As if on cue, Towers Watson has produced a study that appears certain to become part of a burgeoning controversy.
The HR consulting firm, which produces a large number of highly detailed and painstakingly researched studies, has among its focus areas wellness programs. These programs have been all the rage in the C-Suite of late as employers attempt to hold down health care costs by encouraging a healthier workforce.
As the Towers Watson study and others before it have shown, offering wellness opportunities is akin to leading the horse to water. You can't make employees participate.
Recommended For You
Or can you? This latest research indicates that a fairly large percentage of companies that sponsor wellness programs are using a stick, not just the carrot, to "encourage" workers to take advantage of offerings to reduce weight, cut smoking and foster a more active lifestyle.
Its 2013/2014 Staying@Work Survey outlines the problem in stark relief: "To combat these (health) issues, companies have to overcome poor employee engagement. Nearly eight in 10 … employers view a lack of employee engagement as the biggest obstacle to changing behavior. Despite offering a variety of health and productivity programs, employers report that actual program participation is low."
But many employers are no longer just shaking their heads about low participation and walking away. They are taking action.
"In 2014, almost four in 10 … U.S. companies will use penalties such as an increase in premiums and deductibles for individuals who do not complete the requirements of health management activities (with a jump to 61 percent for 2015/2016).
"Outcome-based incentives that reward or penalize employees based on tobacco use will grow from 54 percent next year to 71 percent in 2015/2016.
"What's more, rewards or penalties for other biometric outcomes (e.g., health-contingent targets such as BMI, blood pressure or cholesterol level) will dramatically increase from 26 percent in 2014 to 68 percent in 2015/2016."
The frustration on the part of employers is easy to understand. But they may need to have a Plan B.
U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter has just lodged a request with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for an investigation of plans that include punitive measures.
Citing the penalties that Penn State had intended to add to its wellness program, Slaughter wrote in part to the EEOC: "While the (Penn State) employer wellness program has recently suspended this fee, their plan still raises concerns about the type of information that can be collected through wellness programs and the definition of 'voluntary' participation,'" she wrote to the commission. "It is my strong hope that EEOC promptly drafts sub-regulatory guidance stopping this type of abuse and ensuring strong nondiscrimination protections for employees in wellness programs."
Just how far Slaughter may push the envelope on wellness sanctions remains to be seen. Penn State asked a series of very personal questions in an online questionnaire that employees had to complete or face monthly fines, a step that many wellness plans don't include. Confronted by protests by its professors and other employees, it abandoned that approach.
As more companies look to establish wellness plans with teeth, similar resistance may well become more widespread.
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Dan Cook
Dan Cook is a journalist and communications consultant based in Portland, OR. During his journalism career he has been a reporter and editor for a variety of media companies, including American Lawyer Media, BusinessWeek, Newhouse Newspapers, Knight-Ridder, Time Inc., and Reuters. He specializes in health care and insurance related coverage for BenefitsPRO.
