Employees of Pennsylvania State University are protesting a new wellness effort that requires them to provide detailed health information or pay penalties that can add up to $1,200 per year.
/snip
The WSJ report adds that Penn State’s program will charge its employees $100 per month, beginning in January, if they and their covered spouses do not complete the health questionnaire and certify that they will have a physical examination. Employees must also obtain biometric screenings, including blood-sugar and cholesterol tests, and body-mass index measurements in order to avoid the penalties.
/snip
According to the WSJ, Penn State’s president, Rodney Erickson, said the mandated program was aimed at reducing costs so that the university could keep the price of tuition down. Healthcare costs at the university are expected to increase 13 percent in 2013-14 from the prior year.
The petition also calls for the end of a plan to charge workers a $100 monthly fee to provide coverage to spouses if the latter are eligible for health insurance through their own employers, and for a $75 per month penalty on smokers.
ObamaCare has increased the size of incentives that employers can link to employees’ health data, but there is no federal cap on penalties tied to other related activities such as completing health questionnaires. From the WSJ:The Penn State penalties are at the high end, according to polls of employers. A 2012 Mercer survey found that at large employers, the median maximum annual incentive—which could be a reward or a penalty—for filling out a health-risk assessment was $150. However, a handful of employers go much further, according to the National Business Group on Health survey—they yank workers’ coverage altogether if they don’t complete wellness requirements.
The Mercer survey also found that among large employers offering wellness programs, 42% used a financial reward as an incentive, and 15% had a financial penalty. Penn State has said that to structure its program as a reward rather than a penalty, it would have had to inflate employees’ premium charges and then offer a discount to workers, an approach it said was wasn’t “fiscally responsible.”
I believe the first comment mirrors my reaction:
Awesome stuff, couldn’t happen to a nicer group of people. Hey maybe their unions will pick up the tab for these additional expenses?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.