2010 Wellness Legislation

Insurance (2009, enacted, AK HB 175): Exempts rewards under a wellness program as insurance discrimination or rebating. The wellness program must meet the following requirements: a) the wellness program is reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease; b) an individual has an opportunity to qualify for the reward at least once a year; c) the reward is available for all similarly situated individuals; d) the wellness program has alternative standards for individuals who are unable to obtain the reward because of a health factor; e) alternative standards are available for an individual who is unable to participate in a reward program because of a health condition; f) the insurer provides information explaining the standard for achieving the reward and discloses the alternative standards; and g) the total rewards for all wellness programs under the health insurance policy do not exceed 20 percent of the cost of coverage.

Wellness Incentives Rewards Outcomes (2010, enacted, CO HB 1160): Current law allows health insurance carriers offering individual health coverage plans and small group plans and the board of directors of the CoverColorado program or carriers providing health benefit plans to CoverColorado participants to offer incentives or rewards to encourage persons covered under the plans to participate in a wellness and prevention program. The bill repeals the restriction on incentives based on outcomes and allow carriers to base the incentives or rewards on satisfaction of a standard related to a health factor if the incentive or reward under the wellness and prevention program was consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements of the federal "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996".

Wellness Programs (2010, did not pass, CT HB 5009): Would have allowed any insurer, health care center, hospital service corporation, medical service corporation, fraternal benefit society or other entity that delivers, issues for delivery, renews, amends or continues a group health insurance policy to offer a reasonably designed health behavior wellness, maintenance or improvement program allowing for a reward, a health spending account contribution, a reduction in premiums or reduced medical, prescription drug or equipment copayment, coinsurance or deductible, or a combination of these incentives, for participation in such program. Any incentive or reward would not have been allowed to exceed 20 percent of the paid premiums and would have had to comply with all nondiscrimination requirements under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

Insurer Wellness Incentives (2010, enacted, GA SB 411): Provides exemptions from unfair trade practices when an insurer provides incentives, merchandise, gift cards, debit cards, premium discounts, rebates, contributions towards a health savings account and/or copayment modification to reward insureds for participation in wellness programs.

Insurance (2010, did not pass, GA SB 445): Would have provided that insurers that issue plans of individual accident and sickness insurance in Georgia include within at least one such plan a wellness incentive program under which the insurer shall provide a partial premium reimbursement for those insureds who meet the requirements of the wellness incentive program.

Health Insurance (2010, did not pass, IA SB 2362): Would have required the commissioner of insurance to certify certain health policies, contracts or plans that promote healthy lifestyles and provide for premium credits. The commissioner would have been required to adopt rules to promote wellness by establishing criteria and procedures for certifying health insurance policies, contracts and plans that meet certain wellness objectives.

State Employees Group Insurance Act of 1971 (2009, proposed, IL HB 718): Would allow a group or individual policy of accident and health insurance or managed care plan to offer a reasonably designed program for wellness coverage that allows for a reward, a health spending account contribution, a reduction in premiums or reduced medical, prescription drug, or equipment copayments, coinsurance, or deductibles, or a combination of these incentives, for participation in any health behavior wellness, maintenance, or improvement program approved or offered by the insurer or managed care plan. The insured or enrollee may have been required to provide evidence of participation in a program or demonstrative compliance with treatment recommendations as determined by the health insurer or managed care plan.

Family and Employers Health Care Act (2009, proposed, IL HB 1081 and SB 1877): Would allow individual and group insurance companies to waive deductibles and other cost-sharing payments by insurer may be made for individuals participating in chronic care management or wellness and prevention programs. Would allow adjustments to base rates using participation in wellness or chronic disease management activities as a factor.

Health and Accident Insurance (2010, enacted, LA HB 821): Authorizes a health insurance issuer to offer a voluntary wellness or health improvement program that allows for rewards or incentives including but not limited to merchandise, gift cards, debit cards, premium discounts or rebates, contributions toward a member's health savings account, modifications to copayments, deductibles, or coinsurance amounts, or any combination of these incentives to encourage participation or to reward participation in the program.

Health Insurers (2009, proposed, NY AB 2867 and SB 651): Would allow an insurer or health maintenance organization (HMO) issuing an individual or group health insurance policy to provide an actuarially appropriate reduction in premium rates in return for an enrollee’s or insured’s adherence to a bona fide wellness program. A bona fide wellness program would be defined as either a risk management system that identifies at-risk populations or any other systematic program or course of medical conduct which helps to promote good health, helps to prevent or mitigate acute or chronic sickness or disease, or which minimizes adverse health consequences due to lifestyle. A bona fide wellness program would have to demonstrate actuarially that it encourages the good health and well-being of the covered population. The insurer or HMO would not be allowed to require specific outcomes as a result of an enrollee’s or insured’s adherence to the approved wellness program.

Affordable Health Insurance (2009, proposed, PA HB 1743): Would make insurers that include and operate wellness and health promotion programs, disease and condition management programs, health risk appraisal programs and similar provisions in their high deductible health policies in keeping with federal requirements, to not be considered to be engaging in unfair trade practices under any provision of law relating to unfair trade practices with respect to the practices of illegal inducements, unfair discrimination and rebating.

Income and Franchise Tax Credit (2010, enacted, WI AB 699): Allows an insurer to advertise, market, offer, or operate a wellness program without violating an unfair trade or marketing practice. The law provides that if a wellness program contains no conditions for obtaining a reward based on an individual satisfying a health related standard, the wellness program is exempt from unfair trade or marketing practice laws and a wellness program that is based on satisfying such standards is exempt if it satisfies specified requirements.

Wellness Programs (2010, did not pass, WI SB 502): Would have allowed an insurer to advertise, market, offer, or operate a wellness program without violating an unfair trade or marketing practice. Would have provided that if a wellness program contains no conditions for obtaining a reward based on an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health factor, the wellness program is exempt from unfair trade or marketing practice laws. Alternately, a wellness program based on an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health factor have been exempt from unfair trade or marketing practice laws if it had all of the following qualities: a) the reward did not exceed 20 percent of the cost of the coverage under the plan; b) the program was reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease; c) all eligible individuals had the opportunity to qualify for the reward at least once per year; and d) the reward was available to all similarly situated individuals.

Insurance (2010, did not pass, WY H 108): Would have allowed insurers that include and operate wellness and health promotion programs, disease and condition management programs, health risk appraisal programs and similar provisions in their high deductible health policies in keeping with federal requirements to not be considered to be engaging in unfair trade practices under the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Family and Employers Health Care Act (2009, proposed, IL HB 1081 and SB 1877): Would allow individual and group insurance companies to waive deductibles and other cost-sharing payments by insurer may be made for individuals participating in chronic care management or wellness and prevention programs. Would allow adjustments to base rates may be made using participation in wellness or chronic disease management activities as a factor.

Health Insurance Coverage (2009, proposed, PA HB 746): Would allow an insurer to adjust the rating geographic average rate in an additional amount of not less than 5 percent and not more than 20 percent for any small employer group that completes a wellness program that satisfies minimum standards established by the department in coordination with the department of health. The minimum standards would not be allowed to violate the requirements of the federal wellness program regulations.

Affordable Health Insurance (2009, proposed, PA HB 1743): Would make insurers that include and operate wellness and health promotion programs, disease and condition management programs, health risk appraisal programs and similar provisions in their high deductible health policies in keeping with federal requirements to not be considered to be engaging in unfair trade practices under any provision of law relating to unfair trade practices with respect to the practices of illegal inducements, unfair discrimination and rebating.

Group Health Insurance Policies (2010, enacted, VA HB 548): Allows each group accident and sickness insurance policy and health care plan to provide a premium discount to every employer instituting and maintaining an employee wellness program satisfying such criteria as each insurer may establish. An employer instituting and maintaining an employee wellness program in accordance with the insurer's criteria may require that any employee wishing to enroll in such program undergo a health assessment as a condition of enrollment.

Health Carrier Payment of Wellness Incentives (2009, enacted, WA HB 2160 and SB 5998): Allows health carrier payment of wellness incentives. The law exempts employee wellness programs from a general prohibition on rebates by insurers, including health carrier and disability insurers.

Task Force on Youth and Workplace Wellness (2010, proposed, CA SCR 73): This measure would continue the existence and set forth the membership of the California Task Force on Youth and Workplace Wellness, to perform duties to promote fitness and health in schools and workplaces. It would permit the task force to accept private funds and in-kind donations, require the task force to submit a report on its work to the Legislature on or before June 30, 2012 and provide that the task force would cease to exist on July 1, 2014, unless its existence was extended by a later enacted resolution.

Insurance Code Technical Amendment (2009, proposed, IL SB 1893): Would create the Illinois Healthcare Policy Task Force. The Task Force would be required to annually review and make recommendations to the General Assembly and the governor regarding legislative changes needed to meet and implement wellness and preventive initiatives.

Universal Wellness Initiative (2009, enacted, ME HB 953): The Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Statewide Coordinating Council for Public Health, the district coordinating councils for public health and Healthy Maine Partnerships are to undertake a universal wellness initiative to ensure that all people of the state have access to resources and evidence-based interventions in order to know, understand and address health risks and to improve health and prevent disease. A particular focus must be on the uninsured and others facing health disparities. The Initiative is required to include: a) a resource toolkit for the uninsured with information on access to disease prevention, health care and other methods for health improvement; b) an evidence-based health risk assessment that is available to all people; and c) an annual report card on health status statewide and for each district.

Health Care Accessibility and Affordability (2009, did not pass, NE LB 656): Would have established the Health Care Plan Advisory Council. Part of the council’s duties would have been to encourage public health strategies that promote healthy lifestyles and disease prevention, health and health care literacy, and wellness programs in workplaces, schools, and the community.

Wellness Program Study (2009, did not pass, NE LR 148): The Division of Public Health would have been required to conduct an interim study to: a) evaluate the State of Nebraska's wellness program and provide policy options, if any, for improvement of the program; b) collect information concerning the effectiveness of wellness programs operated by other states and provide policy options for improvement of the State of Nebraska's wellness program, including incentives for participation; c) collect information concerning the effectiveness of wellness programs operated by private employers to provide policy options for the improvement of the State of Nebraska's wellness program; and d) outline the strategies and options that exist for the State of Nebraska to encourage wellness initiatives and activities to improve the public health of all the citizens of the state.

Non-Regulatory Boards (2010, proposed, NH HB 1689): Would reinstate the advisory committee on the Standard Wellness Plan for Small Employers.

Health Insurers (2009, proposed, NY AB 2867 and SB 651): The Commissioner of Health and the Superintendent of Insurance would convene an advisory committee on wellness to examine and make recommendations to the governor and legislature on issues, including: a) methods to efficiently disseminate information about healthy lifestyles to reduce acute and chronic illnesses, developing innovative wellness programs that can be implemented by insurers, health maintenance organizations, hospitals, physicians and other health care providers, whether or not other incentives, both monetary and non-monetary, can be developed to encourage people to engage in a healthy lifestyle and survey and make suggestions on how to improve the effectiveness of programs currently being administered by state, county and local governments that promote good health; and b) the cost effectiveness of developing or expanding current wellness programs administered by state and local governments, hospitals, public and private schools and clinics, health insurers and health maintenance organizations that provide early prenatal care, cancer screenings, asthma and diabetes identification and treatments, childhood immunizations, and early risk management systems to identify at-risk populations.

Task Force on Occupational Wellness (2009, proposed, NY SB 5051): Would create a Task Force on Occupational Wellness within the Department of Health. The task force would study and evaluate the health of state of employees' and determine if the health of employees can be improved by implementing an occupational wellness program. The Task Force would be required to write a report that would includes: a) information on the benefits of providing encouragement and incentives to employees who regularly participate in occupational wellness programs; b) recommendations regarding how occupational wellness programs can be improved; c) examining the concept of occupational wellness as a whole, including the history, where and how it has worked and the costs and implications of wellness programs; and d) creating a blueprint of the best practices of wellness, how to implement practices.

Advisory Committee on Public Wellness (2010, proposed, NY SB 8186): Would e0stablish the advisory committee on public wellness to assist health insurers and employers in establishing wellness programs for insureds and employees.

Small Business Health Care Affordability Task Force (2009, proposed, OH HB 256): Would create the Small Business Health Care Affordability Task Force. The Task Force would: a) study the benefits of state tax incentives for small businesses that provide health insurance coverage for employees; b) study state incentives for businesses to offer wellness and disease prevention programs; c) review employer health insurance tax incentives and wellness programs in other states and analyze whether these state policies would encourage greater affordability of employer provided health insurance coverage and support employers in maintaining and expanding the workforce in Ohio; d) consider federal legislation regarding the provision of health insurance by small businesses, including the proposed "Healthy Workforce Act of 2009" and "Small Business Health Options Program Act of 2009," and the potential impact of federal legislation on Ohio's small businesses.

Health Care (2010, did not pass, FL HB 593 and SB 1954): The State Employee Wellness Interagency Council, within the Department of Health, would develop policies to enhance the full implementation of employee wellness in state agencies. The council would have: a) worked to develop and implement policies that offer evidence-based wellness programs to employees of state agencies; b) worked to encourage state employees to participate in wellness programs; c) in consultation with the department, developed standards and criteria for age-based and gender-based wellness programs; and d) defined employee wellness and established the minimum requirements of any employee wellness program and specify activities that are prohibited.

State Employee Health Insurance (2010, did not pass, KY HB 150): Would have required the Personnel Cabinet to establish a pilot program to improve the health and wellness outcomes of state employees and would have provided a premium discount to state employees that participates in a wellness activities.

State Health Insurance (2010, did not pass, LA HB 1367): Would have required the Office of Group Benefits to choose a health plan for state employees and their dependents to enroll. Employees and dependents that could have proven that they do not smoke or use tobacco products and are of a healthy weight, based on clinical guidelines, would have been able to chose a health plan offered by the Office of Group Benefits.

Promoting Wellness (2009, proposed, MA SB 1040): Would allow a public employee who participates in a wellness program, developed by the Department of Public Health, to be eligible for reduced premiums, copayments, or other incentives as determined by the Group Insurance Commission. A wellness program would have to encourage activities that lead to desired health outcomes, including smoking cessation, diabetes screening for early detection, teen pregnancy prevention, cancer screening for early detection and stroke education for enrolled individuals.

Health of Group Insurance Commission Population (2009, proposed, MA SB 1180): The state would negotiate and purchase wellness management services for Commonwealth employees and their dependents. The program would evaluate individual and aggregate data, give employees access to individual, confidential information, and allow the commission to receive collective reports summarizing baseline and ongoing data regarding the behavior and well being of enrollees. The commission may reduce premiums or co-payments or offer other incentives to encourage enrollees to comply with the wellness program goals.

Fitness Programs for State Employees (2009, enacted, ME HB 689): Provides access to fitness programs for state employees. This law requires the Executive Director of the Office of Employee Health and Benefits to report the number of participating state employees, the number and location of participating fitness centers, the types of fitness services used, the number of visits to fitness centers by state employees and the financial impact on the group health plan.

State Government (2009, did not pass, MN HB 1268 and SB 1464): Would have allowed the executive, legislative, or judicial branch to offer fitness, wellness, or similar classes or activities to its employees. Would have allowed people conducting these classes or activities to charge employees a fee to participate. People conducting these classes or activities, and participating employees, waive any and all claims of liability against the state for any damage or injury resulting from the use of state space for employee fitness and wellness classes or similar classes or activities.

State Employee Wellness Program (2010, enacted, MS SB 2646): Establishes the State Employee Wellness Program and standards for the program. Authorizes state agencies to establish employee volunteer wellness and physical fitness programs and requires the State Board of Health to administer and approve the programs.

State Health Plan (2009, enacted, NC SB 287): Requires the State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees to develop a comprehensive wellness initiative that includes a focus on smoking cessation and weight management. The wellness initiative will be implemented effective July 1, 2010, for smoking cessation and July 1, 2011, for weight management. Benefit levels are to be determined by the plan based upon tobacco use or the inability of the member to meet national, evidence-based healthy weight clinical guidelines. The plan will verify that the member does not smoke or use other tobacco products and will be assessed annually. All subscribers and dependents that do not use tobacco, or whose physician certifies in writing that the member is participating in a smoking cessation program, will have the choice of remaining in the basic plan option or enrolling in the standard plan option.  Members will be enrolled in the basic plan under the plan's PPO unless the member is within a healthy weight range determined by evidence-based healthy weight clinical guidelines, or unless the member's physician certifies in writing that the member has a medical condition that prevents the attainment of the specified weight range or that the member is actively participating in a plan-approved weight management program. In either case, the member has the option to enroll in the basic or standard plan.

Body Mass Index Penalty and State Employees (2010, proposed, NC HB 1968): Would repeal the body mass index (BMI) penalty from the North Carolina state health plan for teachers and state employees.

Health and Wellness Benefit Program (2010, proposed, OH HB 505): Would authorize the board of county commissioners to provide a health and wellness benefit program for its officers and employees. A health and wellness benefit program would provide a benefit or incentive to county officers, employees, and their immediate dependents to maintain a healthy lifestyle, including, but would not be limited to, programs that encourage healthy eating and nutrition, exercise and physical activity, weight control or the elimination of obesity, and smoking cessation or alcohol use.

Health and Wellness Efforts (2009, did not pass, OK HR 1018): The Oklahoma House of Representatives would have promoted workplace policies and programs to encourage healthy eating and active living in state government. To address wellness comprehensively, there would have nee the option for the following: a) participation in the OK Health Mentoring Program and projects that promote healthy eating and active living; b) hoping that agencies will promotion of the OK Health Mentoring Program and incentives for employees to participate with reduced cost; c) adoption of policies that promote healthy eating and active living; d) modification of work environments at no cost to the state that are supportive of healthy eating and active and fully smoke-free workplaces and campuses; e) encouraging agencies to make employees' time more flexible to facilitate walking breaks and other wellness activities; and f) insisting on better, healthier choices in snack bars and vending areas.

Health and Wellness Efforts (2009, adopted, OK HR 1050): The Oklahoma House of Representatives promotes workplace policies and programs to encourage healthy eating and active living. To address wellness comprehensively, there is the option for the following:  a) participating in the OK Health Mentoring Program and projects that promote healthy eating and active living; b) encouraging agencies to promote the OK Health Mentoring Program and provide incentives to employees to participate with reduced cost; c) adopting policies that promote healthy eating and active living; d) modification of work environments at no cost to the state that are supportive of healthy eating and active living and smoke-free workplaces and campuses; e) encouraging agencies to make employees' time more flexible to facilitate walking breaks and other wellness activities; and f) insisting on better, healthier choices in snack bars and vending areas.

State Government (2010, did not pass, OK HB 2324): The HealthChoice Health Insurance Board would have established a wellness and prevention program for all state insurance participants. Components of the wellness plan would have included, but would not have been limited to, financial incentives for participation in prevention and wellness programs and healthy living practices. Financial incentives for substantiated participation in the wellness program would have included, but would not have been limited to, lower copayment requirements and lower deductibles.

State Government (2009, did not pass, OK SB 398): Would have created the State Employee Wellness Premium Discount Program. Any participant would have been eligible for a $25.00 per month wellness premium discount if the participant submits baseline readings for the health risk factors of blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose and body mass index. The discount would have been given toward single coverage. Any participant could have received the wellness premium discount if: a) the wellness council determines the employer is not at risk based on the reported health risk factors; or b) the participant has 1) submitted a statement from a physician stating that: i) the participant has been counseled regarding the health risk factors and ii) the participant has a medical condition that prevents the participant from improving the health risk factors, or 2) participated and completed one of the council's approved wellness programs; or 3) reported improvement in the health risk factors through self-management.

State Employees (2009, did not pass, RI SR 721): Would have requested the Rhode Island Department of Administration to establish a state employee wellness program and to annually provide a report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives regarding the effectiveness of the wellness program and the potential cost savings of the program.

Public Officers and Employees (2010, did not pass, RI SB 2583): The Rhode Island Department of Administration, in consultation with the Rhode Island Department of Health and other appropriate agencies, would have established a comprehensive wellness program for state employees that includes, but would not have been limited to, a focus on smoking cessation, disease prevention, reduction of chronic pain, and weight management. It would have required the state Department of Administration to annually present a progress report and cost savings to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Employees Public (2009, did not pass, TN HB 524 and SB 690): Would have required the Department of Finance and Administration to establish a primary health care clinic for use by state employees and their dependents in each of the three grand divisions of the state as a pilot project. The clinic would have been located in a state owned or leased building. The clinics would have been required to operate a wellness program that would include physicals, and certain tests as benefits of the pilot project.

Employee Wellness Programs (2009, enacted, WA SB 6019): Allows health insurance carriers to offer a wellness discount of up to 20 percent for small employers that develop and implement a wellness program that directly improves employee wellness. Employers must document program activities with the carrier and may, after three years of implementation, request a reduction in premiums based on improved employee health and wellness.

 Insurance Benefits (2010, did not pass, WA SB 6756): Would have required insurance benefits with wellness incentives for public employees. Incentives would have had to include, but would not have been limited to copayment or coinsurance adjustments, or other rebates established to meet defined health indicators such as body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and smoking cessation. Whenever possible, incentives would have had to reflect the true costs associated with obesity, smoking, and high blood pressure. In addition to the health indicator for body mass index, the program would have had to include an alternative measure for some individuals using a percentage of body fat test. The cost of the test would have been waived if the alternative measure indicates the enrollee is not obese.

Summer Learning and Wellness Month (2010, proposed, CA SCR 93): Would designate July 2010 as Summer Learning and Wellness Month.

Health Care (2010, did not pass, FL HB 593 and SB 1954): Would have required the Department of Health to create state programs that address preventable chronic disease risk factors, such as being overweight or obese, physical inactivity, poor diet and nutrition habits, sun exposure, poor oral hygiene, and other practices that are detrimental to health, in order to decrease the incidence of chronic diseases. State programs would have included: a) monitoring specific causal and behavioral risk factors that affect the health of residents; b) analyzing data regarding chronic disease mortality and morbidity to track changes; c) promoting public awareness and increasing knowledge concerning the causes of chronic diseases; d) disseminating educational materials and information concerning evidence-based results, available services, and new research findings and prevention strategies to patients, health insurers, health professionals, and the public; and e) increasing awareness among state and local officials involved in health and human services, health professionals and providers, and policymakers regarding evidence-based chronic disease prevention, treatment strategies, and benefits for persons with chronic diseases.

Public Safety (2010, did not pass, HI HB 2657 and SB 2540): Would have required the Department of Public Safety to plan for a model wellness center to be built in east Hawaii.

Special Day (2010, adopted, LA HR 16): Recognizes April 7, 2010 as National Start! Walking Day and Legislative Wellness Day.

Healthy Workplace Recognition Program (2010, did not pass, MO SB 629): Would have required the Governor's Council on Physical Fitness and Health to develop the Healthy Workplace Recognition Program for the purpose of granting official state recognition to employers for excellence in promoting health and wellness. Would have provided criteria for recognition, including whether the employer offers workplace wellness programs, incentives for healthier lifestyles, opportunities for active community involvement and exercise, and encouraging of well visits with health care providers.

Long Term Care (2009, proposed, NH HB 380): Would require the long-term care system to promote comprehensive wellness.

Wellness Program (2010, enacted, NY SB 8090): Creates within the Department the health care and wellness education and outreach program. The department will conduct education and outreach programs for consumers, patients, and health care providers relating to any health care matters the commissioner deems appropriate and recommended preventative and wellness practices and services, including evidence based age and gender appropriate testing and screening exams and immunization schedules.

Divided We Fail Effort (2009, adopted, PA HR 179): Supports the "Divided We Fail" effort of AARP, the Business Roundtable and  SEIU calling on policymakers to provide solutions for health care access and financial security for all Americans, stating that wellness and prevention efforts, including changes in personal behavior such as diet and exercise, should be top national priorities.

Walk At Lunch Day (2009, adopted, PA HR 223): Recognizes April 29, 2009, as Walk at Lunch Day in Pennsylvania.

Walk At Lunch Day (2010, adopted, PA HR 726): Recognizes April 28, 2010, as Walk at Lunch Day in Pennsylvania.

Department of Aging and Long Term Living (2009, proposed, PA SB 927): Would establish the Department of Aging and Long-Term Living to advance the well-being and full participation of older adults through programs and activities that support health and wellness.

Brookland Foundation (2010, adopted, SC SB 1197): Expresses the heartfelt gratitude of the state Senate for the fine work of the Brookland Foundation's health and wellness program and to honor the organization on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of its community health fair.

Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (2010, proposed, TN HB 3473 and SB 3502): Would allocate increased funding made in arbitration to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement to the health reserve account to fund wellness and prevention programs.

Wellness Day (2009, adopted, WI AJR 42): Recognizes April 8^th as Wellness Day in Wisconsin.

Corporate Business Tax Deduction (2010, did not pass, CT SB 78): Would have provided a corporate business tax deduction for employers providing wellness and preventive care programs for their employees. Would have permitted employers to deduct up to one million dollars from their corporate tax liability for the costs incurred for providing wellness and preventive care programs to employees.

Income Taxes (2010, did not pass, IA HB 2154): Would have provided deductions from net income for individual or corporate taxpayers on income taxes for a specified percent of the cost associated with conducting wellness programs and providing memberships at fitness facilities for employees.

Income Taxes (2010, did not pass, IA HB 2155): Would have provided a deduction from net income for individual income tax purposes for amounts paid for the purchase of personal wellness services for the taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse or dependent. Personal wellness services would have included a fitness club or gym membership, consultations with a personal trainer, or consultations with a nutritionist or dietician.

Wellness Tax Credit (2009, proposed, IL HB 893): Would create an income tax credit for employers who pay costs in connection with a qualified wellness program. Would provide that a credit of 50 percent of costs per year up to $200 per employee for the first 200 employees and $100 per employee for the remaining employees and would set the requirements for qualified wellness programs. Would provide that the credit may not be carried forward or back and may not reduce the taxpayer's liability to less than zero.

Income Tax Act (2010, proposed, IL HB 5238): Would create an income tax credit for employers who pay costs in connection with a qualified wellness program. The amount of the credit would be 50 percent of those costs per year up to $200 per employee for the first 200 employees and $100 per employee for the remaining employees. A qualified wellness program would consist of at least three of the following components: a) a health awareness component that provides for the dissemination of health information that address the specific needs and health risks of employees and opportunity for periodic screenings for health problems and referrals for appropriate follow-up measures; b) an employee engagement component; c) a behavioral change component that provides for altering employee lifestyles to encourage healthy living; and d) a supportive environment component that includes worksite policies and services that promote a healthy lifestyle.

Employee Wellness Program Tax Credit (2009, proposed, MA HB 2806 and SB 1262): Would establish the Employee Wellness Program Tax Credit. The amount of the "Employee Wellness Program Tax Credit" in the first tax year would be 50 percent or ten thousand dollars, whichever is lesser, of the entire amount of the expenditure made by a business during the tax year. The amount of such credit in the second tax year would be 25 percent or five thousand dollars, whichever is lesser, of the entire amount of such expenditure made by the business during the tax year. An employee wellness program certified by the department would have to provide rewards to employees for: a) weight loss; b) smoking cessation; and c) pursuit of preventative health care services.

Wellness Tax Credit (2009, did not pass, ME HB 428): Would have provided a tax credit to employers of 20 or fewer employees for the expense of developing, instituting and maintaining wellness programs for their employees in the amount of $100 per employee, up to a maximum of $2,000. Would have included programs for behavior modification, such as smoking cessation programs, equipping and maintaining an exercise facility and providing incentive awards to employees who exercise regularly.

Sales and Use Tax Exclusions (2009, proposed, PA HB 939): Would exempt purchased wellness services and healthy living equipment or products from sales tax, up to $1000 annually.

Small Business Employee Wellness Program (2009, did not pass, WA HB 2123): Would have allowed a small business or a nonprofit organization to claim credit against the tax otherwise due for the costs of implementing a qualified employee wellness program. The criteria for level one qualified employee wellness programs would have had to include providing a structure, incentives, and other program elements aimed at increasing positive health behaviors by employees, such as physical activity, better nutrition, sleep, hydration, stress management and other accepted healthy living factors. The criteria for level two qualified employee wellness programs would have had to include the elements of a level one qualified employee wellness program, but also incorporate incentives to assure that employees use proven preventive clinical care services, based on the recommendations of the United States Clinical Preventive Services Task Force. Small businesses or nonprofit organizations adopting a level one qualified employee wellness program would have been allowed to claim a credit of up to $2,500 for the costs associated with implementing the program and those adopting a level two qualified employee wellness program would have been allowed to claim a credit of up to $5,000 for the costs associated with implementing the program.

Income and Franchise Tax Credit (2009, did not pass, WI AB 91 and SB 56): Would have allowed for an income and franchise tax credit of up to 30 percent spent for employers who run wellness programs.

Good Corporate Citizenship Business (2009, proposed, DC B 862): Would allow corporations that establish qualifying wellness programs for their employees to receive a tax credit for employee participation in the approved wellness program. Wellness programs would be eligible for a tax credit equal to one fifth of the cost of the program per participating employee, with a maximum tax credit of up to $5,000 total per tax year.

Public Health Programs (2009, did not pass, GA SR 263): Would have urged the President and Congress of the U. S. to create budget resolutions and appropriations measures that restore the funding needed to strengthen our nation's public health infrastructure and, in turn, increase access to public health services that protect the health and safety of Georgians and prevent the spread of disease.

Health Care (2009, did not pass, IA SB 48): Would have covered wellness and preventative services under Iowa Choice Insurance for children.

Premium and Loss Data Reporting Act (2009, proposed, IL HB 29): Would require all insurers, beginning at the current quarter and year, and continuing through all subsequent quarters and years, to report on wellness program participation premium discounts.

Public Safety (2010, did not pass, HI HB 2657 and SB 2540): Would have required the Department of Public Safety to plan for a model wellness center to be built in east Hawaii.

Health Insurance (2010, did not pass, MD HB 416 and SB 1071): Would have clarified that bona fide wellness programs, offered by insurance companies giving discounts to insurds participating in wellness program, includes a program that requires membership and routine exercise at a health club or fitness center.

Nutrition Coverage (2009, did not pass, ME HB 533): To improve health, reduce health care usage and costs, help prevent disease through nutritional wellness and prevention measures and allow for non-pharmacological alternatives to enrollees who choose them, this bill would have required that health insurance policies provide coverage for nutritional wellness and prevention.

Affordable Health Care (2009, did not pass, MN HB 135, SB 118, SB 416, SB 418, SB 419 and SB 420): Would have required regional health planning boards to collaborate with public health care agencies to implement public health and wellness initiatives.

HealthFirst (2010, enacted, NH HB 1488): Established a basic wellness plan in the small employer market under New Hampshire HealthFirst. New Hampshire HealthFirst, an affordable, wellness-based health insurance plan for small employers. The purpose is to promote the availability of more affordable health coverage in the small employer market by engaging consumers, health care providers, insurers, and small employers to address the underlying costs of health care through better care management and more efficient utilization of health care services without increasing overall cost sharing requirements or reducing coverage for services essential to health and wellness.

Public Health and Safety (2009, did not pass, OK HB 1810): Would have allowed an individual who is a resident of this state to deposit contributions to a health and wellness savings account. Health and wellness account would have meant a trust or custodian established to pay the qualified wellness expenses of an individual or their dependents. The Oklahoma Health Care Authority would have established a program providing for the state to match up to $500.00 for each eligible participant. Contributions made to and interest earned on a health and wellness account would have been exempted from taxation as adjusted gross income in this state.

Fiscal Recovery Emergency Measure (2009, proposed, MA HB 101): Would establish the Commonwealth Wellness Fund to be used to promote citizen wellness.

Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (2010, did not pass, TN HB 3473 and SB 3502): Would have allocated increased funds resulting from modifications made in arbitration to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement to the health reserve account to fund wellness and prevention programs.