Companies should not be penalised financially for failing to offer health at work services such as private medical insurance (PMI) and occupational health, Britain's largest health insurer has said.
BUPA was responding to calls from AXA PPP healthcare, its largest competitor and the UK's second largest PMI provider, for the government to consider the measure in an effort to promote greater health and wellbeing among the working population.
In an article in May's Health Insurance, Dudley Lusted, head of corporate business at AXA PPP, had said that companies which reject health at work services should incur a small increase in national insurance contributions.
Lusted had suggested that in "an ideal world" tax incentives would be enough to persuade employers to introduce more health benefits, but financial penalties might need to be considered for those who refuse to do so.
However, Fergus Kee, managing director of BUPA UK Health Insurance, said that tax incentives would be a more successful way of engaging employers in the health at work agenda.
Kee told Health Insurance that British businesses are "already penalised enough" and he did not agree with "burdening them with more punitive measures".
He added: "Our research shows that the carrot - not the stick - will be the most effective way of encouraging companies to do more to take care of the health of their staff, with over half of our business customers telling us that they would invest in more health at work services if tax disincentives were removed."
Last week, Kee told a conference organised by healthcare analyst Laing & Buisson that BUPA research shows nine out of ten employers want more support from the government to invest in health at work. The same research shows that more than half would invest more if there were incentives to do so, he said.
Kee told the conference that Dame Carol Black, the UK's national director for health and work, has highlighted the need for companies to do more to support the health and wellbeing of their staff. According to Kee, though, when an employer provides treatment for a member of staff to return to work early following a non-work injury, there is a "double tax hit".
He said: "The employee incurs income tax on the benefit and the employer has to pay National Insurance contributions. If that treatment is funded through health insurance, there is a further insurance premium tax charge. So both the company and the receiver of healthcare are penalised."
Kee added: "We work with 80% of FTSE100 companies and thousands of smaller businesses across the country. The current tax treatment of workplace health provision is an obstacle and a strong disincentive. If removed, it would allow more companies to play their part in keeping Britain healthy.
"Investing in workplace health offers a triple win: better health for the individual, better productivity for the employer and increased profitability for UK plc."
If you would like to share your thoughts on this story or any other issue email news@hi-mag.com.