018.
\19\ 71 FR 75019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed regulations, the determination of whether a
health-contingent wellness program is reasonably designed is based on
all the relevant facts and circumstances. To ensure that programs are
not a subterfuge for discrimination or underwriting based on health
factors such as weight, blood pressure, glucose levels, cholesterol
levels, or tobacco use with no or insufficient support to improve
individuals' health, the Departments propose that, to the extent a
plan's initial standard for obtaining a reward (or a portion of a
reward) is based on results of a measurement, test, or screening that
is related to a health factor (such as a biometric examination or a
health risk assessment), the plan is not reasonably designed unless it
makes available to all individuals who do not meet the standard based
on the measurement, test, or screening a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward. Accordingly, the general approach that was
adopted in the 2006 regulations is preserved, which allows plans and
issuers to conduct screenings and employ measurement techniques in
order to target wellness programs effectively. For example, plans and
issuers could target individuals with high cholesterol for
participation in cholesterol reduction programs, or individuals who use
tobacco for participation in tobacco cessation programs, rather than
the entire population of participants and beneficiaries if individuals
who do not meet a plan's target biometrics (or similar standards) are
provided a different, reasonable means of qualifying for the same
reward. The Departments invite comments on this approach, including on
ways to ensure that employees will not be subjected to an unreasonable
``one-size-fits-all'' approach to designing the different means of
qualifying for the reward that would fail to take an employee's
circumstances into account to the extent that, as a practical matter,
they would make it unreasonably difficult for the employee to access
those different means of qualifying. Comments also are invited on
whether any other consumer protections are needed to ensure that
wellness programs are reasonably designed to promote health or prevent
disease.
(5) Notice of Other Means of Qualifying for the Reward.
These proposed regulations, consistent with the 2006 regulations
and the amendments made by the Affordable Care Act, would require plans
and issuers to disclose the availability of other means of qualifying
for the reward or the possibility of waiver of the otherwise applicable
standard in all plan materials describing the terms of a health-
contingent wellness program. If plan materials merely mention that a
program is available, without describing its terms, this disclosure is
not required. For example, a summary of benefits and coverage (SBC)
required under section 2715 of the PHS Act that notes that cost sharing
may vary based on participation in a diabetes wellness program, without
describing the standards of the program, would not trigger this
disclosure.
The 2006 regulations provided sample language that could be used to
satisfy this requirement in both the regulatory text and in several
examples. However, feedback and experience since the 2006 regulations
were published have indicated that the sample language was complicated
and confusing to some individuals and may have led fewer individuals to
seek a reasonable alternative standard than were eligible. Accordingly,
these proposed regulations provide new sample language in the
regulatory text and in examples that is intended to be simpler for
individuals to understand and to increase the likelihood that those who
qualify for a different means of obtaining a reward will contact the
plan or issuer to request it. The Departments invite comment on the
sample language in both the regulatory text and in the examples.
C. Application to the Individual Health Insurance Market
PHS Act sections 2705(a) and (b), as added by section 1201 of the
Affordable Care Act, apply the HIPAA nondiscrimination requirements to
health insurance issuers in the individual health insurance market.
Accordingly, the HHS proposed regulations include a new Sec. 147.110
which applies the nondiscrimination protections of the 2006 regulations
to non-grandfathered, individual health insurance coverage, effective
for policy years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. By their terms,
the wellness program provisions of PHS Act section 2705(j), however, do
not apply to health insurance coverage in the individual market.
Accordingly, the wellness program provisions of Sec. 146.121(f) apply
only to group health plans and group health insurance coverage, not
individual market coverage.
D. Applicability Date
These proposed regulations would apply for plan years (in the
individual market, policy years) beginning on or after January 1, 2014,
consistent with the statutory effective date of PHS Act section 2705,
as well as PHS Act section 2701. Comments are invited on this proposed
applicability date.
III. Economic Impact and Paperwork Burden
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563--Department of Labor and Department
of Health and Human Services
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
proposed rule is a
[[Page 70626]]
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)(4) of Executive
Order 12866, because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising
from the President's priorities. Accordingly, the rule has been
reviewed by the OMB.
Table 1--Accounting Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits..................... Quantified: Minimal due to low expected
use of higher reward limits.
Qualitative: Benefits include the ability
to increase the reward based on a health
factor to incentivize individuals to
meet a health standard associated with
improved health, which could reduce
health care costs. Improved standards
could reduce the use of wellness
programs as a subterfuge for
discrimination based on a health factor.
Costs........................ Quantified: Minimal since employers are
expected to create or expand wellness
programs only if the expected benefit
exceeds the cost as well as due to low
expected use of higher reward limits.
Qualitative: Costs of the rule include
clarifications regarding what costs
individuals may pay as part of an
alternative means of complying with the
health standard. To the extent an
individual faces an increased cost for
not meeting a health standard, the
individual would have reduced resources
to use for other purposes.
Transfers.................... Quantified: Minimal due to low expected
use of higher reward limits.
Qualitative: Transfers resulting from the
rule include transfers from those who do
not meet a health standard to those who
do meet the standard or the associated
alternative standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the Departments' review of the most recent literature and
studies regarding wellness programs, the Departments reached the
conclusion that the impact of the benefits, costs, and transfers
associated with the proposed rules will be minimal. As discussed in
this analysis, few health-contingent wellness programs today come close
to meeting the 20 percent limit (based on the data, the usual reward
percentage ranges from three to 11 percent); therefore, the Departments
do not believe that expanding the limit to 30 percent (or 50 percent
for programs designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use) will result in
significantly higher participation of employers in such programs. The
Departments provide a qualitative discussion below and cite the survey
data used to substantiate this conclusion. Moreover, most wellness
programs appear to be participatory programs that do not require an
individual to meet a standard related to a health factor in order to
obtain a reward. As stated earlier in this preamble, these
participatory wellness programs are not required to meet the five
requirements that apply to health-contingent wellness programs, but
they are required to be made available to all similarly situated
individuals.
Although the Departments believe few plans will expand the reward
percentage, the Departments provide a qualitative discussion regarding
the sources of benefits, costs, and transfers that could occur if plans
were to expand the reward beyond the current maximum of 20 percent.
Currently, insufficient broad-based evidence makes it difficult to
definitively assess the impact of workplace wellness programs on health
outcomes and cost, although, overall, employers largely report that
workplace wellness programs in general (participatory programs and
health-contingent programs) are delivering on their intended benefit of
improving health and reducing costs.
The one source of potential additional cost discussed in the impact
analysis is the clarification that plans must provide a reasonable
alternative means of satisfying the otherwise applicable standard. The
Departments present evidence that currently employers not only allow a
reasonable alternative standard, but that most employers already pay
for these alternatives. The Departments do not have an estimate of how
many plans are not currently paying for alternatives consistent with
the clarifications set forth in the proposed regulations, but the
number appears to be small. The Departments also employ economic logic
to conclude that employers will create or expand their wellness program
and provide reasonable alternatives only if the expected benefits
exceed the expected costs. Therefore, the Departments believe that the
benefits of the proposed rule will justify the costs. The Departments
invite comments on these conclusions and request input for improving
the analysis, including additional data, surveys, or studies.
B. Background and Need for Regulatory Action--Department of Labor and
Department of Health and Human Services
As discussed earlier in this preamble, on December 13, 2006, the
Departments issued joint final regulations regarding the HIPAA
nondiscrimination and wellness provisions. The 2006 regulations set
forth the requirements for wellness programs that provide a reward to
individuals who satisfy a standard related to a health factor or
provide a reward to individuals to do more than a similarly situated
individual based on a health factor. See section I.B. of this preamble
for a detailed discussion of the HIPAA nondiscrimination and wellness
provisions and the 2006 regulations.
PHS Act section 2705 largely reflects the provisions of the 2006
regulations with some modification and clarification. Most notably, it
increased the maximum reward that can be provided under a health-
contingent wellness program from 20 percent to 30 percent of the total
cost of coverage under the plan and authorized the Departments to
increase this percentage to as much as 50 percent of the total cost of
coverage under the plan, if the Departments determine that such an
increase is appropriate. Accordingly, as discussed in section II.B of
this preamble, these proposed regulations increase the applicable
percentage for the maximum reward from 20 percent to 30 percent, with
an additional increase of 20 percentage points (to 50 percent) for
health-contingent wellness programs designed to prevent or reduce
tobacco use. The additional increase is warranted to conform to PHS Act
section 2701, to avoid inconsistency across group health coverage,
whether insured or self-insured, or offered in the small group or large
group market, and to provide grandfathered plans the same flexibility
to promote health and prevent disease as non-grandfathered plans.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For a discussion of PHS Act section 2701 and the HHS
proposed regulation being published contemporaneously with these
proposed regulations, see section II.B.2. of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Regulatory Alternatives--Department of Labor and Department of
Health and Human Services
As stated earlier in this preamble, the 2006 regulations prescribed
several requirements for health-contingent wellness programs, including
a limitation on the maximum reward of 20 percent of the total cost of
coverage
[[Page 70627]]
under the plan.\21\ PHS Act section 2705 largely reflects the
requirements for wellness programs from the 2006 regulations with some
modification and clarification. Most notably, it increased the maximum
reward that can be provided under a health-contingent wellness program
from 20 percent to 30 percent of the total cost of coverage under the
plan and authorized the Departments to increase this percentage to as
much as 50 percent, if the Departments determine that such an increase
is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See section I.B, earlier in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHS Act section 2701(a)(1)(A)(iv) provides that issuers in the
individual and small group markets cannot vary rates for tobacco use by
more than a ratio of 1.5 to 1 (that is, allowing up to a 50 percent
rating factor for tobacco use) for non-grandfathered plans. PHS Act
section 2701 applies to the individual market and the small group
market, but does not apply in the large group market or to self-insured
plans. Contemporaneously with the publication of these proposed
regulations, HHS is publishing a proposed rule that would provide that
an issuer in the small group market would not be able to impose the
tobacco rating factor on an individual in the plan under PHS Act
section 2701 unless it was imposed as part of a wellness program
meeting the standards of PHS Act section 2705(j) and its implementing
regulations.
An important policy goal of the Departments is to provide the large
group market and self-insured plans and grandfathered health plans with
the same flexibility as non-grandfathered plans in the small group
market to promote tobacco-free workforces. The Departments considered
several regulatory alternatives to meet this objective, including the
following:
(1) Stacking premium differentials. One alternative considered was
to permit a 50 percent premium differential for tobacco use in the
small group market under PHS Act section 2701 without requiring a
reasonable alternative standard. Under PHS Act section 2705, an
additional 30 percent premium differential would also be permitted if
the five criteria for a health-contingent wellness program are met
(including the offering of a reasonable alternative standard). Under
this option, an 80 percent premium differential would have been
allowable in the small group market based on factors related to health
status. Large and self-insured plans would have been limited to the 30
percent maximum reward. Allowing such a substantial difference between
what was permissible in the small group market and the large group
market was not in line with the Departments' policy goal of providing
consistency in flexibility for plans.
(2) Concurrent premium differentials with no reasonable alternative
required to be offered for tobacco use. Another alternative would be to
read sections 2701 and 2705 together such that, for non-grandfathered
health plans in the small group market, up to a 50 percent premium
differential would be permitted based on tobacco use, as authorized
under PHS Act section 2701(a)(1)(A)(iv), with no reasonable alternative
standard required for the tobacco use program. With respect to non-
tobacco-related wellness programs, a reward could be offered only to
the extent that a tobacco use wellness program were less than 30
percent of the cost of coverage because the two provisions apply
concurrently, and a reward would not be permitted under PHS Act section
2705 if the maximum reward already were exceeded by virtue of PHS Act
section 2701. Thus, the 50 percent tobacco surcharge under PHS Act
section 2701 would be available only to non-grandfathered, insured,
small group plans. The chosen approach is intended to avoid
inconsistency and to provide grandfathered plans the same flexibility
to promote health and prevent disease as non-grandfathered plans.
D. Current Use of Wellness Programs and Economic Impacts--Department of
Labor and Department of Health and Human Services
The current use of wellness programs and economic impacts of these
proposed regulations are discussed in this analysis.
Wellness programs \22\ have become common among employers in the
United States. The 2012 Kaiser/HRET survey indicates that 63 percent of
all employers who offered health benefits also offered at least one
wellness program.\23\ The uptake of wellness programs continues to be
more common among large employers. For example, the 2012 Kaiser/HRET
survey found that health risk assessments are offered by 38 percent of
large employers offering health benefits, but only 18 percent of
employers with fewer than 200 workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ On behalf of the Departments, RAND researchers did a review
of the current literature on this topic. ``A Review of the U.S.
Workplace Wellness Market'' February 2012. The report can be found
at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/workplacewellnessmarketreview2012.pdf.
\23\ Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health Benefits: 2011
Annual Survey. 2011, The Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA;
Health Research & Educational Trust, Chicago, IL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Kaiser/HRET survey indicates that 29 percent of all firms and
53 percent of large firms offered weight loss programs, while 30
percent and 64 percent, respectively, offered gym memberships or on-
site exercise facilities. Meanwhile, 32 percent of all employers and 63
percent of large employers offered smoking cessation resources. Despite
widespread availability, actual participation of employees in wellness
programs remains limited. While no nationally representative data
exist, a 2010 non-representative survey suggests that typically less
than 20 percent of eligible employees participate in wellness
interventions such as smoking cessation.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Nyce, S. Boosting Wellness Participation Without Breaking
the Bank. TowersWatson Insider. July, 2010:1-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, insufficient broad-based evidence makes it difficult to
definitively assess the impact of workplace wellness on health outcomes
and cost. Yet, overall, employers largely report that workplace
wellness programs are delivering on their intended benefit of improving
health and reducing costs. According to the 2011 Kaiser/HRET survey, 65
percent of respondents that offered wellness programs stated that these
programs improved employee health, and 53 percent believed that they
reduced costs. Larger firms (defined as those with more than 200
workers in the Kaiser/HRET survey) were significantly more positive, as
74 percent affirmed that workplace wellness programs improved health
and 65 percent said that it reduced cost, as opposed to 65 percent and
52 percent, respectively, among smaller firms.\25\ Forty percent of
respondents to a survey by Buck Consultants indicated that they had
measured the impact of their wellness program on the growth trend of
their health care costs, and of these, 45 percent reported a reduction
in that growth trend. The majority of these employers, 61 percent,
reported that the reduction in growth trend of their health care costs
was between two and five percentage points per year.\26\ There are
numerous accounts of the positive impact of workplace wellness programs
in many industries, regions, and types of employers. For example, a
recent
[[Page 70628]]
article published by the Harvard Business Review cited positive
outcomes reported by private-sector employers along several different
dimensions, including health care savings, reduced absenteeism, and
employee satisfaction.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health Benefits: 2010
Annual Survey. 2010, The Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA;
Health Research & Educational Trust, Chicago, IL.
\26\ Buck Consultants, Working Well: A Global Survey of Health
Promotion and Workplace Wellness Strategies. 2010, Buck Consultants:
San Francisco, CA.
\27\ Berry, L., A. Mirabito, and W. Baun, What's the Hard Return
on Employee Wellness Programs? Harvard Business Review, 2010.
88(12): p. 104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several studies that looked at the impact of smoking cessation
programs found significantly higher quit rates or less tobacco
use.28 29 Smoking cessation programs typically offered
education and counseling to increase social support.\30\ Two studies
reported that individuals in the intervention group quit smoking at a
rate approximately 10 percentage points higher than those in the
control group, and another reported that participants were almost four
times as likely as nonparticipants to reduce tobacco
use.31 32 However, these effects should be interpreted with
caution. One study showed significant differences in smoking rates at a
one-month follow-up, but showed no significant differences in quit
rates at six months, highlighting the importance of long-term follow-up
to investigate the sustainability of results.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Heirich, M. and C.J. Sieck, Worksite cardiovascular
wellness programs as a route to substance abuse prevention. J Occup
Environ Med, 2000. 42(1): p. 47-56; 40; McMahon, S.D. and L.A.
Jason, Social support in a worksite smoking intervention. A test of
theoretical models. Behav Modif, 2000. 24(2): p. 184-201; Okechukwu,
C.A., et al., MassBuilt: Effectiveness of an apprenticeship site-
based smoking cessation intervention for unionized building trades
workers. Cancer Causes Control, 2009. 20(6): p. 887-94; Sorensen,
G., et al., A comprehensive worksite cancer prevention intervention:
Behavior change results from a randomized controlled trial (United
States). J Public Health Policy, 2003. 24(1): p. 5-25.
\29\ Gold, D.B., D.R. Anderson, and S.A. Serxner, Impact of a
telephone-based intervention on the reduction of health risks. Am J
Health Promot, 2000. 15(2): p. 97-106; Herman, C.W., et al.,
Effectiveness of an incentive-based online physical activity
intervention on employee health status. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 2006. 48(9): p. 889-895; Ozminkowski, R.J.,
et al., The impact of the Citibank, NA, health management program on
changes in employee health risks over time. J Occup Environ Med,
2000. 42(5): p. 502-11.
\30\ Heirich, M. and C.J. Sieck, Worksite cardiovascular
wellness programs as a route to substance abuse prevention. J Occup
Environ Med, 2000. 42(1): p. 47-56; McMahon, S.D. and L.A. Jason,
Social support in a worksite smoking intervention. A test of
theoretical models. Behav Modif, 2000. 24(2): p. 184-201.
\31\ Heirich, M. and C.J. Sieck, Worksite cardiovascular
wellness programs as a route to substance abuse prevention. J Occup
Environ Med, 2000. 42(1): p. 47-56; Okechukwu, C.A., et al.,
MassBuilt: Effectiveness of an apprenticeship site-based smoking
cessation intervention for unionized building trades workers. Cancer
Causes Control, 2009. 20(6): p. 887-94.
\32\ In the study, 42% of participants reduced their risk for
tobacco use. See Gold, D.B., D.R. Anderson, and S.A. Serxner, Impact
of a telephone-based intervention on the reduction of health risks.
Am J Health Promot, 2000. 15(2): p. 97-106.
\33\ Kechukwu, C.A., et al., MassBuilt: Effectiveness of an
apprenticeship site-based smoking cessation intervention for
unionized building trades workers. Cancer Causes Control, 2009.
20(6): p. 887-94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While employer sponsors generally are satisfied with the results,
more than half stated in a recent survey that they do not know their
programs' return on investment.\34\ The peer-reviewed literature, while
predominantly positive, covers only a small proportion of the universe
of programs, limiting the generalizability of the reported findings.
Evaluating such complex interventions is difficult and poses
substantial methodological challenges that can invalidate findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Buck Consultants, Working Well: A Global Survey of Health
Promotion and Workplace Wellness Strategies. 2010, Buck Consultants:
San Francisco, CA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, surveys suggest that a relatively small percentage of
employers use incentives, dollar or otherwise, for wellness programs,
although incentive use is more prevalent among larger employers. Data
from the 2011 Kaiser/HRET Survey of Employer Health Benefits indicate
that 14 percent of all employers offered cash, gift cards, merchandise,
or travel as incentives for wellness program participation. Among large
firms (greater than 200 workers), only 27 percent offered these kinds
of incentives. Mercer Consulting's 2009 National Survey of Employer-
Sponsored Health Plans found similar patterns, estimating that six
percent of all firms and 21 percent of those with 500 or more employees
provided financial incentives for participating in at least one
program.\35\ Employers are also looking to continue to add incentives
to their wellness programs, for example 17 percent intend to add a
reward or penalty based on tobacco-use status.\36\ The use of
incentives to promote employee engagement remains poorly understood, so
it is not clear how type (e.g., cash or non-cash), direction (reward
versus penalty), and strength of incentive are related to employee
engagement and outcomes. The Health Enhancement Research Organization
and associated organizations also recognized this deficiency and
provided seven questions for future research.\37\ There are also no
data on potential unintended effects, such as discrimination against
employees based on their health or health behaviors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Mercer, National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans:
2009 Survey Report. 2010, Mercer.
\36\ ``Employer Survey on Purchasing Value in Health Care,''
17th Annual Towers Watson/National Business Group on Health Employer
Survey on Purchasing Value in Health Care.
\37\ ``Guidance for a Reasonably Designed, Employer-Sponsored
Wellness Program Using Outcomes-Based Incentives,'' joint consensus
statement of the Health Enhancement Research Organization, American
College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, American Cancer
Society and American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American
Diabetes Association, and American Heart Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the most commonly incentivized program appears to be
associated with completion of a health risk assessment. According to
the 2009 Mercer survey, 10 percent of all firms and 23 percent of large
employers that offered a health risk assessment provided an incentive
for completing the assessment. For other types of health management
programs that the survey assessed, only two to four percent of all
employers and 13 to 19 percent of large employers offered
incentives.\38\ The 2011 Kaiser/HRET survey found that 10 percent of
all employers and 42 percent of large firms that offered a health risk
assessment provided a financial incentive to employees who completed
it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Mercer, National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans:
2009 Survey Report. 2010, Mercer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incentives are offered in a variety of forms, such as cash, gift
cards, merchandise, time off, awards, recognition, raffles or
lotteries, reduced health plan premiums and co-pays, and contributions
to flexible spending or health savings accounts. As noted previously,
the Kaiser/HRET 2011 survey reported that among firms offering health
benefits with more than 200 workers, 27 percent offered cash or cash
equivalent incentives (including gift cards, merchandise, or travel
incentives). In addition, 11 percent of these firms offered lower
employee health plan premiums to wellness participants, two percent
offered lower deductibles, and 11 percent offered higher health
reimbursement account or health savings account contributions.
Meanwhile, 13 percent of firms with fewer than 200 workers offered cash
or equivalent incentives, and each of the other types of incentives
were offered by only two percent or less of firms.
Cash and cash-equivalent incentives remain the most popular
incentive for completion of a health risk assessment. The Kaiser/HRET
2011 survey reports that among employers incentivizing completion of a
health risk assessment, 41 percent offered cash, gift cards,
merchandise or travel, 23 percent allowed workers to pay a smaller
proportion of premiums, 12 percent offered lower deductibles, and one
percent offered lower coinsurance. Among large employers, 57 percent
[[Page 70629]]
utilized cash incentives, 34 percent offered smaller premiums, six
percent provided lower deductibles, and three percent provided lower
coinsurance. Findings from Mercer's 2009 survey suggest similar trends,
with five percent of all employers and ten percent of those with 500 or
more workers providing cash incentives for completion of a health risk
assessment; one percent and two percent, respectively, offering lower
cost sharing; and two percent and seven percent, respectively, offering
lower premium contributions.\39\ Note that in the Mercer survey, the
results cited reflect the incentives provided by all firms that offer a
health risk assessment, while the Kaiser/HRET results previously
mentioned reflect only firms that incentivize completion of a health
risk assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Mercer, National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans:
2009 Survey Report. 2010, Mercer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incentives may be triggered by a range of different levels of
employee engagement. The simplest incentives are triggered by program
enrollment--that is, by merely signing up for a wellness program. At
the next level, incentives are triggered by program participation--for
instance, attending a class or initiating a program, such as a smoking
cessation intervention. Other incentive programs may require completion
of a program, whether or not any particular health-related goals are
achieved, to earn an incentive. The health-contingent incentive
programs require successfully meeting a specific health outcome (or an
alternative standard) to trigger an incentive, such as verifiably
quitting smoking. There is little representative data indicating the
relative prevalence of these different types of triggers. The most
common form of outcome-based incentives is reportedly awarded for
smoking cessation. The 2010 survey by NBGH and TowersWatson indicated
that while 25 percent of responding employers offered a financial
incentive for employees to become tobacco-free, only four percent
offered financial incentives for maintaining a BMI within target
levels, three percent did so for maintaining blood pressure within
targets, and three percent for maintaining targeted cholesterol
levels.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ TowersWatson, Raising the Bar on Health Care: Moving Beyond
Incremental Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The value of incentives can vary widely. Estimates from
representative surveys of the average value of incentives per year
range between $152 \41\ and $557,\42\ or between three and 11 percent
of the $5,049 average cost of individual coverage in 2010,\43\ among
employees who receive them. This suggests that companies typically are
not close to reaching the 20 percent of the total cost of coverage
threshold set forth in the 2006 regulations. These findings indicate
that based on currently available data, increasing the maximum reward
for particpating in a health-contingent wellness program to 30 percent
(and the Departments' decision to propose an additional 20 percentage
points for programs designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use) is
unlikely to have a significant impact. Additionally, as discussed
earlier in this preamble, today most incentive-based wellness programs
are associated with completion of a health risk assessment irrespective
of the results, and therefore are not subject to the limitation,
because such programs are not health-contingent wellness programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Mercer, National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans:
2009 Survey Report. 2010, Mercer.
\42\ Linnan, L., et al., Results of the 2004 national worksite
health promotion survey. American Journal of Public Health, 2008.
98(8): p. 1503-1509.
\43\ Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health Benefits: 2010
Annual Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Departments lack sufficient information to assess how firms
that currently are at the 20 percent limit will respond to the
increased limits and welcome public comments regarding this issue. If
firms already viewed the current 20 percent reward limit as sufficient,
then the Depatments would not expect that increasing the limit would
provide an incentive for program design changes.
It is possible that the increased wellness program reward limits
will incentivize firms without health-contingent wellness programs to
establish them. The Departments, however, do not expect a significant
number of new programs to be created as a result of this change because
firms without health-contingent wellness programs could already have
provided rewards up to the 20 percent limit before the enactment of the
Affordable Care Act, but did not.
Two critical elements of these proposed regulations are (1) the
standard that the reward under a health-contingent wellness program be
available to all similarly situated individuals and (2) the standard
that a program be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent
disease.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See section II.B, earlier in this preamble for a more
detailed discussion of these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed earlier in this preamble, the regulation does not
prescribe a particular type of alternative standard that must be
provided. Instead, it permits plan sponsors flexibility to provide any
reasonable alternative. The Departments expect that plan sponsors will
select alternatives that entail the minimum net costs (or, stated
differently, the maximum net benefits) that are possible to achieve
derive offsetting benefits, such as a higher smoking cessation success
rate.
It seems reasonable to presume that the net cost plan sponsors will
incur in the provision of alternatives, including transfers as well as
new economic costs and benefits, will not exceed the transfer cost of
waiving surcharges for all plan participants who qualify for
alternatives. The Departments expect that many plan sponsors will find
more cost effective ways to satisfy this requirement, should they
exercise the option to provide incentives through a health-contingent
wellness program and that the true net cost to them will therefore be
much smaller than the transfer cost of waiving surcharges for all plan
participants who qualify for alternatives. The Departments have no
basis for estimating the magnitude of the cost of providing alternative
standards or of potential offsetting benefits, however, and therefore
solicit comments from the public on this question.
The Departments note that plan sponsors will have strong motivation
to identify and provide alternative standards that have positive net
economic effects. Plan sponsors will be disinclined to provide
alternatives that undermine their overall wellness program and worsen
behavioral and health outcomes, or that make financial rewards
available absent meaningful efforts by participants to improve their
health habits and overall health. Instead plan sponsors will be
inclined to provide alternatives that sustain or reinforce plan
participants' incentive to improve their health habits and overall
health, and/or that help participants make such improvements. It
therefore seems likely that gains in economic welfare from this
requirement will equal or outweigh losses. The Departments intend that
the requirement to provide reasonable alternatives will reduce
instances where wellness programs serve only to shift costs to higher
risk individuals and increase instances where programs succeed at
helping high risk individuals improve their health. The Departments
solicit comments on its assumption.
In considering the transfers that might derive from the
availability of (and participants' satisfaction with) alternative means
of qualifying for the
[[Page 70630]]
reward, the transfers arising from this requirement may take the form
of transfers to participants who satisfy new alternative wellness
program standards from plan sponsors, to such participants from other
participants, or some combination of these. The existence of a wellness
program with a reward contingent on meeting a standard related to a
health factor creates a transfer from those who do not meet the
standard to those who do meet the standard. Allowing individuals to
meet an alternative standard to receive the reward is a transfer to
those who use the alternative standard from everyone else in the risk
pool.
The reward associated with the wellness program is an incentive to
encourage individuals to meet health standards associated with better
or improved health, which in turn is associated with lower health care
costs. If the rewards are effective, health care costs will be reduced
as an individual's health improves. Some of these lower health care
costs could translate into lower premiums paid by employers and
employees, which could offset some of the transfers. To the extent
larger rewards are more effective at improving health and lowering
costs, these proposed regulations would produce more benefits than the
current regulations.
Rewards also could create costs to individuals and to the extent
the new larger rewards create more costs than smaller rewards, these
proposed regulations could increase the costs relative to the existing
regulations. To the extent an individual does not meet a standard or
satisfy an alternative standard, they could face higher costs, for
example in the case of a surcharge for smoking they could face up to a
50 percent increase in their premiums.
Based on the foregoing discussion, the Departments expect the
benefits, costs, and transfers associated with these proposed
regulations to be minimal. However, the Departments are not able to
provide aggregate estimates, because they do not have sufficent data to
estimate the number of plans that will take advantage of the new
limits.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act--Department of Labor and Department of
Health and Human Services
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) applies
to most Federal rules that are subject to the notice and comment
requirements of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.). Unless an agency certifies that such a rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 603 of the RFA requires the agency to present an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis at the time of the publication
of the notice of proposed rulemaking describing the impact of the rule
on small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
organizations and governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of analysis under the RFA, the Departments propose to
continue to consider a small entity to be an employee benefit plan with
fewer than 100 participants. The basis of this definition is found in
section 104(a)(3) of ERISA, which permits the Secretary of Labor to
prescribe simplified annual reports for welfare benefit plans that
cover fewer than 100 participants.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Under ERISA section 104(a)(2), the Secretary may also
provide exemptions or simplified reporting and disclosure
requirements for pension plans. Pursuant to the authority of ERISA
section 104(a)(3), the Department of Labor has previously issued at
29 CFR 2520.104-20, 2520.104-21, 2520.104-41, 2520.104-46, and
2520.104b-10 certain simplified reporting provisions and limited
exemptions from reporting and disclosure requirements for small
plans, including unfunded or insured welfare plans, that cover fewer
than 100 participants and satisfy certain other requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, while some large employers may have small plans, in
general, small employers maintain most small plans. Thus, the
Departments believe that assessing the impact of these proposed
regulations on small plans is an appropriate substitute for evaluating
the effect on small entities.
The definition of small entity considered appropriate for this
purpose differs, however, from a definition of small business that is
based on size standards promulgated by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) pursuant to the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.). The Departments therefore request comments
on the appropriateness of the size standard used in evaluating the
impact of these proposed regulations on small entities. The Departments
have consulted with the SBA Office of Advocacy concerning use of this
participant count standard for RFA purposes. See 13 CFR 121.902(b)(4).
The Departments expect that these proposed regulations will affect
few small plans. While a large number of small plans offer a wellness
program, the 2011 Kaiser/HRET survey reported that only 13 percent of
employers with fewer than 200 employees had a wellness program that
offered cash or cash equivalent incentives (including gift cards,
merchandise, or travel incentives).\46\ In addition, only two percent
of these firms offered lower employee health plan premiums to wellness
participants, one percent offered lower deductibles, and one percent
offered higher health reimbursement account or health savings account
contributions. Therefore, the Departments expect that few small plans
will be affected by increasing the rewards threshold from 20 percent to
30 percent (50 percent for programs targeting tobacco use prevention or
reduction), because a small percentage of plans have rewards-based
wellness programs. Moreover, as discussed in the Economic Impacts
section earlier in this preamble, few plans that offer rewards-based
wellness programs come close to reaching the 20 percent limit, and most
incentive-based wellness programs are associated with completing the
health risk assessment irrespective of the results, which are not
subject to the limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health Benefits: 2011
Annual Survey. 2011, The Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA;
Health Research & Educational Trust, Chicago, IL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Kaiser/HRET survey also reports that about 88 percent of small
plans had their wellness programs provided by the health plan provider.
Industry experts indicated to the Departments that when wellness
programs are offered by the health plan provider, they typically supply
alternative education programs and offer them free of charge. This
finding indicates that the requirement in the proposed rule for
rewards-based wellness programs to provide and pay for a reasonable
alternative standard for individuals for whom it is either unreasonably
difficult or medically inadvisable to meet the original standard will
impose little new costs or transfers to the affected plans.
Based on the foregoing, the Departments herby certify that these
proposed regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act--Department of Labor and Department of the
Treasury
The 2006 final regulations regarding wellness programs did not
include an information collection request (ICR). These proposed
regulations, like the 2006 final regulations, provide that if a plan's
wellness program requires individuals to meet a standard related to a
health factor in order to qualify for a reward and if the plan
materials describe this standard, the materials must also disclose the
availability of other means of qualifying for the reward or the
possibility of waiver of the otherwise applicable standard. If plan
materials merely mention that a program is available, the disclosure
relating to alternatives is not required. These proposed regulations
include
[[Page 70631]]
samples of disclosures that could be used to satisfy this requirement.
In concluding that these proposed regulations did not include an
ICR, the Departments reasoned that much of the information required was
likely already provided as a result of state and local requirements or
the usual business practices of group health plans and group health
insurance issuers in connection with the offer and promotion of health
care coverage. In addition, the sample disclosures would enable group
health plans to make any necessary modifications with minimal effort.
Finally, although the proposed regulations do not include an ICR,
the regulations could be interpreted to require a revision to an
existing collection of information. Administrators of group health
plans covered under Title I of ERISA are generally required to make
certain disclosures about the terms of a plan and material changes in
terms through a Summary Plan Description (SPD) or Summary of Material
Modifications (SMM) pursuant to sections 101(a) and 102(a) of ERISA and
related regulations. The ICR related to the SPD and SMM is currently
approved by OMB under OMB control number 1210-0039, which is currently
scheduled to expire on April 30, 2013. While these materials may in
some cases require revisions to comply with the proposed regulations,
the associated burden is expected to be negligible, and is already
accounted for in the SPD, SMM, and the ICR by a burden estimation
methodology, which anticipates ongoing revisions. Based on the
foregoing, the Departments do not expect that any change to the
existing ICR arising from these proposed regulations will be
substantive or material. Accordingly, the Departments have not filed an
application for approval of a revision to the existing ICR with OMB in
connection with these proposed regulations.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act--Department of Health and Human Services
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department is
required to provide 60-day notice in the Federal Register and solicit
public comment before a collection of information requirement is
submitted to OMB for review and approval. In order to fairly evaluate
whether an information collection should be approved by OMB, section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires the
Department to solicit comment on the following issues:
The need for the information collection and its usefulness
in carrying out the proper functions of our agency.
The accuracy of our estimate of the information collection
burden.
The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected.
Recommendations to minimize the information collection
burden on the affected public, including automated techniques.
Section 146.121(f)(1)(iv) stipulates that the plan or issuer
disclose in all plan materials describing the terms of the program the
availability of a reasonable alternative standard to qualify for the
reward under a wellness program. However, for plan materials that
merely mention that a program is available, without describing its
terms, the disclosure is not required. The burden associated with this
requirement was previously approved under OMB control number 0938-0819.
We are not seeking reinstatement of the information collection request
under the aforementioned OMB control number, since we believe that much
of the information required is likely already provided as a result of
state and local requirements or the usual business practices of group
health plans and group health insurance issuers in connection with the
offer and promotion of health care coverage. In addition, the sample
disclosures would enable group health plans to make any necessary
modifications with minimal effort.
H. Special Analyses--Department of the Treasury
For purposes of the Department of the Treasury it has been
determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant
regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a
regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that
section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5)
does not apply to these proposed regulations, and, because these
proposed regulations do not impose a collection of information on small
entities, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to
section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has
been submitted to the Small Business Administration for comment on its
impact on small business.
I. Congressional Review Act
These proposed regulations are subject to the Congressional Review
Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and, if finalized, will be
transmitted to Congress and the Comptroller General for review. These
regulations, do not constitute a ``major rule,'' as that term is
defined in 5 U.S.C. 804 because they are unlikely to result in (1) an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major
increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, or
federal, State or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or
(3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or
export markets.
J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4), as well as Executive Order 12875, these proposed regulations do
not include any federal mandate that may result in expenditures by
state, local, or tribal governments, nor does it include mandates which
may impose an annual burden of $100 million, adjusted for
inflation,\47\ or more on the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ In 2012, that threshold level is approximately $139
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Federalism Statement--Department of Labor and Department of Health
and Human Services
Executive Order 13132 outlines fundamental principles of
federalism, and requires the adherence to specific criteria by federal
agencies in the process of their formulation and implementation of
policies that have ``substantial direct effects'' on the States, the
relationship between the national government and States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Federal agencies promulgating regulations that have these
federalism implications must consult with State and local officials,
and describe the extent of their consultation and the nature of the
concerns of State and local officials in the preamble to the
regulation.
In the Departments' view, these proposed regulations have
federalism implications, however, in the Departments' view, the
federalism implications of these final regulations are substantially
mitigated because, with respect to health insurance issuers, the vast
majority of States have enacted laws, which meet or exceed the federal
HIPAA standards prohibiting discrimination based on health factors.
[[Page 70632]]
Therefore, the regulations are not likely to require substantial
additional oversight of States by the Department of HHS.
In general, through section 514, ERISA supersedes State laws to the
extent that they relate to any covered employee benefit plan, and
preserves State laws that regulate insurance, banking, or securities.
While ERISA prohibits States from regulating a plan as an insurance or
investment company or bank, HIPAA added a new preemption provision to
ERISA (as well as to the PHS Act) narrowly preempting State
requirements for group health insurance coverage. With respect to the
HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions, States may continue to apply State
law requirements except to the extent that such requirements prevent
the application of the portability, access, and renewability
requirements of HIPAA, which include HIPAA's nondiscrimination
requirements provisions. HIPAA's Conference Report states that the
conferees intended the narrowest preemption of State laws with regard
to health insurance issuers (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 736, 104th Cong. 2d
Session 205, 1996). State insurance laws that are more stringent than
the federal requirements are unlikely to ``prevent the application of''
the HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions, and therefore are not
preempted. Accordingly, States have significant latitude to impose
requirements on health insurance issuers that are more restrictive than
the federal law.
Guidance conveying this interpretation was published in the Federal
Register on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16904) and on December 30, 2004 (69 FR
78720), and these proposed regulations clarify and implement the
statute's minimum standards and do not significantly reduce the
discretion given the States by the statute. Moreover, the Departments
understand that the vast majority of States have requirements that meet
or exceed the minimum requirements of the HIPAA nondiscrimination
provisions.
HIPAA provides that the States may enforce the provisions of HIPAA
as they pertain to issuers, but that the Secretary of HHS must enforce
any provisions that a State chooses not to or fails to substantially
enforce. When exercising its responsibility to enforce provisions of
HIPAA, HHS works cooperatively with the State for the purpose of
addressing the State's concerns and avoiding conflicts with the
exercise of State authority.\48\ HHS has developed procedures to
implement its enforcement responsibilities, and to afford the States
the maximum opportunity to enforce HIPAA's requirements in the first
instance. In compliance with Executive Order 13132's requirement that
agencies examine closely any policies that may have federalism
implications or limit the policy making discretion of the States, DOL
and HHS have engaged in numerous efforts to consult with and work
cooperatively with affected State and local officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ This authority applies to insurance issued with respect to
group health plans generally, including plans covering employees of
church organizations. Thus, this discussion of federalism applies to
all group health insurance coverage that is subject to the PHS Act,
including those church plans that provide coverage through a health
insurance issuer (but not to church plans that do not provide
coverage through a health insurance issuer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, throughout the process of developing these
regulations, to the extent feasible within the specific preemption
provisions of HIPAA, the Departments have attempted to balance the
States' interests in regulating health plans and health insurance
issuers, and the rights of those individuals that Congress intended to
protect through the enactment of HIPAA.
IV. Statutory Authority
The Department of the Treasury regulations are proposed to be
adopted pursuant to the authority contained in sections 7805 and 9833
of the Code.
The Department of Labor regulations are proposed to be adopted
pursuant to the authority contained in 29 U.S.C. 1027, 1059, 1135,
1161-1168, 1169, 1181-1183, 1181 note, 1185, 1185a, 1185b, 1185d, 1191,
1191a, 1191b, and 1191c; sec. 101(g), Public Law 104-191, 110 Stat.
1936; sec. 401(b), Public Law 105-200, 112 Stat. 645 (42 U.S.C. 651
note); sec. 512(d), Public Law 110-343, 122 Stat. 3881; sec. 1001,
1201, and 1562(e), Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, as amended by
Public Law 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029; Secretary of Labor's Order 3-2010,
75 FR 55354 (September 10, 2010).
The Department of Health and Human Services regulations are
proposed to be adopted, with respect to 45 CFR part 146, pursuant to
the authority contained in sections 2702 through 2705, 2711 through
2723, 2791, and 2792 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-1 through 300gg-5,
300gg-11 through 300gg-23, 300gg-91, and 300gg-92) prior to the
amendments made by the Affordable Care Act and sections 2701 through
2763, 2791, and 2792 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg
through 300gg-63, 300gg-91, and 300gg-92), as amended by the Affordable
Care Act; with respect to 45 CFR part 147, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 2701 through 2763, 2791, and 2792 of the PHS Act
(42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg-63, 300gg-91, and 300gg-92), as amended
by the Affordable Care Act.
List of Subjects
26 CFR Part 54
Excise taxes, Health care, Health insurance, Pensions, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
29 CFR Part 2590
Continuation coverage, Disclosure, Employee benefit plans, Group
health plans, Health care, Health insurance, Medical child support,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
45 CFR Parts 146 and 147
Health care, Health insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and State regulation of health insurance.
Steven T. Miller,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, Internal Revenue
Service.
Signed this 8th day of November, 2012.
Phyllis C. Borzi,
Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration,
Department of Labor.
Dated: August 1, 2012.
Marilyn Tavenner,
Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Dated: August 7, 2012.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Chapter I
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 54 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 54--PENSION EXCISE TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for Part 54 is amended by
adding an entry for Sec. 54.9815-2705 in numerical order to read in
part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
Section 54.9815-2705 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 9833.
Par. 2. In Sec. 54.9802-1, paragraph (f) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 54.9802-1 Prohibiting discrimination against participants and
beneficiaries based on a health factor.
* * * * *
(f) Nondiscriminatory wellness programs--in general. A wellness
program is a program of health
[[Page 70633]]
promotion or disease prevention. Paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3) of
this section provide exceptions to the general prohibitions against
discrimination based on a health factor for plan provisions that vary
benefits (including cost-sharing mechanisms) or the premium or
contribution for similarly situated individuals in connection with a
wellness program that satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (f).
If a wellness program is a participatory wellness program, as defined
in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, that paragraph also makes clear
that the wellness program does not violate this section if
participation in the program is made available to all similarly
situated individuals. If a wellness program is a health-contingent
wellness program, as defined in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the
wellness program does not violate this section if the requirements of
paragraph (f)(3) of this section are met. Except where expressly
provided otherwise, references in this section to an individual
obtaining a reward include both obtaining a reward (such as a premium
discount or rebate, a waiver of all or part of a cost-sharing
mechanism, an additional benefit, or any financial or other incentive)
and avoiding a penalty (such as the absence of a premium surcharge, or
other financial or nonfinancial disincentive). References in this
section to a plan providing a reward include both providing a reward
(such as a premium discount or rebate, a waiver of all or part of a
cost-sharing mechanism, an additional benefit, or any financial or
other incentive) and imposing a penalty (such as a surcharge or other
financial or nonfinancial disincentive).
(1) Participatory wellness programs defined. If none of the
conditions for obtaining a reward under a wellness program is based on
an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health factor
(or if a wellness program does not provide a reward), the wellness
program is a participatory wellness program and, if participation in
the program is made available to all similarly situated individuals,
does not violate this section. Examples of participatory wellness
programs are:
(i) A program that reimburses all or part of the cost for
membership in a fitness center.
(ii) A diagnostic testing program that provides a reward for
participation and does not base any part of the reward on outcomes.
(iii) A program that encourages preventive care through the waiver
of the copayment or deductible requirement under a group health plan
for the costs of, for example, prenatal care or well-baby visits. (Note
that, with respect to non-grandfathered plans, Sec. 54.9815-2713T
requires benefits for certain preventive health services without the
imposition of cost sharing.)
(iv) A program that reimburses employees for the costs of
participating, or that otherwise provides a reward for participating,
in a smoking cessation program without regard to whether the employee
quits smoking.
(v) A program that provides a reward to employees for attending a
monthly no-cost health education seminar.
(vi) A program that provides a reward to employees who complete a
health risk assessment regarding current health status, without any
further action (educational or otherwise) required by the employee with
regard to the health issues identified as part of the assessment. (See
also Sec. 54.9802-3T for rules prohibiting collection of genetic
information).
(2) Health-contingent wellness programs defined. If any of the
conditions for obtaining a reward under a wellness program is based on
an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health factor,
the wellness program is a health-contingent wellness program and the
program is permissible under this section only if all of the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this section are satisfied.
Examples of health-contingent wellness programs are:
(i) A program that imposes a premium surcharge based on tobacco
use.
(ii) A program that uses a biometric screening or a health risk
assessment to identify employees with specified medical conditions or
risk factors (such as high cholesterol, high blood pressure, unhealthy
body mass index, or high glucose level) and provides a reward to
employees identified as within a normal or healthy range for biometrics
(or at low risk for certain medical conditions), while requiring
employees who are identified as outside the normal or healthy range (or
at risk) to take additional steps (such as meeting with a health coach,
taking a health or fitness course, adhering to a health improvement
action plan, or complying with a health care provider's plan of care)
to obtain the same reward.
(3) Requirements for health-contingent wellness programs. A health-
contingent wellness program does not violate this section if all of the
following requirements are satisfied:
(i) Frequency of opportunity to qualify. The program must give
individuals eligible for the program the opportunity to qualify for the
reward under the program at least once per year.
(ii) Size of reward. The reward for a health-contingent wellness
program, together with the reward for other health-contingent wellness
programs with respect to the plan, must not exceed the applicable
percentage of the total cost of employee-only coverage under the plan,
as defined in this paragraph (f)(3)(ii). However, if, in addition to
employees, any class of dependents (such as spouses, or spouses and
dependent children) may participate in the wellness program, the reward
must not exceed the applicable percentage of the total cost of the
coverage in which an employee and any dependents are enrolled. For
purposes of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii), the cost of coverage is
determined based on the total amount of employer and employee
contributions for the benefit package under which the employee is (or
the employee and any dependents are) receiving coverage.
(A) Applicable percentage. For purposes of this paragraph
(f)(3)(ii), the applicable percentage is 30 percent, except that the
applicable percentage is increased an additional 20 percentage points
(to 50 percent) to the extent that the additional percentage is in
connection with a program designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use.
(B) Examples. The rules of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) are
illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. (i) Facts. An employer sponsors a group health plan.
The annual premium for employee-only coverage is $6,000 (of which
the employer pays $4,500 per year and the employee pays $1,500 per
year). The plan offers employees a health-contingent wellness
program focused on exercise, blood sugar, weight, cholesterol, and
blood pressure. The reward for compliance is an annual premium
rebate of $600.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 1, the program satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because the reward for the
wellness program, $600, does not exceed 30 percent of the total
annual cost of employee-only coverage, $1,800. ($6,000 x 30% =
$1,800.)
Example 2. (i) Facts. Same facts as Example 1, except the
wellness program is exclusively a tobacco prevention program.
Employees who have used tobacco in the last 12 months and who are
not enrolled in the plan's tobacco cessation program are charged a
$1,000 premium surcharge (in addition to their employee contribution
towards the coverage). (Those who participate in the plan's tobacco
cessation program are not assessed the $1,000 surcharge.)
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 2, the program satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because the reward for the
wellness program (absence of a $1,000 surcharge), does not exceed 50
percent of the
[[Page 70634]]
total annual cost of employee-only coverage, $3,000. ($6,000 x 50% =
$3,000.)
Example 3. (i) Facts. Same facts as Example 1, except that, in
addition to the $600 reward for compliance with the health-
contingent wellness program, the plan also imposes an additional
$2,000 tobacco premium surcharge on employees who have used tobacco
in the last 12 months and who are not enrolled in the plan's tobacco
cessation program. (Those who participate in the plan's tobacco
cessation program are not assessed the $2,000 surcharge.)
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 3, the program satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because both: The total of
all rewards (including absence of a surcharge for participating in
the tobacco program) is $2,600 ($600 + $2,000 = $2,600), which does
not exceed 50 percent of the total annual cost of employee-only
coverage ($3,000); and, tested separately, the $600 reward for the
wellness program unrelated to tobacco use does not exceed 30 percent
of the total annual cost of employee-only coverage, $1,800.
Example 4. (i) Facts. An employer sponsors a group health plan.
The total annual premium for employee-only coverage (including both
employer and employee contributions towards the coverage) is $5,000.
The plan provides a $250 reward to employees who complete a health
risk assessment, without regard to the health issues identified as
part of the assessment. The plan also offers a Healthy Heart
program, which is a health-contingent wellness program under
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, with an opportunity to earn a
$1,500 reward.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 4, the plan satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii). Even though the total
reward for all wellness programs under the plan is $1,750 ($250 +
$1,500 = $1,750, which exceeds 30 percent of the cost of the annual
premium for employee-only coverage ($5,000 x 30% = $1,500)), only
the reward offered for compliance with the health-contingent
wellness program ($1,500) is taken into account in determining
whether the rules of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) are met. (The $250
reward is offered in connection with a participatory wellness
program and therefore is not taken into account under this paragraph
(f)(3)(ii)). The health-contingent wellness program offers a reward
that does not exceed 30 percent of the total annual cost of
employee-only coverage.
(iii) Uniform availability and reasonable alternative standards.
The reward under the program must be available to all similarly
situated individuals.
(A) Under this paragraph (f)(3)(iii), a reward under a program is
not available to all similarly situated individuals for a period unless
the program meets both of the following requirements:
(1) The program allows a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver
of the otherwise applicable standard) for obtaining the reward for any
individual for whom, for that period, it is unreasonably difficult due
to a medical condition to satisfy the otherwise applicable standard;
and
(2) The program allows a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver
of the otherwise applicable standard) for obtaining the reward for any
individual for whom, for that period, it is medically inadvisable to
attempt to satisfy the otherwise applicable standard.
(B) While plans are not required to determine a particular
alternative standard in advance of an individual's request for one, if
an individual is described in either paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(A)(1) or (2)
of this section, a reasonable alternative standard must be furnished by
the plan upon the individual's request or the condition for obtaining
the reward must be waived. All the facts and circumstances are taken
into account in determining whether a plan has furnished a reasonable
alternative standard, including but not limited to the following:
(1) If the reasonable alternative standard is completion of an
educational program, the plan must make the educational program
available instead of requiring an individual to find such a program
unassisted, and may not require an individual to pay for the cost of
the program.
(2) If the reasonable alternative standard is a diet program, plans
are not required to pay for the cost of food but must pay any
membership or participation fee.
(3) If the reasonable alternative standard is compliance with the
recommendations of a medical professional who is an employee or agent
of the plan, and an individual's personal physician states that the
plan's recommendations are not medically appropriate for that
individual, the plan must provide a reasonable alternative standard
that accommodates the recommendations of the individual's personal
physician with regard to medical appropriateness. Plans may impose
standard cost sharing under the plan or coverage for medical items and
services furnished pursuant to the physician's recommendations.
(C) If reasonable under the circumstances, a plan may seek
verification, such as a statement from an individual's personal
physician, that a health factor makes it unreasonably difficult for the
individual to satisfy, or medically inadvisable for the individual to
attempt to satisfy, the otherwise applicable standard. It would not be
reasonable, for example, for a plan to seek verification of a claim
that is obviously valid based on the nature of the individual's medical
condition that is known to the plan. However, plans may seek
verification in the case of claims for which it is reasonable to
determine that medical judgment is required to evaluate the validity of
the claim.
(iv) Reasonable design. The program must be reasonably designed to
promote health or prevent disease. A program satisfies this standard if
it has a reasonable chance of improving the health of, or preventing
disease in, participating individuals and it is not overly burdensome,
is not a subterfuge for discriminating based on a health factor, and is
not highly suspect in the method chosen to promote health or prevent
disease. This determination is based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. To the extent a plan's initial standard for obtaining a
reward (including a portion of a reward) is based on the results of a
measurement, test, or screening relating to a health factor (such as a
biometric examination or a health risk assessment), the plan must make
available to any individual who does not meet the standard based on the
measurement, test, or screening a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward.
(v) Notice of availability of other means of qualifying for the
reward. (A) The plan must disclose in all plan materials describing the
terms of the program the availability of other means of qualifying for
the reward or the possibility of waiver of the otherwise applicable
standard. If plan materials merely mention that a program is available,
without describing its terms, this disclosure is not required.
(B) The following language, or substantially similar language, can
be used to satisfy the notice requirement of this paragraph (f)(3)(v):
``Your health plan is committed to helping you achieve your best health
status. Rewards for participating in a wellness program are available
to all employees. If you think you might be unable to meet a standard
for a reward under this wellness program, you might qualify for an
opportunity to earn the same reward by different means. Contact us at
[insert contact information] and we will work with you to find a
wellness program with the same reward that is right for you in light of
your health status.'' Additional sample language is provided in the
examples of paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
(4) Examples. The rules of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of
this section are illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. (i) Facts. A group health plan provides a reward to
individuals who
[[Page 70635]]
participate in a reasonable specified walking program. If it is
unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition for an individual
to participate (or if it is medically inadvisable for an individual
to participate), the plan will waive the walking program requirement
and provide the reward. All materials describing the terms of the
walking program disclose the availability of the waiver.
(ii) Conclusion. The program satisfies the requirements of
paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this section because the reward under the
program is available to all similarly situated individuals because
it accommodates individuals who cannot participate in the walking
program due to a medical condition (or for whom it would be
medically inadvisable to attempt to participate) by providing them
the reward even if they do not participate in the walking program
(that is, by waiving the condition). The program satisfies the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section because the
walking program is reasonably designed to promote health and prevent
disease. Last, the plan complies with the disclosure requirement of
paragraph (f)(3)(v) of this section. Thus, the plan satisfies
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section.
Example 2. (i) Facts. A group health plan offers a reward to
individuals who achieve a count under 200 on a cholesterol test. If
a participant does not achieve the targeted cholesterol count, the
plan will make available a different, reasonable means of qualifying
for the reward. In addition, all plan materials describing the terms
of the program include the following statement: ``Your health plan
wants to help you take charge of your health. Rewards are available
to all employees who participate in our Cholesterol Awareness
Wellness Program. If your cholesterol count is under 200, you will
receive the reward. If not, you will still have an opportunity to
qualify for the reward. We will work with you to find a Health Smart
program that is right for you.'' Individual D is identified as
having a cholesterol count above 200. The plan partners D with a
nurse who makes recommendations regarding diet and exercise, with
which it is not unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition of
D or medically inadvisable for D to comply, and which is otherwise
reasonably designed, based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. In addition, the plan makes available to all other
individuals who do not meet the cholesterol standard a different,
reasonable means of qualifying for the reward which is not
unreasonably burdensome or impractical. D will qualify for the
discount if D follows the recommendations regardless of whether D
achieves a cholesterol count that is under 200.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 2, the program satisfies the
requirements of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section. The program's initial standard for obtaining a reward is
dependent on the results of a cholesterol screening, which is
related to a health factor. However, the program is reasonably
designed under paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) and (iv) of this section
because the plan makes available to all individuals who do not meet
the cholesterol standard a different, reasonable means of qualifying
for the reward and because the program is otherwise reasonably
designed based on all the relevant facts and circumstances. The plan
also discloses in all materials describing the terms of the program
the opportunity to qualify for the reward through other means. Thus,
the program satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section.
Example 3. (i) Facts. Same facts as Example 2, except that,
following diet and exercise, D again fails to achieve a cholesterol
count that is under 200, and the program requires D to visit a
doctor and follow any additional recommendations of D's doctor with
respect to D's cholesterol. The program permits D to select D's own
doctor for this purpose. D visits D's doctor, who determines D
should take a prescription medication for cholesterol. In addition,
the doctor determines that D must be monitored through periodic
blood tests to continually reevaluate D's health status. The plan
accommodates D by making the discount available to D, but only if D
actually follows the advice of D's doctor's regarding medication and
blood tests.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 3, the program's requirements
to follow up with, and follow the recommendations of, D's doctor do
not make the program unreasonable under paragraph (f)(3)(iii) or
(iv) of this section. The program continues to satisfy the
conditions of paragraph (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section.
Example 4. (i) Facts. A group health plan will provide a reward
to participants who have a body mass index (BMI) that is 26 or
lower, determined shortly before the beginning of the year. Any
participant who does not meet the target BMI is given the same
discount if the participant complies with an exercise program that
consists of walking 150 minutes a week. Any participant for whom it
is unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition to comply with
this walking program (and any participant for whom it is medically
inadvisable to attempt to comply with the walking program) during
the year is given the same discount if the individual satisfies an
alternative standard that is reasonable taking into consideration
the individual's medical situation, is not unreasonably burdensome
or impractical to comply with, and is otherwise reasonably designed
based on all the relevant facts and circumstances. All plan
materials describing the terms of the wellness program include the
following statement: ``Fitness is Easy! Start Walking! Your health
plan cares about your health. If you are overweight, our Start
Walking program will help you lose weight and feel better. We will
help you enroll. (** If your doctor says that walking isn't right
for you, that's okay too. We will develop a wellness program that
is.)'' Individual is unable to achieve a BMI that is 26 or lower
within the plan's timeframe and is also not reasonably able to
comply with the walking program. E proposes a program based on the
recommendations of E's physician. The plan agrees to make the
discount available to E, but only if E actually follows the
physician's recommendations.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 4, the program satisfies the
requirements of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section. The program's initial standard for obtaining a reward is
dependent on the results of a BMI screening, which is related to a
health factor. However, the plan complies with the requirements of
paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section because it makes available to
all individuals who do not satisfy the BMI standard a different
reasonable means of qualifying for the reward (a walking program
that is not unreasonably burdensome or impractical for individuals
to comply with and that is otherwise reasonably designed based on
all the relevant facts and circumstances). In addition, the plan
complies with the requirements of paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this
section because, if there are individuals for whom it is
unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition to comply, or for
whom it is medically inadvisable to attempt to comply, with the
walking program, the plan provides a reasonable alternative to those
individuals. Moreover, the plan satisfies the requirements of
paragraph (f)(3)(v) of this section because it discloses, in all
materials describing the terms of the program, the availability of
other means of qualifying for the reward or the possibility of
waiver of the otherwise applicable standard. Thus, the plan
satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section.
Example 5. (i) Facts. In conjunction with an annual open
enrollment period, a group health plan provides a premium
differential based on tobacco use, determined using a health risk
assessment. The following statement is included in all plan
materials describing the tobacco premium differential: ``Stop
smoking today! We can help! If you are a smoker, we offer a smoking
cessation program. If you complete the program, you can avoid this
surcharge.'' The plan accommodates participants who smoke by
facilitating their enrollment in a smoking cessation program that
requires participation at a time and place that are not unreasonably
burdensome or impractical for participants, and that is otherwise
reasonably designed based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. The plan pays the cost of the program. Any
participant can avoid the surcharge by participating in the program,
regardless of whether the participant stops smoking.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 5, the premium differential
satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v)
of this section. The program's initial standard for obtaining a
reward is dependent on the results of a health risk assessment,
which is a screening. However, the plan is reasonably designed under
paragraph (f)(3)(iv) because the plan provides a different,
reasonable means of qualifying for the reward to all tobacco users.
The plan discloses, in all materials describing the terms of the
program, the availability of other means of qualifying for the
reward. Thus, the plan satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and
(v) of this section.
Example 6. (i) Facts. Same facts as Example 5, except the plan
does not facilitate F's enrollment in any program. Instead the plan
advises F to find a program, pay for it, and provide a certificate
of completion to the plan.
[[Page 70636]]
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 6, the requirement for F to
find and pay for F's own smoking cessation program means that the
alternative program is not reasonable. Accordingly, the plan has not
offered a reasonable alternative standard that complies with
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) and (iv) of this section and the premium
differential violates paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
Par. 3. Section 54.9815-2705 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 54.9815-2705 Prohibiting discrimination against participants and
beneficiaries based on a health factor.
(a) In general. A group health plan and a health insurance issuer
offering group health insurance coverage must comply with the
requirements of Sec. 54.9802-1. Accordingly, with respect to health
insurance issuers offering group health insurance coverage, the issuer
is subject to the requirements of Sec. 54.9802-1 to the same extent as
a group health plan.
(b) Applicability date. This section is applicable to group health
plans and health insurance issuers offering group health insurance
coverage for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. See
Sec. 54.9815-1251T, which provides that the rules of this section do
not apply to grandfathered health plans.
Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration
29 CFR Chapter XXV
29 CFR Part 2590 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 2590--RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR GROUP HEALTH PLANS
1. The authority citation for Part 2590 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1027, 1059, 1135, 1161-1168, 1169, 1181-
1183, 1181 note, 1185, 1185a, 1185b, 1185d, 1191, 1191a, 1191b, and
1191c; sec. 101(g), Pub. L. 104- 191, 110 Stat. 1936; sec. 401(b),
Pub. L. 105- 200, 112 Stat. 645 (42 U.S.C. 651 note); sec. 12(d),
Pub. L. 110-343, 122 Stat. 3881; sec. 1001, 1201, and 1562(e), Pub.
L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, as amended by Pub. L. 111- 152, 124 Stat.
1029; Secretary of Labor's Order 3-2010, 75 FR 55354 (September 10,
2010).
Subpart B--Health Coverage Portability, Nondiscrimination, and
Renewability
2. Section 2590.702 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2590.702 Prohibiting discrimination against participants and
beneficiaries based on a health factor.
* * * * *
(f) Nondiscriminatory wellness programs--in general. A wellness
program is a program of health promotion or disease prevention.
Paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3) of this section provide exceptions to
the general prohibitions against discrimination based on a health
factor for plan provisions that vary benefits (including cost-sharing
mechanisms) or the premium or contribution for similarly situated
individuals in connection with a wellness program that satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f). If a wellness program is a
participatory wellness program, as defined in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, that paragraph also makes clear that the wellness program does
not violate this section if participation in the program is made
available to all similarly situated individuals. If a wellness program
is a health-contingent wellness program, as defined in paragraph (f)(2)
of this section, the wellness program does not violate this section if
the requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this section are met. Except
where expressly provided otherwise, references in this section to an
individual obtaining a reward include both obtaining a reward (such as
a premium discount or rebate, a waiver of all or part of a cost-sharing
mechanism, an additional benefit, or any financial or other incentive)
and avoiding a penalty (such as the absence of a premium surcharge, or
other financial or nonfinancial disincentive). References in this
section to a plan providing a reward include both providing a reward
(such as a premium discount or rebate, a waiver of all or part of a
cost-sharing mechanism, an additional benefit, or any financial or
other incentive) and imposing a penalty (such as a surcharge or other
financial or nonfinancial disincentive).
(1) Participatory wellness programs defined. If none of the
conditions for obtaining a reward under a wellness program is based on
an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health factor
(or if a wellness program does not provide a reward), the wellness
program is a participatory wellness program and, if participation in
the program is made available to all similarly situated individuals,
does not violate this section. Examples of participatory wellness
programs are:
(i) A program that reimburses all or part of the cost for
membership in a fitness center.
(ii) A diagnostic testing program that provides a reward for
participation and does not base any part of the reward on outcomes.
(iii) A program that encourages preventive care through the waiver
of the copayment or deductible requirement under a group health plan
for the costs of, for example, prenatal care or well-baby visits. (Note
that, with respect to non-grandfathered plans, section 2590.715-2713 of
this Part requires benefits for certain preventive health services
without the imposition of cost sharing.)
(iv) A program that reimburses employees for the costs of
participating, or that otherwise provides a reward for participating,
in a smoking cessation program without regard to whether the employee
quits smoking.
(v) A program that provides a reward to employees for attending a
monthly no-cost health education seminar.
(vi) A program that provides a reward to employees who complete a
health risk assessment regarding current health status, without any
further action (educational or otherwise) required by the employee with
regard to the health issues identified as part of the assessment. (See
also Sec. 2590.702-1 for rules prohibiting collection of genetic
information).
(2) Health-contingent wellness programs defined. If any of the
conditions for obtaining a reward under a wellness program is based on
an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health factor,
the wellness program is a health-contingent wellness program and the
program is permissible under this section only if all of the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this section are satisfied.
Examples of health-contingent wellness programs are:
(i) A program that imposes a premium surcharge based on tobacco
use.
(ii) A program that uses a biometric screening or a health risk
assessment to identify employees with specified medical conditions or
risk factors (such as high cholesterol, high blood pressure, unhealthy
body mass index, or high glucose level) and provides a reward to
employees identified as within a normal or healthy range for biometrics
(or at low risk for certain medical conditions), while requiring
employees who are identified as outside the normal or healthy range (or
at risk) to take additional steps (such as meeting with a health coach,
taking a health or fitness course, adhering to a health improvement
action plan, or complying with a health care provider's plan of care)
to obtain the same reward.
(3) Requirements for health-contingent wellness programs. A health-
contingent wellness program does not violate this section if all of the
following requirements are satisfied:
[[Page 70637]]
(i) Frequency of opportunity to qualify. The program must give
individuals eligible for the program the opportunity to qualify for the
reward under the program at least once per year.
(ii) Size of reward. The reward for a health-contingent wellness
program, together with the reward for other health-contingent wellness
programs with respect to the plan, must not exceed the applicable
percentage of the total cost of employee-only coverage under the plan,
as defined in this paragraph (f)(3)(ii). However, if, in addition to
employees, any class of dependents (such as spouses, or spouses and
dependent children) may participate in the wellness program, the reward
must not exceed the applicable percentage of the total cost of the
coverage in which an employee and any dependents are enrolled. For
purposes of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii), the cost of coverage is
determined based on the total amount of employer and employee
contributions for the benefit package under which the employee is (or
the employee and any dependents are) receiving coverage.
(A) Applicable percentage. For purposes of this paragraph
(f)(3)(ii), the applicable percentage is 30 percent, except that the
applicable percentage is increased an additional 20 percentage points
(to 50 percent) to the extent that the additional percentage is in
connection with a program designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use.
(B) Examples. The rules of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) are
illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. (i) Facts. An employer sponsors a group health plan.
The annual premium for employee-only coverage is $6,000 (of which
the employer pays $4,500 per year and the employee pays $1,500 per
year). The plan offers employees a health-contingent wellness
program focused on exercise, blood sugar, weight, cholesterol, and
blood pressure. The reward for compliance is an annual premium
rebate of $600.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 1, the program satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because the reward for the
wellness program, $600, does not exceed 30 percent of the total
annual cost of employee-only coverage, $1,800. ($6,000 x 30% =
$1,800.)
Example 2. (i) Facts. Same facts as Example 1, except the
wellness program is exclusively a tobacco prevention program.
Employees who have used tobacco in the last 12 months and who are
not enrolled in the plan's tobacco cessation program are charged a
$1,000 premium surcharge (in addition to their employee contribution
towards the coverage). (Those who participate in the plan's tobacco
cessation program are not assessed the $1,000 surcharge.)
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 2, the program satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because the reward for the
wellness program (absence of a $1,000 surcharge), does not exceed 50
percent of the total annual cost of employee-only coverage, $3,000.
($6,000 x 50% = $3,000.)
Example 3. (i) Facts. Same facts as Example 1, except that, in
addition to the $600 reward for compliance with the health-
contingent wellness program, the plan also imposes an additional
$2,000 tobacco premium surcharge on employees who have used tobacco
in the last 12 months and who are not enrolled in the plan's tobacco
cessation program. (Those who participate in the plan's tobacco
cessation program are not assessed the $2,000 surcharge.)
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 3, the program satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because: Both the total of
all rewards (including absence of a surcharge for participating in
the tobacco program) is $2,600 ($600 + $2,000 = $2,600), which does
not exceed 50 percent of the total annual cost of employee-only
coverage ($3,000); and, tested separately, the $600 reward for the
wellness program unrelated to tobacco use does not exceed 30 percent
of the total annual cost of employee-only coverage, $1,800.
Example 4. (i) Facts. An employer sponsors a group health plan.
The total annual premium for employee-only coverage (including both
employer and employee contributions towards the coverage) is $5,000.
The plan provides a $250 reward to employees who complete a health
risk assessment, without regard to the health issues identified as
part of the assessment. The plan also offers a Healthy Heart
program, which is a health-contingent wellness program under
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, with an opportunity to earn a
$1,500 reward.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 4, the plan satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii). Even though the total
reward for all wellness programs under the plan is $1,750 ($250 +
$1,500 = $1,750, which exceeds 30 percent of the cost of the annual
premium for employee-only coverage ($5,000 x 30% = $1,500)), only
the reward offered for compliance with the health-contingent
wellness program ($1,500) is taken into account in determining
whether the rules of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) are met. (The $250
reward is offered in connection with a participatory wellness
program and therefore is not taken into account under this paragraph
(f)(3)(ii)). The health-contingent wellness program offers a reward
that does not exceed 30 percent of the total annual cost of
employee-only coverage.
(iii) Uniform availability and reasonable alternative standards.
The reward under the program must be available to all similarly
situated individuals.
(A) Under this paragraph (f)(3)(iii), a reward under a program is
not available to all similarly situated individuals for a period unless
the program meets both of the following requirements:
(1) The program allows a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver
of the otherwise applicable standard) for obtaining the reward for any
individual for whom, for that period, it is unreasonably difficult due
to a medical condition to satisfy the otherwise applicable standard;
and
(2) The program allows a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver
of the otherwise applicable standard) for obtaining the reward for any
individual for whom, for that period, it is medically inadvisable to
attempt to satisfy the otherwise applicable standard.
(B) While plans and issuers are not required to determine a
particular alternative standard in advance of an individual's request
for one, if an individual is described in either paragraph
(f)(3)(iii)(A)(1) or (2) of this section, a reasonable alternative
standard must be furnished by the plan or issuer upon the individual's
request or the condition for obtaining the reward must be waived. All
the facts and circumstances are taken into account in determining
whether a plan or issuer has furnished a reasonable alternative
standard, including but not limited to the following:
(1) If the reasonable alternative standard is completion of an
educational program, the plan or issuer must make the educational
program available instead of requiring an individual to find such a
program unassisted, and may not require an individual to pay for the
cost of the program.
(2) If the reasonable alternative standard is a diet program, plans
and issuers are not required to pay for the cost of food but must pay
any membership or participation fee.
(3) If the reasonable alternative standard is compliance with the
recommendations of a medical professional who is an employee or agent
of the plan or issuer, and an individual's personal physician states
that the plan's recommendations are not medically appropriate for that
individual, the plan or issuer must provide a reasonable alternative
standard that accommodates the recommendations of the individual's
personal physician with regard to medical appropriateness. Plans and
issuers may impose standard cost sharing under the plan or coverage for
medical items and services furnished pursuant to the physician's
recommendations.
(C) If reasonable under the circumstances, a plan or issuer may
seek verification, such as a statement from an individual's personal
physician, that a health factor makes it unreasonably difficult for the
individual to satisfy, or
[[Page 70638]]
medically inadvisable for the individual to attempt to satisfy, the
otherwise applicable standard. It would not be reasonable, for example,
for a plan and issuer to seek verification of a claim that is obviously
valid based on the nature of the individual's medical condition that is
known to the plan or issuer. However, plans and issuers may seek
verification in the case of claims for which it is reasonable to
determine that medical judgment is required to evaluate the validity of
the claim.
(iv) Reasonable design. The program must be reasonably designed to
promote health or prevent disease. A program satisfies this standard if
it has a reasonable chance of improving the health of, or preventing
disease in, participating individuals and it is not overly burdensome,
is not a subterfuge for discriminating based on a health factor, and is
not highly suspect in the method chosen to promote health or prevent
disease. This determination is based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. To the extent a plan's initial standard for obtaining a
reward (including a portion of a reward) is based on the results of a
measurement, test, or screening relating to a health factor (such as a
biometric examination or a health risk assessment), the plan must make
available to any individual who does not meet the standard based on the
measurement, test, or screening a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward.
(v) Notice of availability of other means of qualifying for the
reward. (A) The plan or issuer must disclose in all plan materials
describing the terms of the program the availability of other means of
qualifying for the reward or the possibility of waiver of the otherwise
applicable standard. If plan materials merely mention that a program is
available, without describing its terms, this disclosure is not
required.
(B) The following language, or substantially similar language, can
be used to satisfy the notice requirement of this paragraph (f)(3)(v):
``Your health plan is committed to helping you achieve your best health
status. Rewards for participating in a wellness program are available
to all employees. If you think you might be unable to meet a standard
for a reward under this wellness program, you might qualify for an
opportunity to earn the same reward by different means. Contact us at
[insert contact information] and we will work with you to find a
wellness program with the same reward that is right for you in light of
your health status.'' Additional sample language is provided in the
examples of paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
(4) Examples. The rules of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of
this section are illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. (i) Facts. A group health plan provides a reward to
individuals who participate in a reasonable specified walking
program. If it is unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition
for an individual to participate (or if it is medically inadvisable
for an individual to participate), the plan will waive the walking
program requirement and provide the reward. All materials describing
the terms of the walking program disclose the availability of the
waiver.
(ii) Conclusion. The program satisfies the requirements of
paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this section because the reward under the
program is available to all similarly situated individuals because
it accommodates individuals who cannot participate in the walking
program due to a medical condition (or for whom it would be
medically inadvisable to attempt to participate) by providing them
the reward even if they do not participate in the walking program
(that is, by waiving the condition). The program satisfies the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section because the
walking program is reasonably designed to promote health and prevent
disease. Last, the plan complies with the disclosure requirement of
paragraph (f)(3)(v) of this section. Thus, the plan satisfies
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section.
Example 2. (i) Facts. A group health plan offers a reward to
individuals who achieve a count under 200 on a cholesterol test. If
a participant does not achieve the targeted cholesterol count, the
plan will make available a different, reasonable means of qualifying
for the reward. In addition, all plan materials describing the terms
of the program include the following statement: ``Your health plan
wants to help you take charge of your health. Rewards are available
to all employees who participate in our Cholesterol Awareness
Wellness Program. If your cholesterol count is under 200, you will
receive the reward. If not, you will still have an opportunity to
qualify for the reward. We will work with you to find a Health Smart
program that is right for you.'' Individual D is identified as
having a cholesterol count above 200. The plan partners D with a
nurse who makes recommendations regarding diet and exercise, with
which it is not unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition of
D or medically inadvisable for D to comply, and which is otherwise
reasonably designed, based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. In addition, the plan makes available to all other
individuals who do not meet the cholesterol standard a different,
reasonable means of qualifying for the reward which is not
unreasonably burdensome or impractical. D will qualify for the
discount if D follows the recommendations regardless of whether D
achieves a cholesterol count that is under 200.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 2, the program satisfies the
requirements of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section. The program's initial standard for obtaining a reward is
dependent on the results of a cholesterol screening, which is
related to a health factor. However, the program is reasonably
designed under paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) and (iv) of this section
because the plan makes available to all individuals who do not meet
the cholesterol standard a different, reasonable means of qualifying
for the reward and because the program is otherwise reasonably
designed based on all the relevant facts and circumstances. The plan
also discloses in all materials describing the terms of the program
the opportunity to qualify for the reward through other means. Thus,
the program satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section.
Example 3. (i) Facts. Same facts as Example 2, except that,
following diet and exercise, D again fails to achieve a cholesterol
count that is under 200, and the program requires D to visit a
doctor and follow any additional recommendations of D's doctor with
respect to D's cholesterol. The program permits D to select D's own
doctor for this purpose. D visits D's doctor, who determines D
should take a prescription medication for cholesterol. In addition,
the doctor determines that D must be monitored through periodic
blood tests to continually reevaluate D's health status. The plan
accommodates D by making the discount available to D, but only if D
actually follows the advice of D's doctor's regarding medication and
blood tests.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 3, the program's requirements
to follow up with, and follow the recommendations of, D's doctor do
not make the program unreasonable under paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) or
(iv) of this section. The program continues to satisfy the
conditions of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section.
Example 4. (i) Facts. A group health plan will provide a reward
to participants who have a body mass index (BMI) that is 26 or
lower, determined shortly before the beginning of the year. Any
participant who does not meet the target BMI is given the same
discount if the participant complies with an exercise program that
consists of walking 150 minutes a week. Any participant for whom it
is unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition to comply with
this walking program (and any participant for whom it is medically
inadvisable to attempt to comply with the walking program) during
the year is given the same discount if the individual satisfies an
alternative standard that is reasonable taking into consideration
the individual's medical situation, is not unreasonably burdensome
or impractical to comply with, and is otherwise reasonably designed
based on all the relevant facts and circumstances. All plan
materials describing the terms of the wellness program include the
following statement: ``Fitness is Easy! Start Walking! Your health
plan cares about your health. If you are overweight, our Start
Walking program will help you lose weight and feel better. We will
help you enroll. (**If your doctor says that walking isn't right for
you, that's okay too. We will develop a wellness program that is.)''
Individual E is unable to achieve a BMI that is 26 or lower within
the plan's timeframe and is also not reasonably able to comply with
the walking
[[Page 70639]]
program. E proposes a program based on the recommendations of E's
physician. The plan agrees to make the discount available to E, but
only if E actually follows the physician's recommendations.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 4, the program satisfies the
requirements of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section. The program's initial standard for obtaining a reward is
dependent on the results of a BMI screening, which is related to a
health factor. However, the plan complies with the requirements of
paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section because it makes available to
all individuals who do not satisfy the BMI standard a different
reasonable means of qualifying for the reward (a walking program
that is not unreasonably burdensome or impractical for individuals
to comply with and that is otherwise reasonably designed based on
all the relevant facts and circumstances). In addition, the plan
complies with the requirements of paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this
section because, if there are individuals for whom it is
unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition to comply, or for
whom it is medically inadvisable to attempt to comply, with the
walking program, the plan provides a reasonable alternative to those
individuals. Moreover, the plan satisfies the requirements of
paragraph (f)(3)(v) of this section because it discloses, in all
materials describing the terms of the program, the availability of
other means of qualifying for the reward or the possibility of
waiver of the otherwise applicable standard. Thus, the plan
satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section.
Example 5. (i) Facts. In conjunction with an annual open
enrollment period, a group health plan provides a premium
differential based on tobacco use, determined using a health risk
assessment. The following statement is included in all plan
materials describing the tobacco premium differential: ``Stop
smoking today! We can help! If you are a smoker, we offer a smoking
cessation program. If you complete the program, you can avoid this
surcharge.'' The plan accommodates participants who smoke by
facilitating their enrollment in a smoking cessation program that
requires participation at a time and place that are not unreasonably
burdensome or impractical for participants, and that is otherwise
reasonably designed based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. The plan pays the cost of the program. Any
participant can avoid the surcharge by participating in the program,
regardless of whether the participant stops smoking.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 5, the premium differential
satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v)
of this section. The program's initial standard for obtaining a
reward is dependent on the results of a health risk assessment,
which is a screening. However, the plan is reasonably designed under
paragraph (f)(3)(iv) because the plan provides a different,
reasonable means of qualifying for the reward to all tobacco users.
The plan discloses, in all materials describing the terms of the
program, the availability of other means of qualifying for the
reward. Thus, the plan satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and
(v) of this section.
Example 6. (i) Facts. Same facts as Example 5, except the plan
does not facilitate F's enrollment in any program. Instead the plan
advises F to find a program, pay for it, and provide a certificate
of completion to the plan.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 6, the requirement for F to
find and pay for F's own smoking cessation program means that the
alternative program is not reasonable. Accordingly, the plan has not
offered a reasonable alternative standard that complies with
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) and (iv) of this section and the premium
differential violates paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
Subpart C--Other Requirements
3. Section 2590.715-2705 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 2590.715-2705 Prohibiting discrimination against participants
and beneficiaries based on a health factor.
(a) In general. A group health plan and a health insurance issuer
offering group health insurance coverage must comply with the
requirements of Sec. 2590.702.
(b) Applicability date. This section is applicable to group health
plans and health insurance issuers offering group health insurance
coverage for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. See
Sec. 2590.715-1251, which provides that the rules of this section do
not apply to grandfathered health plans.
Department of Health and Human Services
45 CFR Subtitle A
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Health
and Human Services proposes to amend 45 CFR Parts 146 and 147 as
follows:
PART 146--REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET
1. The authority citation for Part 146 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 2702 through 2705, 2711 through 2723, 2791, and
2792 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-1 through 300gg-5, 300gg-11
through 300gg-23, 300gg-91, and 300gg-92) (1996).
Section 146.121 is also issued under secs. 2701 through 2763,
2791, and 2792 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg
through 300gg-63, 300gg-91, and 300gg-92), as amended (2010).
2. In Sec. 146.121, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 146.121 Prohibiting discrimination against participants and
beneficiaries based on a health factor.
* * * * *
(f) Nondiscriminatory wellness programs--in general. A wellness
program is a program of health promotion or disease prevention.
Paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3) of this section provide exceptions to
the general prohibitions against discrimination based on a health
factor for plan provisions that vary benefits (including cost-sharing
mechanisms) or the premium or contribution for similarly situated
individuals in connection with a wellness program that satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f). If a wellness program is a
participatory wellness program, as defined in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, that paragraph also makes clear that the wellness program does
not violate this section if participation in the program is made
available to all similarly situated individuals. If a wellness program
is a health-contingent wellness program, as defined in paragraph (f)(2)
of this section, the wellness program does not violate this section if
the requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this section are met. Except
where expressly provided otherwise, references in this section to an
individual obtaining a reward include both obtaining a reward (such as
a premium discount or rebate, a waiver of all or part of a cost-sharing
mechanism, an additional benefit, or any financial or other incentive)
and avoiding a penalty (such as the absence of a premium surcharge, or
other financial or nonfinancial disincentive). References in this
section to a plan providing a reward include both providing a reward
(such as a premium discount or rebate, a waiver of all or part of a
cost-sharing mechanism, an additional benefit, or any financial or
other incentive) and imposing a penalty (such as a surcharge or other
financial or nonfinancial disincentive).
(1) Participatory wellness programs defined. If none of the
conditions for obtaining a reward under a wellness program is based on
an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health factor
(or if a wellness program does not provide a reward), the wellness
program is a participatory wellness program and, if participation in
the program is made available to all similarly situated individuals,
does not violate this section. Examples of participatory wellness
programs are:
(i) A program that reimburses all or part of the cost for
membership in a fitness center.
(ii) A diagnostic testing program that provides a reward for
participation and does not base any part of the reward on outcomes.
[[Page 70640]]
(iii) A program that encourages preventive care through the waiver
of the copayment or deductible requirement under a group health plan
for the costs of, for example, prenatal care or well-baby visits. (Note
that, with respect to non-grandfathered plans, Sec. 147.130 of this
subchapter requires benefits for certain preventive health services
without the imposition of cost sharing.)
(iv) A program that reimburses employees for the costs of
participating, or that otherwise provides a reward for participating,
in a smoking cessation program without regard to whether the employee
quits smoking.
(v) A program that provides a reward to employees for attending a
monthly no-cost health education seminar.
(vi) A program that provides a reward to employees who complete a
health risk assessment regarding current health status, without any
further action (educational or otherwise) required by the employee with
regard to the health issues identified as part of the assessment. (See
also Sec. 146.122 for rules prohibiting collection of genetic
information).
(2) Health-contingent wellness programs defined. If any of the
conditions for obtaining a reward under a wellness program is based on
an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health factor,
the wellness program is a health-contingent wellness program and the
program is permissible under this section only if all of the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this section are satisfied.
Examples of health-contingent wellness programs are:
(i) A program that imposes a premium surcharge based on tobacco
use.
(ii) A program that uses a biometric screening or a health risk
assessment to identify employees with specified medical conditions or
risk factors (such as high cholesterol, high blood pressure, unhealthy
body mass index, or high glucose level) and provides a reward to
employees identified as within a normal or healthy range for biometrics
(or at low risk for certain medical conditions), while requiring
employees who are identified as outside the normal or healthy range (or
at risk) to take additional steps (such as meeting with a health coach,
taking a health or fitness course, adhering to a health improvement
action plan, or complying with a health care provider's plan of care)
to obtain the same reward.
(3) Requirements for health-contingent wellness programs. A health-
contingent wellness program does not violate this section if all of the
following requirements are satisfied:
(i) Frequency of opportunity to qualify. The program must give
individuals eligible for the program the opportunity to qualify for the
reward under the program at least once per year.
(ii) Size of reward. The reward for a health-contingent wellness
program, together with the reward for other health-contingent wellness
programs with respect to the plan, must not exceed the applicable
percentage of the total cost of employee-only coverage under the plan,
as defined in this paragraph (f)(3)(ii). However, if, in addition to
employees, any class of dependents (such as spouses, or spouses and
dependent children) may participate in the wellness program, the reward
must not exceed the applicable percentage of the total cost of the
coverage in which an employee and any dependents are enrolled. For
purposes of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii), the cost of coverage is
determined based on the total amount of employer and employee
contributions for the benefit package under which the employee is (or
the employee and any dependents are) receiving coverage.
(A) Applicable percentage. For purposes of this paragraph
(f)(3)(ii), the applicable percentage is 30 percent, except that the
applicable percentage is increased an additional 20 percentage points
(to 50 percent) to the extent that the additional percentage is in
connection with a program designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use.
(B) Examples. The rules of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) are
illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. (i) Facts. An employer sponsors a group health plan.
The annual premium for employee-only coverage is $6,000 (of which
the employer pays $4,500 per year and the employee pays $1,500 per
year). The plan offers employees a health-contingent wellness
program focused on exercise, blood sugar, weight, cholesterol, and
blood pressure. The reward for compliance is an annual premium
rebate of $600.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 1, the program satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because the reward for the
wellness program, $600, does not exceed 30 percent of the total
annual cost of employee-only coverage, $1,800. ($6,000 x 30% =
$1,800.)
Example 2. (i) Facts. Same facts as Example 1, except the
wellness program is exclusively a tobacco prevention program.
Employees who have used tobacco in the last 12 months and who are
not enrolled in the plan's tobacco cessation program are charged a
$1,000 premium surcharge (in addition to their employee contribution
towards the coverage). (Those who participate in the plan's tobacco
cessation program are not assessed the $1,000 surcharge.)
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 2, the program satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because the reward for the
wellness program (absence of a $1,000 surcharge), does not exceed 50
percent of the total annual cost of employee-only coverage, $3,000.
($6,000 x 50% = $3,000.)
Example 3. (i) Facts. Same facts as Example 1, except that, in
addition to the $600 reward for compliance with the health-
contingent wellness program, the plan also imposes an additional
$2,000 tobacco premium surcharge on employees who have used tobacco
in the last 12 months and who are not enrolled in the plan's tobacco
cessation program. (Those who participate in the plan's tobacco
cessation program are not assessed the $2,000 surcharge.)
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 3, the program satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) because both: The total of
all rewards (including absence of a surcharge for participating in
the tobacco program) is $2,600 ($600 + $2,000 = $2,600), which does
not exceed 50 percent of the total annual cost of employee-only
coverage ($3,000); and, tested separately, the $600 reward for the
wellness program unrelated to tobacco use does not exceed 30 percent
of the total annual cost of employee-only coverage, $1,800.
Example 4. (i) Facts. An employer sponsors a group health plan.
The total annual premium for employee-only coverage (including both
employer and employee contributions towards the coverage) is $5,000.
The plan provides a $250 reward to employees who complete a health
risk assessment, without regard to the health issues identified as
part of the assessment. The plan also offers a Healthy Heart
program, which is a health-contingent wellness program under
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, with an opportunity to earn a
$1,500 reward.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 4, the plan satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii). Even though the total
reward for all wellness programs under the plan is $1,750 ($250 +
$1,500 = $1,750, which exceeds 30 percent of the cost of the annual
premium for employee-only coverage ($5,000 x 30% = $1,500)), only
the reward offered for compliance with the health-contingent
wellness program ($1,500) is taken into account in determining
whether the rules of this paragraph (f)(3)(ii) are met. (The $250
reward is offered in connection with a participatory wellness
program and therefore is not taken into account under this paragraph
(f)(3)(ii)). The health-contingent wellness program offers a reward
that does not exceed 30 percent of the total annual cost of
employee-only coverage.
(iii) Uniform availability and reasonable alternative standards.
The reward under the program must be available to all similarly
situated individuals.
(A) Under this paragraph (f)(3)(iii), a reward under a program is
not available to all similarly situated individuals for a period unless
the program meets both of the following requirements:
(1) The program allows a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver
of the
[[Page 70641]]
otherwise applicable standard) for obtaining the reward for any
individual for whom, for that period, it is unreasonably difficult due
to a medical condition to satisfy the otherwise applicable standard;
and
(2) The program allows a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver
of the otherwise applicable standard) for obtaining the reward for any
individual for whom, for that period, it is medically inadvisable to
attempt to satisfy the otherwise applicable standard.
(B) While plans and issuers are not required to determine a
particular alternative standard in advance of an individual's request
for one, if an individual is described in either paragraph
(f)(3)(iii)(A)(1) or (2) of this section, a reasonable alternative
standard must be furnished by the plan or issuer upon the individual's
request or the condition for obtaining the reward must be waived. All
the facts and circumstances are taken into account in determining
whether a plan or issuer has furnished a reasonable alternative
standard, including but not limited to the following:
(1) If the reasonable alternative standard is completion of an
educational program, the plan or issuer must make the educational
program available instead of requiring an individual to find such a
program unassisted, and may not require an individual to pay for the
cost of the program.
(2) If the reasonable alternative standard is a diet program, plans
and issuers are not required to pay for the cost of food but must pay
any membership or participation fee.
(3) If the reasonable alternative standard is compliance with the
recommendations of a medical professional who is an employee or agent
of the plan or issuer, and an individual's personal physician states
that the plan's recommendations are not medically appropriate for that
individual, the plan or issuer must provide a reasonable alternative
standard that accommodates the recommendations of the individual's
personal physician with regard to medical appropriateness. Plans and
issuers may impose standard cost sharing under the plan or coverage for
medical items and services furnished pursuant to the physician's
recommendations.
(C) If reasonable under the circumstances, a plan or issuer may
seek verification, such as a statement from an individual's personal
physician, that a health factor makes it unreasonably difficult for the
individual to satisfy, or medically inadvisable for the individual to
attempt to satisfy, the otherwise applicable standard. It would not be
reasonable, for example, for a plan and issuer to seek verification of
a claim that is obviously valid based on the nature of the individual's
medical condition that is known to the plan or issuer. However, plans
and issuers may seek verification in the case of claims for which it is
reasonable to determine that medical judgment is required to evaluate
the validity of the claim.
(iv) Reasonable design. The program must be reasonably designed to
promote health or prevent disease. A program satisfies this standard if
it has a reasonable chance of improving the health of, or preventing
disease in, participating individuals and it is not overly burdensome,
is not a subterfuge for discriminating based on a health factor, and is
not highly suspect in the method chosen to promote health or prevent
disease. This determination is based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. To the extent a plan's initial standard for obtaining a
reward (including a portion of a reward) is based on the results of a
measurement, test, or screening relating to a health factor (such as a
biometric examination or a health risk assessment), the plan must make
available to any individual who does not meet the standard based on the
measurement, test, or screening a different, reasonable means of
qualifying for the reward.
(v) Notice of availability of other means of qualifying for the
reward. (A) The plan or issuer must disclose in all plan materials
describing the terms of the program the availability of other means of
qualifying for the reward or the possibility of waiver of the otherwise
applicable standard. If plan materials merely mention that a program is
available, without describing its terms, this disclosure is not
required.
(B) The following language, or substantially similar language, can
be used to satisfy the notice requirement of this paragraph (f)(3)(v):
``Your health plan is committed to helping you achieve your best health
status. Rewards for participating in a wellness program are available
to all employees. If you think you might be unable to meet a standard
for a reward under this wellness program, you might qualify for an
opportunity to earn the same reward by different means. Contact us at
[insert contact information] and we will work with you to find a
wellness program with the same reward that is right for you in light of
your health status.'' Additional sample language is provided in the
examples of paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
(4) Examples. The rules of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of
this section are illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. (i) Facts. A group health plan provides a reward to
individuals who participate in a reasonable specified walking
program. If it is unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition
for an individual to participate (or if it is medically inadvisable
for an individual to participate), the plan will waive the walking
program requirement and provide the reward. All materials describing
the terms of the walking program disclose the availability of the
waiver.
(ii) Conclusion. The program satisfies the requirements of
paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this section because the reward under the
program is available to all similarly situated individuals because
it accommodates individuals who cannot participate in the walking
program due to a medical condition (or for whom it would be
medically inadvisable to attempt to participate) by providing them
the reward even if they do not participate in the walking program
(that is, by waiving the condition). The program satisfies the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section because the
walking program is reasonably designed to promote health and prevent
disease. Last, the plan complies with the disclosure requirement of
paragraph (f)(3)(v) of this section. Thus, the plan satisfies
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section.
Example 2. (i) Facts. A group health plan offers a reward to
individuals who achieve a count under 200 on a cholesterol test. If
a participant does not achieve the targeted cholesterol count, the
plan will make available a different, reasonable means of qualifying
for the reward. In addition, all plan materials describing the terms
of the program include the following statement: ``Your health plan
wants to help you take charge of your health. Rewards are available
to all employees who participate in our Cholesterol Awareness
Wellness Program. If your cholesterol count is under 200, you will
receive the reward. If not, you will still have an opportunity to
qualify for the reward. We will work with you to find a Health Smart
program that is right for you.'' Individual D is identified as
having a cholesterol count above 200. The plan partners D with a
nurse who makes recommendations regarding diet and exercise, with
which it is not unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition of
D or medically inadvisable for D to comply, and which is otherwise
reasonably designed, based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. In addition, the plan makes available to all other
individuals who do not meet the cholesterol standard a different,
reasonable means of qualifying for the reward which is not
unreasonably burdensome or impractical. D will qualify for the
discount if D follows the recommendations regardless of whether D
achieves a cholesterol count that is under 200.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 2, the program satisfies the
requirements of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section. The program's initial standard for obtaining a reward is
dependent on the
[[Page 70642]]
results of a cholesterol screening, which is related to a health
factor. However, the program is reasonably designed under paragraphs
(f)(3)(iii) and (iv) of this section because the plan makes
available to all individuals who do not meet the cholesterol
standard a different, reasonable means of qualifying for the reward
and because the program is otherwise reasonably designed based on
all the relevant facts and circumstances. The plan also discloses in
all materials describing the terms of the program the opportunity to
qualify for the reward through other means. Thus, the program
satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section.
Example 3. (i) Facts. Same facts as Example 2, except that,
following diet and exercise, D again fails to achieve a cholesterol
count that is under 200, and the program requires D to visit a
doctor and follow any additional recommendations of D's doctor with
respect to D's cholesterol. The program permits D to select D's own
doctor for this purpose. D visits D's doctor, who determines D
should take a prescription medication for cholesterol. In addition,
the doctor determines that D must be monitored through periodic
blood tests to continually reevaluate D's health status. The plan
accommodates D by making the discount available to D, but only if D
actually follows the advice of D's doctor's regarding medication and
blood tests.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 3, the program's requirements
to follow up with, and follow the recommendations of, D's doctor do
not make the program unreasonable under paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) or
(iv) of this section. The program continues to satisfy the
conditions of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section.
Example 4. (i) Facts. A group health plan will provide a reward
to participants who have a body mass index (BMI) that is 26 or
lower, determined shortly before the beginning of the year. Any
participant who does not meet the target BMI is given the same
discount if the participant complies with an exercise program that
consists of walking 150 minutes a week. Any participant for whom it
is unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition to comply with
this walking program (and any participant for whom it is medically
inadvisable to attempt to comply with the walking program) during
the year is given the same discount if the individual satisfies an
alternative standard that is reasonable taking into consideration
the individual's medical situation, is not unreasonably burdensome
or impractical to comply with, and is otherwise reasonably designed
based on all the relevant facts and circumstances. All plan
materials describing the terms of the wellness program include the
following statement: ``Fitness is Easy! Start Walking! Your health
plan cares about your health. If you are overweight, our Start
Walking program will help you lose weight and feel better. We will
help you enroll. (**If your doctor says that walking isn't right for
you, that's okay too. We will develop a wellness program that is.)''
Individual E is unable to achieve a BMI that is 26 or lower within
the plan's timeframe and is also not reasonably able to comply with
the walking program. E proposes a program based on the
recommendations of E's physician. The plan agrees to make the
discount available to E, but only if E actually follows the
physician's recommendations.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 4, the program satisfies the
requirements of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this
section. The program's initial standard for obtaining a reward is
dependent on the results of a BMI screening, which is related to a
health factor. However, the plan complies with the requirements of
paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section because it makes available to
all individuals who do not satisfy the BMI standard a different
reasonable means of qualifying for the reward (a walking program
that is not unreasonably burdensome or impractical for individuals
to comply with and that is otherwise reasonably designed based on
all the relevant facts and circumstances). In addition, the plan
complies with the requirements of paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this
section because, if there are individuals for whom it is
unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition to comply, or for
whom it is medically inadvisable to attempt to comply, with the
walking program, the plan provides a reasonable alternative to those
individuals. Moreover, the plan satisfies the requirements of
paragraph (f)(3)(v) of this section because it discloses, in all
materials describing the terms of the program, the availability of
other means of qualifying for the reward or the possibility of
waiver of the otherwise applicable standard. Thus, the plan
satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section.
Example 5. (i) Facts. In conjunction with an annual open
enrollment period, a group health plan provides a premium
differential based on tobacco use, determined using a health risk
assessment. The following statement is included in all plan
materials describing the tobacco premium differential: ``Stop
smoking today! We can help! If you are a smoker, we offer a smoking
cessation program. If you complete the program, you can avoid this
surcharge.'' The plan accommodates participants who smoke by
facilitating their enrollment in a smoking cessation program that
requires participation at a time and place that are not unreasonably
burdensome or impractical for participants, and that is otherwise
reasonably designed based on all the relevant facts and
circumstances. The plan pays the cost of the program. Any
participant can avoid the surcharge by participating in the program,
regardless of whether the participant stops smoking.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 5, the premium differential
satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and (v)
of this section. The program's initial standard for obtaining a
reward is dependent on the results of a health risk assessment,
which is a screening. However, the plan is reasonably designed under
paragraph (f)(3)(iv) because the plan provides a different,
reasonable means of qualifying for the reward to all tobacco users.
The plan discloses, in all materials describing the terms of the
program, the availability of other means of qualifying for the
reward. Thus, the plan satisfies paragraphs (f)(3)(iii), (iv), and
(v) of this section.
Example 6. (i) Facts. Same facts as Example 5, except the plan
does not facilitate F's enrollment in any program. Instead the plan
advises F to find a program, pay for it, and provide a certificate
of completion to the plan.
(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 6, the requirement for F to
find and pay for F's own smoking cessation program means that the
alternative program is not reasonable. Accordingly, the plan has not
offered a reasonable alternative standard that complies with
paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) and (iv) of this section and the premium
differential violates paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
PART 147--HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GROUP AND
INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETS
3. The authority citation for Part 147 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 2701 through 2763, 2791, and 2792 of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg-63, 300gg-91, and
300gg-92), as amended (2010).
4. Section 147.110 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 147.110 Prohibiting discrimination against participants,
beneficiaries, and individuals based on a health factor.
(a) In general. A group health plan and a health insurance issuer
offering group or individual health insurance coverage must comply with
all the requirements under 45 CFR 146.121 applicable to a group health
plan and a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance
coverage. Accordingly, with respect to an issuer offering health
insurance coverage in the individual market, the issuer is subject to
the requirements of Sec. 146.121 to the same extent as an issuer
offering group health insurance coverage, except that the exception
contained in Sec. 146.121(f) does not apply.
(b) Applicability date. This section is applicable to a group
health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual
health insurance coverage for plan years (in the individual market,
policy years) beginning on or after January 1, 2014. See Sec. 147.140,
which provides that the rules of this section do not apply to
grandfathered health plans.
[FR Doc. 2012-28361 Filed 11-20-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P; 4510-029-P; 4120-01-P