The EEOC Issues Final Rules on Employer Wellness Programs

May 18, 2016

Reading Time : 3 min

The final rules provide guidance on how wellness programs can comply with the ADA and GINA, and attempt to reconcile the ADA and GINA with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as amended by the ACA, which governs wellness programs that are part of group health plans.

Under the new rules, a wellness program that collects medical or health information qualifies under the ADA and GINA as an allowable voluntary health program if it meets the following requirements:

  • The program must be “reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease.” This means the program must have a reasonable chance of improving health or preventing disease. For example, completing a questionnaire or undergoing a biometric screening for the purpose of alerting employees to health risks would meet the standard, as would employers gathering this information in the aggregate to design or offer health programs tailored to the needs of its employees. Asking employees to provide medical information without providing any feedback about risk factors or without using aggregate information to design a program would not meet the standard. Nor would programs that exist merely to shift costs from the employer to the employee or to predict future health costs.
  • The program must be “voluntary.” This means participation in the program must be optional, and not conditioned on access to healthcare coverage. Employers also may not take any adverse action against employees who chose not to answer disability-related questions.
  • Employers must provide notice for the program to be considered voluntary. The notice must clearly explain what medical information will be obtained, how it will be used, who will receive it, restrictions on disclosure and the methods that will be used to prevent improper disclosure.
  • Incentives are limited to 30 percent of coverage costs. Incentives, whether in the form of financial awards or discounts, time-off awards, prizes or other items of value, generally may not exceed 30 percent of the total cost of self-only coverage (including both the employee’s and employer’s contribution).
  • Confidentiality safeguards must be implemented. These confidentiality safeguards are consistent with HIPAA and also include ensuring that employers only receive de-identified aggregated information from the program, and prohibit conditioning participation in the program to allowing for the sale, transfer or distribution of health information.
  • The program must be accessible to persons with disabilities. This means that reasonable accommodations must be provided, absent undue hardship, that enable persons with disabilities to earn any incentive being offered. This requirement applies even if there is no medical inquiry. For example, sign interpretation would need to be provided for a nutrition class tied to the incentive.    

The final rules also clarify that certain wellness programs that are encouraged by ACA regulations do not implicate the ADA or GINA incentive limitations. For example, a smoking cessation program that merely asks whether or not an employee uses tobacco makes no medical inquiry and, therefore, employers may offer incentives as high as 50 percent, as allowed by the ACA regulations. Likewise, programs that offer incentives to attend nutrition or weight loss classes, or to exercise or walk, are subject to the ACA incentive limits, but not the ADA or GINA limits.

The final rules apply to all wellness programs, regardless of whether the wellness program is offered through a group plan or not. The final rule also clarifies that the ADA safe harbor provision for insurance plans does not apply to wellness programs that include disability-related inquires.  

The new rules do not go into effect until 2017, giving companies some lead time to ensure their wellness programs are in compliance. The final rules can be found in the Federal Register here (ADA) and here (GINA) as well as the question-and-answer documents here (ADA) and here (GINA).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.