Benefits Law Update
        Practical advice from Verrill attorneys

        EEOC Doubles Down: Final Wellness Program Rules Under ADA and GINA – Part II

        by Eric D. Altholz on May 25, 2016

        Last week the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued final rules for wellness programs under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (the “Final ADA Rule”) and the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) (the “Final GINA Rule“).

        Part I of this two-part series addressed the Final ADA Rule. In Part II we discuss the Final GINA Rule. Like the Final ADA Rule, the Final GINA Rule is generally consistent with the proposed rule published by the EEOC in October 2015. The Final GINA Rule simply clarifies the type of information regulated by the rule and the level of financial incentives that may be offered by an employer in exchange for certain health information about an employee’s spouse and children.

        General Principles in the Final GINA Rule

        Title II of GINA generally prohibits employers from using genetic information to make employment decisions and even prohibits an employer from requesting genetic information concerning an employee or his or her family members. An exception to these prohibitions allows an employer to request genetic information if health or genetic services are offered under a wellness program that meets certain requirements. The Final GINA Rule explains the requirements that must be satisfied for the wellness exception to apply.

        The Final GINA Rule allows genetic information to be requested as part of a wellness program that is “reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease.” As is the case under the Final ADA Rule, such a wellness program must not be overly burdensome or operate as a subterfuge for violating laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Both final rules also require that a wellness program that collects health information must provide participants with follow-up information, activities, or programming to address conditions identified through disclosure of the information. All wellness programs may be subject to the Final GINA Rule, regardless of whether the program participant is enrolled in the employer’s group health plan.

        Incentives for Participation

        GINA applies only to “genetic information” (including information about an individual’s genetic tests, family medical history, and an individual’s request for genetic services) and not to other health information (such as weight, exercise habits, or tobacco use). Therefore, the Final GINA Rule replaces the phrase “current or past health status” used in the proposed rule with “manifestation of disease or disorder” to describe the type of information subject to the rule’s limitations. Information about a “manifestation of disease or disorder” in the family members of an individual is a type of “genetic information.” Information about the “manifestation of disease or disorder” in that indivudal is not “genetic information.” Under the Final GINA Rule a wellness program may offer limited incentives to obtain information about a spouse’s manifestation of disease or disorder, but not to obtain other genetic information (such as the results of genetic tests or the manifestation of a disease of disorder in a family member). An employer may still request genetic information from an employee’s spouse or children, but cannot offer an incentive in exchange for the information and any request must clearly disclose that no incentives may be offered in exchange for the information.

        As explained in Part I, financial incentives for participation by a spouse may not exceed 30% of the total cost of self-only coverage, with the self-only coverage used to determine the allowed incentive linked to the group health plan options offered by the employer and the enrollment requirements of the wellness program. Thus, the combined incentives available to both a participating employee and participating spouse may not exceed 60% of the cost of the applicable self-only coverage option. The Final GINA Rule contains the following example:

        [I]f the employer offers one group health plan and self-only coverage under that plan costs $7,000, and the employer provides the option of participation in a wellness program to the employee and the spouse, the employer may not offer more than $2,100 to the employee and $2,100 to the spouse.

        The portion of the incentive attributable to a spouse’s participation may be paid in the same manner as the employee incentive, including as a premium reduction. Like the Final ADA Rule, the incentive limit applies to both participatory and health-contingent wellness programs and calculation of the incentive amount includes both non-cash and de minimis rewards for participation.

        The Final GINA Rule maintains the prohibition against offering of incentives in exchange for information about a manifestation of disease or disorder in an employee’s children or for genetic information about an employee’s children. This restriction applies to both adult and minor children of an employee. The Final GINA Rule also prohibits “gateway” arrangements where an employer refuses to make certain coverage or benefit options available to an employee or his or her spouse who refuses to provide information about the manifestation of a disease or disorder.

        Confidentiality and Disclosure Requirements

        The Final GINA Rule does not significantly modify the authorization, disclosure, or confidentiality requirements contained in the proposed rule. To the extent genetic information is requested, the employee or his or her spouse must provide knowing and voluntary written authorization for the disclosure and the written authorization must describe the confidentiality protections and restrictions that will apply to the information. In addition, similar to the Final ADA Rule, an employer cannot require an individual to waive his or her right to confidentiality or agree to the sale or exchange of his or her genetic information as a condition of participating in the wellness program.

        The Final GINA Rule also preserves the requirement that any genetic information obtained by the wellness program must be kept confidential. The EEOC rejected requests from privacy advocates to limit collected information to that which is minimally necessary and to prohibit wellness programs from obtaining genetic information from other sources, such as claims data or medical records. In rejecting these requests, the EEOC noted that existing regulations under GINA and the reasonable design requirement contained in the Final GINA Rule sufficiently limit the potential for abusing collected information.

        Conclusion

        The Final GINA Rule differs very little from its proposed version and employers who paid careful attention to the proposed rule should not be surprised by its contents. In addition to preserving current limitations on financial incentives, employers should consider the type of information collected through health risk assessments and biometric screenings, evaluate how the information is used, and determine whether appropriate notices, disclosures, and authorization requests are included in requests for the information. In addition, every employer should carefully assess how confidential health information is handled and ensure that its wellness program complies with all restrictions concerning the maintenance and disclosure of health and genetic information collected through the program.

        Benefits Law Update

        Verrill’s Benefits Law Update blog delivers timely insights and practical guidance on the ever-evolving landscape of employee benefits and executive compensation. Our blog provides up-to-date analysis and commentary on a wide range of topics, including timely updates on developments in law affecting employee benefit plans and executive compensation arrangements.

        Subscribe

        Looking for more great content? Subscribe for regular legal updates and information delivered right to your inbox.

        Firm Highlights

        Media Mentions

        Steven Davis Featured in the Environmental Business Journal

        Steven Davis, President of Verrill Strategic Consulting, was recently interviewed and featured in the Environmental Business Journal, Volume 39...
        Blog

        What is a Bonus for Purposes of ERISA?

        An ongoing dispute about a Department of Labor advisory opinion published last September raises a basic but unanswered question under the ERISA: What...
        Media Mentions

        Verrill Recognized by WMTW for Partnership Supporting Hunger Relief in Maine

        Verrill was recently featured in coverage by WMTW News 8 for its role in a collaborative effort to combat food insecurity across southern...
        Press Releases

        33 Verrill Attorneys, Across Four Offices, Recognized in the 2026 Chambers USA Guide

        BOSTON, Massachusetts, PORTLAND, Maine, WESTPORT, Connecticut, and WASHINGTON, D.C. – Verrill has been recognized as a Leading Firm in 14...
        Blog

        Will the Knicks Beat the Spurs? (Are Prediction Market Event Contracts Gambling?)

        For those of you who like to keep score, currently 18 states are engaged in litigation over prediction markets, such as Kalshi and Polymarket,...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Faster Review and Enhanced Enforcement for Benefits-Fraud FCA Matters

        On May 27, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Division issued a new memorandum, “Accelerating Review and Enhancing Enforcement in...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown; Signals Intensified Medicaid Enforcement Nationwide

        On May 21, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a first-of-its kind Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown charging 15 defendants, including...
        Media Mentions

        Lauren Galvin Quoted in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on Arbitration and Anti-SLAPP Protections

        Verrill Partner Lauren Galvin was recently featured in a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article highlighting a notable Superior Court decision...
        Blog

        Section 530A Accounts: What Employers Should Consider Before Offering Contributions to “Trump” Accounts

        Section 530A accounts, commonly referred to as Trump accounts, have attracted attention since the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in...
        Blog

        Navigating PBM Reform: Regulatory Changes, Market Shifts, and Practical Guidance for ERISA Fiduciaries

        Pharmacy Benefit Manager (“PBM”) arrangements have long relied on rebates with limited transparency into true drug costs. Recent regulatory and...
        Blog

        DOL’s Proposed Regulation on Selecting Alternative Investments: Broad Implications for 401(k) and 403(b) Plan Fiduciaries

        On March 30, 2026, the Department of Labor issued a proposed regulation purporting to implement an executive order to expand access to “alternative...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Private Clients & Fiduciary Services Attorney Gracie Castle

        BOSTON, Massachusetts – Verrill is pleased to welcome Gracie Castle to the firm’s Private Clients & Fiduciary Services Group as an Associate,...