Administrative Agency: Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
The state administrative agency is the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. This agency interests me because I am working towards my Master’s in Human Resources. The proposed regulation will not directly affect me or the business I am working. The company I work for already has an employee wellness program in place and is not state funded. Because the program already exists, a workplace wellness grant is not needed nor warranted from the bureau.
The workplace wellness grant program proposal is to help mitigate and prevent health risk factors. Preventing and or decreasing health risk factors cuts down health costs verses waiting for an illness to appear and then treating the illness. The proposal is to provide employers with grants to fund a wellness program in order to decrease the amount of workplace injuries and illnesses. The grants will be awarded to state fund employers on a first come first serve basis. In order for the employer to be eligible, they must be up to date on all premiums, fines, assessments and administrative costs. The employer must maintain active state fund coverage in order to remain eligible. If an employer already has a wellness program in place, they are not eligible.
My comment is that a workplace wellness program for state funded businesses would be very beneficial to the community. The proposed rule, 4123-17-56.1 - Workplace wellness grant program rule, will agreeably decrease costs associated with preventative measures to mitigate health risks. I agree with the process and eligibility requirements state funded businesses must present to the bureau for consideration. Many people need health advocates and the workplace is a great source for many. The deadline for public comments is 12/28/2011. After submitting a comment, you are entitled to challenge the legitimacy of the rule in court.
The arbitrary and capricious theory can be used to challenge a regulation that is thought to be arbitrary, capricious and in violation of another law. The Bureau of Workers Compensation would need to provide evidence that shows the workplace wellness program is not in violation of a law and is not arbitrary and capricious.
Another way to challenge the workplace wellness program regulation is with the substantial evidence test. The bureau would have to provide extensive evidence to show that wellness programs do decrease medical costs associated with the prevention of health risks. If the Bureau of Workers Compensation did not comply with the APA requirements of notice, publication and public comment, the regulation can be declared invalid.
The workplace wellness program regulation could be challenged on constitutional grounds. It could be argued that state funded businesses represent a protected class, thus reverse discrimination could be found. While cases of reverse discrimination are unlikely to be proven, the possibility of an attempt to overturn the regulation exists on this basis.
Another way to challenge the regulation would be with ultra vires. Under this theory, it would have to be proven that the regulation goes outside the power given to the bureau in its supporting act. In this case, if the bureau tried to change the affluence and purpose of the supporting act through the workplace wellness program rule, the regulation would be ultra vires and could be overturned in court.
The Bureau of Workers Compensation’s workplace wellness program rule would be very difficult to have overturned in court. To overturn this regulation, the bureau would have to not comply with APA requirements of notice, publication and public comment. If that can be proven, then the regulation can be declared invalid. Another way to challenge the regulation could be with the substantial evidence test. For this theory to be valid, statistics would have to show that wellness programs are generally ineffective in the workplace and do not decrease costs and mitigate health risks. However, this would be very difficult to prove, as there is supporting evidence of the contrary.