David Baffa Published in Employment Law Strategist

David S. Baffa’s two-part article “Voluntary Versus Mandatory Wellness Programs,” was published in Employment Law Strategist. Part one of the article, published in the November 2007 issue, examines the types of wellness programs that have been used with increasing frequency, as well as the benefits and risks associated with those programs. Part two of the article, published in the December 2007 issue, offers an in-depth discussions on the risks associated with such mandatory programs.

David compares both voluntary and incentive-based programs to mandatory programs using examples from companies such as Motorola, Inc. which maintains a program known as the “LIVE SMART Challenge,” and Caterpillar Inc. whose program is known as “Healthy Balance.” In both programs, if employees choose to participate in a voluntary health risk assessment, they receive their medical plan at a discounted rate. Motorola, Caterpillar and others have found that the benefits of voluntary and incentive-based wellness programs include: significant savings in health care costs, higher productivity, greater morale, lower absenteeism and less attrition.

Mandatory programs not only require employees to get healthier by prohibiting certain conduct such as alcohol and tobacco use, but may also impact employees’ diets by targeting obesity and cholesterol rates. Some of the risks linked to mandatory wellness programs include lower morale higher attrition, and the less obvious risk of landmines in varying state laws.

David illustrates additional risks associated with the mandatory programs by examining the lawsuit Scott Rodrigues v. The Scotts Company LLC, which is currently pending before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. David and Steven note that although mandatory wellness programs may capture substantial health care saving, they pose a variety of risks, such as running afoul of state-specific laws and increasing attrition.