Introducing a health programme in Germany: decide, plan, deliver

53% of employees in Germany say their employer offers a health programme. But only 26.8% of organisations report having holistic corporate health management, and that share has not risen since 2022.

This page is about the difference. It is written as a working document and designed so that you can forward it to your works council, your occupational physician, your data protection officer and your tax department. Each of these roles has its own section below, with its own link.

Three points up front that set the German case apart from any other:

1. Part of what you may be planning as 'corporate health management' is a statutory duty, so it is neither voluntary nor eligible for funding from a health insurance fund.
2. The works council has an enforceable co-determination right that extends even to a booking tool, however voluntary participation is.
3. For the tax exemption, the tax office itself requires a structured process with a needs analysis and the involvement of employee representatives. Anyone who bypasses the works council puts the tax exemption at risk, not just industrial peace.

Well evidenced

Germany has two separate systems that are constantly mixed up in everyday use. Anyone who confuses them loses the funding, the tax exemption, or both.

The GKV Prevention Guide itself says it like this, verbatim:

'Workplace health promotion (BGF) is a package of services, voluntary for employers and employees alike, that supplements statutory occupational health and safety … and … occupational reintegration management (Section 167(2) SGB IX).'
GKV Prevention Guide, version of 17 December 2025, chapter 6.4

And the joint guidance from DGUV and the GKV-Spitzenverband is even clearer: 'Workplace health promotion measures do not replace the employer's duties under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.'

Practical consequence for your project: keep the invoices separate at the boundary between mandatory and voluntary work. If a measure is invoiced together with statutory mandatory tasks, the whole project can lose its eligibility for funding.

Well evidenced

Section 5(1) ArbSchG, verbatim:

'By assessing the hazards associated with employees' work, the employer must determine which occupational health and safety measures are necessary.'

Section 5(3) no. 6 ArbSchG expressly names 'mental stress at work' as a source of hazard. This item was inserted in 2013. Section 6 ArbSchG requires the result, the measures determined and the review of their effectiveness to be documented.

How many organisations do this: 52.0% yes, 17.9% planned, 24.6% no, 5.5% don't know (#whatsnext 2025, n = 1,441). The study finds the starting position 'virtually unchanged' compared with 2022. Start-ups stand at 22.8%, established companies at 54.8%.

What is new from 2026 is also the most topical reason to take up the subject now. Section 21(1a) ArbSchG, introduced by the Arbeitsschutzkontrollgesetz (Occupational Safety Inspection Act), verbatim:

'Beginning with calendar year 2026, at least 5% of the establishments in the federal state are to be inspected in the course of a calendar year.'
and: 'The minimum inspection quota cannot be departed from by state law.'

In arithmetical terms, that is a one in twenty chance of inspection each year, from which no federal state may depart, at a time when almost half of organisations do not carry out a risk assessment of mental stress.

2.1 A correction that almost every competitor site gets wrong#

Well evidenced

You often read: 'Up to €30,000 fine if you do not carry out a risk assessment of mental stress.' That is wrong.

Section 25 ArbSchG attaches fines to two offences: breach of a statutory ordinance under Section 18(1) or Section 19, where the ordinance refers to Section 25 (up to €5,000), and breach of an enforceable order under Section 22(3) (up to €30,000). There is no direct fine for simply failing to carry out a risk assessment. Section 26 ArbSchG (imprisonment of up to one year or a fine) likewise requires a disregarded order, combined with persistent repetition or a danger to life or health.

The correct position is that the risk assessment is a statutory duty that the occupational safety authority can enforce by order. Ignoring that order is what becomes expensive and, if repeated, a criminal offence. The practical risk is real enough; it needs no exaggeration.

2.2 The risk assessment diagnoses, it does not treat#

A risk assessment identifies. It delivers no measures and does not replace workplace health promotion. The reverse is equally true: a health day does not fulfil any duty under Section 5 ArbSchG. The results of the risk assessment may, however, be used as a basis for identifying needs for workplace health promotion. Producing it is not a service of statutory health insurance, and the GKV Guide says so expressly.

Free public tools that we point you to without condition:

• GDA guideline "Beratung und Überwachung bei psychischer Belastung am Arbeitsplatz", as at 11 January 2018, PDF version of 17 June 2025. It names six feature areas: work content and task, work organisation, working time, social relationships, work equipment, work environment. 'New forms of work' is not a feature area, even though this is often claimed. https://www.gda-portal.de/DE/Downloads/pdf/Leitlinie-Psych-Belastung.pdf
• GDA guideline 'Gefährdungsbeurteilung und Dokumentation', as at 5 December 2025. You will find the seven process steps there, not in the mental stress guideline.
• GDA recommendations for implementation, 4th edition 2022, updated 6 January 2026, order no. A098.
• INQA. The formerly independent platform psyGA has been discontinued; psyga.info permanently redirects to INQA. The content survives there as an archive. Do not describe psyGA as a running programme.

Two tips that will save you money: the COPSOQ questionnaire can be downloaded, but the FFAW survey service is not free (from €1,200 net for up to 50 employees, plus €3 per person for paper surveys). And the BAuA toolbox is a project report from 2010, older than COPSOQ III and older than the 2013 amendment to the ArbSchG. Useful as an overview, not as a current standard.

Twelve questions, each with its legal reference. For orientation only, not a legal assessment of your individual case. The results are calculated in your browser.

And then, explicitly:

'The risk assessment is your legal obligation. It is not eligible for health insurance funding, and workplace health promotion is no substitute for it. The free GDA and INQA tools are enough for many businesses. In Germany, the constraint is rarely a lack of tools. It is capacity and process.'

These cards are designed to be forwarded. Each has its own permanent link.

Our starting point is not a model of our own but the make-up of the steering committee that the GKV Prevention Guide itself sets out in Chapter 6.3.2: company management, managers, HR department, works or staff council, occupational physician, safety specialist, where applicable the BEM officer, work and organisational psychology, representative body for employees with disabilities, equal opportunities officer, addiction and conflict officers, sustainability or CSR officer. It adds: 'Existing structures for health in the workplace, such as the occupational safety committee under Section 11 ASiG, should also be used as a steering structure for health promotion.'

This is the buying committee card, written by the health insurance funds themselves, so it is not something a provider made up.

Well evidenced

5.1 The legal basis#

Section 87(1) BetrVG begins: 'The works council shall have a right of co-determination, in so far as no provision is made by law or collective agreement, in the following matters'. Three items are relevant to a health programme:

No. 1: 'Matters relating to the operation of the establishment and the conduct of employees in the establishment'

No. 6: 'The introduction and use of technical devices designed to monitor the conduct or performance of employees'

No. 7: 'Regulations on the prevention of industrial accidents and occupational diseases and on the protection of health within the framework of statutory provisions or accident prevention regulations'

If no agreement is reached, the conciliation committee decides under Section 87(2) BetrVG, and its ruling replaces the agreement.

5.2 The trap providers miss most often#

No. 6 applies even where participation is entirely voluntary. The Federal Labour Court has consistently held that, despite the word 'designed', what matters is not the employer's intention to monitor but whether the technical device is objectively capable of collecting and recording information on conduct or performance. That interpretation has stood since 1983 and has been confirmed in more recent rulings on office software and headset systems.

Take a health programme. A health app, a wearable programme, a platform, an online tool for booking screening appointments or a reminder system records participation and timestamps, and sometimes location or biometrics. Co-determination under no. 6 applies even if the health content is entirely voluntary and nobody intends to monitor anyone.

It is the most common reason a German rollout stalls three weeks before launch. The health content had been approved; the software had not.

5.3 The counterintuitive rule#

The weaker a statutory requirement is, the stronger the co-determination. Sections 3 and 5 ArbSchG are framework provisions that need filling in: they set a goal but no method. Where the employer has room for discretion, the works council has a say in how it is used. Anyone who argues 'the law does not tell us anything specific, so we do not need to ask the works council' has it exactly the wrong way round.

5.4 Where co-determination comes back into play even though the programme is voluntary#

A programme that is purely voluntary, genuinely anonymous, does no tracking and gives no workplace-related feedback can reasonably be treated as free of co-determination. But the corridor is narrow, and hardly any real programme stays within it:

5.5 What happens if the works council is bypassed#

The general claim to cease and desist does not require a gross violation. Section 87(2) BetrVG sends the matter to the conciliation committee. Where there is a gross violation, Section 23(3) BetrVG allows an administrative fine and a coercive fine of up to €10,000 each, on application by the works council or a trade union represented in the establishment. In practice, the health day is cancelled, often days or weeks beforehand and after the communication has already gone out.

5.6 Other provisions that are often overlooked#

• Section 80(1) no. 9 and (2) BetrVG: the works council must promote occupational health and safety measures and be informed in good time and in full, including the necessary documents. These rights also exist where no co-determination applies.
• Section 89(2) BetrVG: the employer must involve the works council in all inspections and occupational health and safety matters. This includes a visit to a provider's premises. Plan the visit with the works council rather than reporting back to it afterwards.
• Section 9(3) sentence 3 ASiG: the works council must be heard before an external service is commissioned.
• Section 77(6) BetrVG: a works agreement continues to apply after it expires only for its enforceable parts. For the voluntary parts, this must be expressly agreed.
• Sections 50 and 58 BetrVG govern the responsibilities of the central works council and the group works council. A digital platform for the whole group is negotiated at that level.
• Public sector: Section 80 BPersVG (2021) lists health and reintegration management among the matters subject to co-determination. The sixteen state staff representation acts differ and need to be checked state by state.

5.7 The two arguments that actually persuade#

First, the works council is, statistically, a supporter rather than an opponent. Sources close to the trade unions and the Böckler Foundation treat corporate health management expressly as an opportunity to shape things: 'As a works council you can position yourself here … You can act as an advocate and move the topic of health forward.' In the analysis of the BIBB/BAuA Employment Survey, businesses with employee representation are more likely to offer workplace health promotion. What kills projects is not involvement but bypassing.

Not substantiatedThis last finding comes from a BAuA bulletin that we could not retrieve directly in our research. It should not be read as a verified figure.

Second, and this argument settles the matter: for the tax exemption under Section 3 no. 34 EStG, the BMF itself requires that services be provided 'with the involvement of employees or their representatives' (BMF circular of 20 April 2021, para. 20). Anyone who bypasses the works council risks the tax exemption.

Well evidenced

6.1 The roles#

• Section 2 ASiG: occupational physicians must be appointed in writing, with the scope of their involvement matched to the type of business, hazards, number of employees and organisation. Section 5 ASiG requires the same for the safety specialist.
• Section 3 ASiG describes the occupational physician's tasks: advice on installations, work equipment, protective equipment, ergonomics and first-aid arrangements, examining and advising employees, and regular inspection of workplaces. 'Health promotion' does not appear in the list of tasks in Section 3 ASiG.
• Section 6 no. 1(e) ASiG gives the occupational safety specialist a role in assessing working conditions, in other words in the risk assessment.
• Section 8 ASiG: both roles are independent of instructions in applying their expertise and must not be disadvantaged for performing their duties. 'Occupational physicians are subject only to their medical conscience' and must observe medical confidentiality.

For an external provider, this has a practical consequence: because both are independent of instructions, a service provider cannot instruct them. Cooperation is the only way to work with them. An external screening provider is not a substitute for the occupational physician and must not be sold as one.

6.2 DGUV Regulation 2 as amended from 1 January 2026#

Well substantiatedbut to be checked for each employers' liability insurance association

DGUV Regulation 2 changed on 1 January 2026. Four points on which many provider websites still give outdated information:

1. The threshold for the small-business models was raised from 10 to 20 employees (Annex 1 'up to 20', Annex 2 'more than 20', employer model 20 to 50). Anyone still writing 'up to 10 employees' is out of date.
2. Basic care: 2.5 / 1.5 / 0.5 hours per employee per year for care groups I to III.
3. The fixed split between occupational physician and safety specialist has been dropped. Only a minimum share of 20% per discipline now applies. Any table showing '2.0 hours safety specialist, 0.5 hours occupational physician' no longer reflects the text of the regulation.
4. Part-time employees are counted at 0.5 (up to 20 hours a week) or 0.75 (up to 30 hours a week).

What this means for your expectations, with no disrespect to the occupational physician: in an office or service business in group III, basic care is 0.5 hours per employee per year for both disciplines combined. The occupational physician's guaranteed minimum share is 20% of that, or 0.1 hours: six minutes per employee per year. That is no criticism of anyone. It is the arithmetic behind the question 'But we already have an occupational physician'.

And here is the entry point that is often overlooked: 'workplace health promotion' does not appear in the regulation. But Annex 2, Section III, task area 5.1 names the 'need for coordination when introducing or further developing voluntary health management' as a trigger for company-specific care. That is coordination, not service delivery, and it lies outside the fixed basic care hours. A corporate health management project can legitimately extend the hours of the occupational physician and safety specialist, and the agreement on company-specific care is a natural place to attach a proposal.

6.3 The ASA as steering group#

Well substantiatedfor the legal position, dependent on practice for the recommendation

Section 11 ASiG requires every business with more than 20 employees to have an occupational safety committee made up of the employer or a representative, two works council members, occupational physicians, safety specialists and safety officers, which meets at least once a quarter.

The GKV guide twice expressly recommends using it: 'the business should also include the occupational safety committee under Section 11 ASiG in this' (Chapter 6.2.2) and 'Existing structures … should also be used as a steering structure for health promotion' (Chapter 6.3.2).

Why the ASA is the right starting point: it is the only health committee that German law requires in a business, with membership and meeting frequency set by statute. Its members are almost exactly the people whose approval you need; only HR and the data protection officer are missing, and both can be invited as guests. And it guarantees four meetings a year with the budget holders and the works council already in the room.

Three things practitioners regularly get wrong:

1. Part-time employees count pro rata. A business with 25 mostly part-time people may fall below the threshold.
2. The statutory remit is 'to advise'. The ASA has no budget and no power to pass resolutions.
3. The obligation applies per establishment. A group with twelve sites has twelve ASAs, and a group-wide programme cannot be steered through any single one of them.

Our recommendation: in mid-sized companies, anchor the programme in the ASA, invite HR and the representative body for employees with disabilities as guests, set up a monthly operational working group that reports to the ASA, and do not create a second decision-making body. Below about 20 employees, regular conversations with management take the ASA's place. In larger organisations, run a separate health steering group linked to the ASA.

And a finding that keeps us from overestimating committees: the SOFI discussion paper on corporate health management 2025 from the University of Göttingen (eleven case studies, mixed methods) finds that formal corporate health management structures such as steering groups or dedicated health managers played 'only a minor role in the effectiveness of health-promoting work design'. What mattered, it says, were 'everyday practices of integrated, cross-hierarchy cooperation' and a strong focus on 'participation and relevance to the job'. In one case the effective driver was 'a works council chair committed to occupational health'.

Not substantiatedindividual case studies, cannot be generalised

How often there is a committee at all: in 2024, only 42% of workplace health promotion activities funded by health insurance funds had a steering committee, even though the guide requires one. And only 41% named the occupational physician as a partner.

Well evidenced

7.1 The legal basis#

Section 20b(1) SGB V, verbatim (quoted from the GKV Prevention Guide, Chapter 8.1.3):

'The health insurance funds support workplace health promotion through health promotion services in businesses, in particular by building and strengthening structures that promote health. To this end, with the participation of the insured persons and those responsible for the business, as well as the occupational physicians and safety specialists, they assess the state of health, including its risks and potential, and develop proposals for improvement …'

Section 20b(3) SGB V obliges the funds to offer advice 'in joint regional coordination offices', among other things for 'clarifying which health insurance fund provides services … in the business in the individual case'.

Section 20(6) SGB V sets benchmark figures: from 2019 a total of €7.52 per insured person, of which at least €2.15 for Section 20a and at least €3.15 for Section 20b, adjusted annually. The overall benchmark for 2024 was €8.53, and actual spending was €9.21. To put this in context: the law says 'should', and the Prevention Report calls it a 'benchmark'. It is a soft target for the funds, not an obligation for you. The widely quoted formula '€7, of which €2 for workplace health promotion' is the outdated 2015 version.

7.2 What the fund may provide#

The GKV Prevention Guide, Chapter 6.2.1, lists: analysis services (analyses of incapacity for work, of work situations and of age structure, surveys, workshops) to establish needs, advice on designing working conditions that promote health, advice on developing goals and a plan, support in setting up project management, moderation of working groups and health circles, training of multipliers, implementation of behavioural prevention measures, support for internal communication, and documentation, evaluation and quality assurance.

Then there are the three workplace health promotion fields of action, often confused with the four fields of action in individual prevention. Under Chapter 6.5, they are:

1. Advice on health-promoting work design
2. Health-promoting work and lifestyle
3. Cross-company networking and advice

The four fields of action (physical activity, nutrition, stress and resource management, and substance use) belong to individual behavioural prevention under Section 20(4) no. 1 SGB V and are covered in Chapter 5. Mixing these up is the most common mistake in German corporate health management texts.

7.3 The funding criteria, verbatim, and they can make or break a project#

'All services must be agreed in advance with the funding health insurance funds. Billing for services that have not previously been agreed is not permitted.'

'Workplace health promotion measures by the health insurance funds require the business to contribute its own financial and/or personnel resources.'
GKV Prevention Guide, Chapter 6.2.2

Note the 'and/or': the business's own contribution can be made in staff time; cash is not mandatory.

On top of this come six requirements for the business: a company policy on workplace health promotion (in small and micro businesses a statement of intent is enough), involvement of employees and the works or staff council throughout the process, measures based on an analysis of the current situation, steering by an internal committee that includes the ASA, regular evaluation, and results that are documented and accessible to the partners.

This matters for planning and is not a formality: a measure agreed in the steering group and carried out the following month is not eligible for funding if the fund was not involved beforehand. Funding is never granted retrospectively.

7.4 The exclusion criteria, complete and verbatim#

Well evidenced

- Activities that form part of the mandatory tasks of involved or other actors and partners
- isolated measures by external providers, that is, not integrated into an overall plan
- billing of measures per individual
- research projects without an intervention component
- screenings without interventions from the workplace health promotion fields of action
- activities of political parties and of organisations and foundations close to parties
- activities that serve advertising purposes only
- vocational training and qualification measures with no connection to the health promotion process
- costs for construction work, furnishings, furniture, technical aids, personal protective equipment, computers and other digital devices
- company sports offers that do not comply with the guide
- offers that are not neutral in terms of worldview

GKV Prevention Guide, Chapter 6.2.3

Two of these points apply directly to our own service, and we say so openly: an isolated external service outside an overall plan is expressly excluded, and so are screenings without a linked intervention. That is no reason to stay silent. It is why every screening is linked to a named intervention from the workplace health promotion fields of action.

7.5 Multiple funds and the coordination office#

The standard objection 'our people are spread across forty different funds' is resolved in the guide: a business can approach any health insurance fund of its choice with which some of its employees are insured, and 'the services of a health insurance fund in a business are available to all employees regardless of their membership of that fund'.

Friction remains, though: where several funds are providing support, 'advance agreement on the resources to be contributed … is required', and funds cannot 'subsequently make any financial claims' against funds that were not involved. A cost-sharing key 'for example by share of members' is an illustration, not a requirement. The term 'lead fund' is practitioner jargon, not a GKV term.

The workplace health promotion coordination office (bgf-koordinierungsstelle.de) has been running since May 2017 under the BKK umbrella association, covers all six types of fund and has 16 regional offices. It offers free, competitively neutral initial advice, with a reply within two working days. It is a small channel: in 2024 it received 635 enquiries, 73% of them from SMEs. The main route remains direct advice from a fund's corporate clients team.

7.6 The company health report, and a hurdle HR usually discovers too late#

Disputedpartly substantiated, partly to be checked for each fund

The fund's analysis of incapacity-for-work data is the cheapest and most common German starting point. It comes with one condition. For data protection reasons, the fund will produce it only once the business has a minimum number of that fund's own insured members. The threshold differs from fund to fund and is mostly unpublished.

What we do know: AOK Rheinland/Hamburg provides an industry snapshot with no size limit, a company snapshot from 35 to 50 AOK-insured employees and a company health report from 50. As a matter of method, key figures are reported only for groups of 10 or more insured persons and 10 or more cases of incapacity for work per diagnosis group. Mobil Krankenkasse names 50 insured persons. BARMER requires a 'sufficient number' without giving a figure. TK, DAK, IKK and BKK do not publish a threshold. This is fund practice, not law.

The practical consequence is often overlooked: a company whose workforce is spread across many funds may fall below the threshold at every one of them and so receive no health report at all, however large it is. And even if it does get one, a single-fund report is a non-random sub-sample of your workforce, skewed by occupational structure, and never 'the company's sickness absence rate'.

7.7 The figure that closes the objection 'the fund does that for free anyway'#

Well evidenced

• In 2024 the funds spent €281,956,037 on workplace health promotion, which is €3.79 per insured person, and reached 28,142 businesses and 2,064,293 employees.
• Compared with 2023, spending rose by 5%, while the number of businesses reached fell by 5% and the number of employees by 6%.
• That means about 6% of employees are reached each year. At the same time, 53% of employees say their employer offers a workplace health programme.

The vast majority of workplace health promotion in Germany is financed by employers, not by health insurance funds.

Funding from the funds is also finite by design. The BMF puts it this way: health insurance funds support businesses 'for a limited period, as help towards self-help' (para. 43). The guide adds that businesses should be enabled 'to continue workplace health promotion on a lasting basis and on their own responsibility even after GKV funding has ended'. Plan for the third year from the start.

Two figures for the sake of honesty about data quality: around 44% of the documentation sheets give no figure for the number of employees reached, so the 2.06 million is a lower bound. And the €281.96 million includes €17,352,057 that the funds did not spend and transferred to the GKV national association under Section 20b(4) SGB V.

Well substantiatedto be checked for tax purposes before use

The full account with the budget helper is on our page The business case for corporate health management in Germany. Here is what you need for project planning.

• Section 3 no. 34 EStG: up to €600 per employee per calendar year as an allowance (only the excess is subject to tax and contributions); tax-free also means exempt from contributions.
• Additionality: Section 8(4) EStG. Salary conversion is excluded.
• The increase from €500 to €600 comes from the Third Bureaucracy Relief Act of 22 November 2019, BGBl. I p. 1746, with effect from 1 January 2020. It does not come from the Annual Tax Act 2019.
• No certification is needed for Section 20b workplace health promotion (BMF para. 4). The word 'certification' in the text of the law applies only to the courses route under Section 20(4) no. 1 SGB V.
• But the process is a precondition (BMF para. 20): a structured in-company process, an internal committee, a needs analysis, and involvement of the employees or their representatives and of the occupational health and safety specialists.
• Payroll account records: a certificate of participation plus a declaration by the employer on the structured process (para. 27), alternatively a certificate from the health insurance fund (para. 28), and for talks an attendance list with the main content (para. 29).
• No lump-sum invoices (para. 30): if the measure, accommodation, meals and travel are invoiced as a single amount, an estimated apportionment is not permitted. The BFH has confirmed this (judgment of 23 November 2023, VI R 24/21). Ask every provider for separate invoice items.
• Excluded (para. 34) are, among others, gym membership fees, physiotherapy treatments, massages, screenings not linked to workplace health promotion interventions, and meal, travel and accommodation costs.
• The second, uncapped route: under BMF paras. 35 to 37, many corporate health management services are not wages at all where they serve predominantly the employer's own interest: analysis services, employee surveys, advice for managers, mediation and psychological counselling by qualified professionals, BEM measures, setting up project management, facilitation, internal communication, documentation, evaluation and quality assurance, and vaccinations recommended by STIKO. And: 'expenses for health check-ups and preventive examinations, up to the amount that the statutory health insurance funds would reimburse for these services.'
• Corporate fitness is handled not under Section 3 no. 34 EStG but under the €50 benefit-in-kind exemption limit in Section 8(2) sentence 11 EStG. That is an exemption limit, not an allowance.
• A recommendation no competitor gives: before the first rollout, request a binding ruling under Section 42e EStG from the tax office responsible for your establishment.

8.1 And a correction on certification#

The Central Prevention Testing Body (run by Team Gesundheit GmbH, Essen, for the cooperation association of the statutory health insurance funds) states verbatim on its own page on the testing process:

'The Central Prevention Testing Body examines only measures of behavioural individual prevention. Workplace health promotion services under Section 20b and/or the settings approach under Section 20a SGB V cannot be submitted for testing.'

A company screening day cannot be ZPP-certified, and neither can a corporate health management programme. Anyone advertising 'ZPP-certified corporate health management' is misdescribing a course portfolio. Certification is free of charge, is valid for three years (digital courses initially for one year), is usually decided within ten working days and covers the course concept plus the course leader's qualification.

If you want courses eligible for funding under Section 20(4) no. 1 SGB V, the guide's criteria apply: six to fifteen participants, at least eight consecutive sessions of at least 45 minutes each, usually weekly, and no more than twelve sessions of 90 minutes. That is a different product from a health day, and most employers do not buy it. For in-house courses there is a route via BMF paras. 15 to 17.

Well substantiatedfor the standard set of clauses; check the legal position on the GDPR in each individual case

The works agreement is the central document. It is also the collective agreement within the meaning of Art. 88(1) GDPR and so forms part of the data protection framework. Legal basis: Section 88 no. 1 BetrVG for the voluntary parts, Section 87(1) nos. 1, 6 and 7 for the enforceable ones.

The best public analysis is Eberhard Kiesche, Betriebliches Gesundheitsmanagement. Betriebs- und Dienstvereinbarungen, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung and Bund-Verlag, 2013, which covers 125 agreements from 1980 to 2011 and sets out a design framework. It is freely available and predates the GDPR, so its data protection clauses need to be read with that in mind.

9.1 Outline of a model works agreement on corporate health management and workplace health promotion#

1. Objectives
2. Scope, with an opening clause
3. Definitions and understanding of corporate health management: corporate health management as an umbrella over occupational health and safety, BEM and workplace health promotion, with priority given to structural prevention
4. Guidelines: 'based on the principles of quality, voluntariness, dialogue and consensus'
5. Steering group with rules of procedure, and the sentence 'the work of the ASA remains unaffected'
6. Health officers, expressly 'bound to data secrecy'
7. Occupational physicians and safety specialists: role, independence from instructions under Section 8 ASiG
8. Cycle of diagnosis, planning, implementation and evaluation
9. Risk assessment: 'only complete if psychological stress is included'
10. Instruction under Section 12 ArbSchG
11. Health circles: 'hierarchy-free spaces', voluntary selection, 'participation in circle work counts as working time'
12. Employee survey
13. Voluntariness
14. Data protection and purpose limitation
15. Prohibition of reprisals, disadvantage and use of evidence
16. Anonymity and minimum group size
17. Working time and time off
18. Cost coverage
19. External service providers: which data they receive and which they do not, duty of confidentiality, deletion periods
20. Training: 'corporate health management is a compulsory part of manager training'
21. Internal marketing
22. Evaluation
23. Conflict resolution
24. Further development: 'evaluate and update every three years'
25. Final provisions with a notice period and an express agreement that the terms continue to apply after expiry, because Section 77(6) BetrVG provides for this only for the enforceable parts

Four clauses that have proved their worth in practice:

'The purpose limitation can be lifted only with the approval of the works council and the consent of the employee concerned.'

'Employees must not suffer any disadvantage from exercising these rights. The prohibition of reprisals under Section 612a BGB applies.'

'Health data shall not be evaluated for the purpose of assessing the performance or conduct of employees.'

'Anonymisation must be demonstrated to the employee representative body.'

The last clause is not a formality but a design requirement for the provider's reporting. Anonymisation must be demonstrable to the works council, not just claimed.

9.2 The minimum group size, answered honestly#

In Germany there is no statutory minimum group size for aggregated health reports. Do not claim otherwise. The duty to anonymise follows from Art. 9 GDPR and the principle of data minimisation, and the real legal test is the risk of re-identification through combined characteristics, not a fixed number.

Three values are in circulation, and each answers a different question:

Our position: we state our own threshold, describe it expressly as a contractual commitment and not as a statutory minimum, rule out cross-tabulations that would allow smaller cells to be reconstructed, and write the figure into the works agreement. A provider who says 'the law names no figure, so we name one and bind ourselves to it' is more convincing than one who invents a legal obligation.

9.3 What the works council will check#

This list is written from the works council's perspective. Its neutrality is why it works.

1. Is participation really voluntary, and how is that safeguarded?
2. Who finds out who took part? And who expressly does not?
3. Does registration go through HR? If so, why?
4. Which data flows where, in what format, to which person?
5. At what group size does reporting start, and is that guaranteed by contract?
6. Are cross-tabulations that would allow small cells to be reconstructed ruled out?
7. Can the anonymisation be demonstrated to the works council?
8. Is there a tool, an app, a portal? Then Section 87(1) no. 6 applies.
9. Is an AI component involved? Then Section 80(3) sentence 2 BetrVG.
10. Does participation count as working time?
11. What happens to lists of participants and non-participants?
12. How, and how easily, can consent be withdrawn?
13. What deletion periods apply, and who monitors them?
14. Have prohibitions on reprisals, disadvantage and use of evidence been agreed?
15. Which people at the provider are bound by professional secrecy, and how are the others bound?
16. Term, termination and continuing effect of the agreement?
17. What happens to the data when the contract ends?

10.1 Phases#

10.2 Realistic timescales#

Not substantiatedRules of thumb, not data. No German source publishes corporate health management procurement timescales, and we label them as such.

• Mid-sized company, one site: 3 to 6 months from decision to the first screening day. The pace is set by the works agreement negotiations and the ASA's quarterly meetings.
• Group: 9 to 18 months to a group-wide rollout, starting with a pilot at one site within 3 to 6 months. The pilot is the way in: it often needs only the local works council and a local budget.
• A realistic programme duration is 24 months. That is the average duration of workplace health promotion activities funded by health insurance funds, according to the Prevention Report 2025.

A practical tip that will make immediate sense to HR: ask about the ASA calendar in the first meeting. If your kick-off falls just after an ASA meeting, you have lost a quarter.

The planner assumes about 20 to 24 participants per station per day, in 15 to 20-minute slots. Its most useful output is shift coverage: how many employees the chosen schedule structurally fails to reach. It promises no participation rate and shows no cost saving.

Not substantiatedThe planner does not give lead times as a benchmark. There is no German data source for them.

12.1 Registration never goes through HR#

Well substantiatedin the rationale, a design decision in implementation

This is the most important operational commitment on the whole page, and one that competitors cannot copy casually.

Why: booking data is participation data. Participation data for a health measure is health data, because it allows conclusions to be drawn about the person. Anyone who routes it through HR destroys the entire data architecture. And the established expectation of German employees, shaped by occupational health checks, is: the employer learns that I was there, never what came out of it. With a voluntary screening, the employer does not even learn that.

The set-up:

12.2 Communication#

Four points specific to Germany:

1. The announcement is signed jointly by management and the works council. In a German business, co-signature by the works council is the strongest available signal of trust, and it costs nothing once the works agreement is in place. Without it, a health programme reads as an employer initiative with an unstated purpose.
2. Outreach during working hours. People who do not work at a screen are not reached by intranet and email. Notices in changing rooms and break rooms, approaching people through shift supervisors, appointments at shift changeovers, mobile stations in production and warehouses.
3. Multilingual communication is the norm in German industry and logistics. The Prevention Report documents lower reach for workplace health promotion among fixed-term employees, agency workers and employees with foreign nationality. A German-only communication package systematically excludes the groups with the greatest need.
4. Do not present lead times as evidence. There is no reliable German source for optimal notice periods. We give rules of thumb and label them as such.

The three-wave structure: announcement (what, why, who does not see what), invitation with appointment booking, reminder two to three days before. Each wave states expressly which data the employer does not receive.

12.3 Capacity#

Basis of calculation: 15 to 20 minute slots give about 20 to 24 participants per station per day, including changeover, buffer and break times. Parallel stations multiply this figure. In shift operations each shift must be planned separately: a plan covering only the day shift structurally reaches about a third of the workforce in a three-shift operation.

12.4 Rooms and infrastructure#

Disputedpartly required by law, partly a duty of care. To be walked through with the occupational physician and the provider before the first delivery.

Medical devices: the provider's obligations, not yours. The provider is the operator within the meaning of the Medical Devices Operator Ordinance (MPBetreibV, version of 20 February 2025). That means an inventory (Section 14), metrological checks every two years for non-invasive blood pressure monitors (Section 15 with Annex 2 no. 1.3), documented instruction (Section 4(3)), instructions for use carried on site (Section 4(7)), a medical device safety officer with a published email address once there are 20 or more employees (Section 6), and laboratory quality assurance under Section 10 in conjunction with the RiliBÄK. A medical device logbook is not required for a screening case.

And the separation rule, which must be observed without exception: under Section 3(3) ArbMedVV, occupational health checks should not be carried out together with fitness-for-work examinations. A voluntary screening must be kept visibly and organisationally separate from any fitness-for-work examination and, where possible, from mandatory check appointments too. Using the same rooms on the same day is a compliance risk and a risk to trust.

Well evidenced

For context: in 2024, the health insurance funds judged the success of the workplace health promotion they fund mainly by employee satisfaction (73%), employer satisfaction (68%), acceptance and take-up (62%) and processes and workflows (25%). Health outcomes, absence and costs do not appear among the indicators reported. A provider therefore cannot borrow evidence of impact from the funder.

Our three-level model:

Three rules for level 3, to be set down in writing before the programme starts:

1. Sickness absence is a context measure tracked over 24 months, not a target. Contractual commitments are made on process and outcome key figures.
2. No before-and-after line is drawn across the turn of 2021/2022. The electronic sick note (eAU) structurally changed how absences are recorded. WIdO's own model calculation gives 20.8 rather than the measured 23.3 days of absence for 2025 without the eAU.
3. A successful screening can raise the short-term sickness absence rate, because referrals turn presenteeism into visible incapacity for work. That is a success and looks like a failure in the statistics. We say this in writing before the programme, not after.

Benchmarks with sources: BIBB/BAuA, 58% take-up among those informed; Prevention Report 2025 (Präventionsbericht), average duration of 24 months and 42% with a steering committee; #whatsnext 2025, 26.8% with holistic corporate health management.

A ban on comparisons: AOK, TK, BKK and DAK report sickness absence rates for different insured populations with different standardisation. These figures may be neither set side by side nor averaged.

Well evidenced

The best source of participation data in Germany is the BIBB/BAuA Employment Survey.

• 2018: 47% of employees said their company offered workplace health promotion, and 25% of all employees took part (Hollederer 2022, n = 20,012). That corresponds to roughly 59% participation among those informed.
• 2024: 53% say a programme is available, 58% of those informed take part. From this, roughly 31% of all employees take part. This derivation is ours, not a figure published by BAuA.
• In 2006, the share of employees with access to a programme was 38%.

Two findings that appear on no provider's website:

'The share of people in employment who confirm that their workplace has a health promotion programme rises sharply with company size, but take-up rates fall.'

The larger the company, the more likely it is to have a programme, and the less often people take part. That is a direct argument for an on-site, fixed-time format that comes to employees, rather than a portal-and-voucher model in large organisations.

And second, the satisfaction gradient: 63% participation among very satisfied employees against 38% among dissatisfied ones. The people a programme most needs to reach are the least likely to come. Participation is also lower among part-time and fixed-term employees, and there are social differences by qualification and nationality.

What drives participation, according to the GKV guide's own success factors (chapter 6.1): 'the participatory involvement of employees, support from company management and managers, internal structures for steering and coordination, and a systematic approach with process evaluation'. There is also the finding from #whatsnext 2017: over 88% of respondents named managers' commitment as the most important factor for employee health, ahead of budget and staffing. At the same time, only 43.3% of organisations offer anything at all on healthy leadership.

We do not promise you a participation rate. There is practically no reliable German data on participation rates for individual measures. Anyone who quotes precise rates per measure is very likely citing a provider's own client case studies. We tell you what determines the rate, and then measure it together.

This list builds more trust than any case study. Where a source exists, we name it; the rest is observation from practice and is labelled as such.

1. The works council joins the process too late, and the programme stops. The right to an injunction does not require a gross breach, and Section 87(2) BetrVG takes the dispute to the conciliation board. It typically comes to light after the communication has gone out.
2. A booking or reminder tool is introduced without anyone having thought of Section 87(1) no. 6. The health content was approved; the software was not.
3. A subsidy from the health insurance fund is budgeted for and then refused, because the measure was not agreed in advance, because it is an 'isolated measure by external providers', or because it is 'screening without interventions'.
4. The tax exemption under Section 3 no. 34 EStG is lost in a payroll tax audit, because there was no structured process or needs analysis, or employee representatives were not involved (BMF para. 20), or because catering and the measure were invoiced as a flat fee (para. 30).
5. Risk assessment and workplace health promotion get confused, and the company treats a health day as meeting its duty under Section 5 ArbSchG. From 2026 a minimum inspection rate of 5% applies.
6. No health report is available, because the workforce is spread across many funds and the company falls below the reporting threshold at each one.
7. The steering group has neither mandate nor budget. Only 42% of funded activities have a steering committee at all; where corporate health management is handled in the occupational safety committee (ASA), it ends up under 'any other business'.
8. The occupational physician is bypassed and becomes an opponent. Only 41% of activities name the physician as a cooperation partner. In large corporations, the in-house company doctor is the most likely hard blocker, because medical data governance is their responsibility.
9. Data protection is raised in the last three weeks. The data protection officer was not on the steering group, an impact assessment was never carried out, and some businesses only discover at this point that they have to appoint a data protection officer under Section 38 BDSG at all.
10. Participation collapses in shift-work and multi-site operations, because the programme runs at head office during the day.
11. The people who need it most do not come. 63% against 38%, split by job satisfaction, and systematically poorer reach among fixed-term employees, agency workers and employees with foreign nationality.
12. A one-off health day with no follow-up. The guide accepts it as an 'entry point', not as a programme. The realistic yardstick is an average duration of 24 months.
13. Managers are not involved. Over 88% regard their commitment as the most important factor, but only 43.3% of organisations offer anything at all on healthy leadership.
14. The programme is sold on an ROI figure and then measured against it. Controlling checks the figure, finds the 1.8 from iga.Report 40, and the relationship never recovers. [practical observation]
15. The provider reports something about individuals to the employer: a participant list, a risk score, an aggregated figure for a team of five. That ends contracts and, depending on who does it, may fall under Section 203 StGB.
16. The programme is formalised rather than embedded. The SOFI discussion paper 2025 found that formal structures counted for less than everyday practice that cuts across hierarchies and is tied to the work itself. A perfectly documented corporate health management system without manager involvement achieves nothing. [individual case studies]
17. The business expects the health insurance fund to pay permanently. The funds' remit is 'time-limited in the sense of help towards self-help'. Budget for year three from the start.

These two points affect the business model of every medical provider of workplace screenings in Germany. They are not conclusively settled, so we present them as questions we pass to your legal adviser, not as established law.

16.1 Itinerant medical practice ('im Umherziehen')#

Section 17(3) sentence 1 of the Model Professional Code of Conduct for Physicians Practising in Germany (version of the 130th German Medical Assembly, 13 May 2026) reads: 'The practice of outpatient medical activity on an itinerant basis is contrary to professional law.' Under paragraph 2, no more than two further locations are permitted in addition to the practice address. Section 17(3) sentence 2 allows an exception, on application to the state medical chamber, for 'outreach medical care'.

The open question: whether a voluntary, employer-funded workplace screening falls under this exception has not been decided. The analogy with the occupational physician holds only for ASiG and ArbMedVV tasks, for which there is a special statutory provision; a voluntary screening bought in by the employer is not covered by it. What is binding, moreover, is not the model code but the professional code of the individual state medical chamber, and these differ.

How we handle it: we prefer to work with doctors qualified in occupational medicine, in coordination with the existing occupational health provision, and before screening days take place in any federal state we clarify the question in writing with the relevant state medical chamber.

16.2 The Scale of Medical Fees (GOÄ) applies even when the employer pays#

On 4 April 2024 (III ZR 38/23), the Federal Court of Justice ruled that flat-rate fees for medical services agreed with a legal entity are invalid. The GOÄ is mandatory even when it is a company, not the patient, that pays the bill. Only the multiplier is negotiable, per fee item, in a separate written agreement made before the service is provided (Section 2(2) GOÄ). No deviation is allowed for Section M (laboratory tests).

The open question: whether a framework contract with an employer meets the requirement of a 'personal agreement in each individual case' has not been conclusively settled.

What follows in practice: a package with a flat price per head for medical services is open to legal challenge. Ask every provider how they resolve this.

These two points are here because they affect your contract with a provider and because, as far as we know, no German provider text mentions them. We do not claim to have answered them.

This list is worded neutrally. That is exactly what makes it useful. We answer it for ourselves as well, of course.

Eligibility for funding and tax

1. What exactly is certified at your organisation, by whom, and what does the certificate cover? (The ZPP reviews only behaviour-related individual prevention. Programmes under Section 20b SGB V cannot be submitted there.)
2. How do you make sure the measure stays eligible for funding under Section 20b SGB V, particularly given the exclusion criterion 'screenings without interventions'?
3. Which named intervention from the workplace health promotion fields of action is each screening module linked to?
4. Do you invoice the measure, catering, travel and accommodation separately? (BMF para. 30)
5. What supporting documents do you provide for the payroll account? (BMF paras. 27 to 29)
6. Which of your services fall, in your assessment, under BMF para. 37 and therefore outside the €600 limit?

Law and data

7. Who at your organisation is bound by professional secrecy under Section 203 StGB, and how are the other staff bound? Show us the confidentiality undertaking.
8. On what legal basis do you process health data, and why?
9. Who is the controller for the medical data, and is there a data processing agreement with us? If not, why not?
10. Where is the data stored, by whom, and for how long?
11. Show us an anonymised sample report.
12. At what group size do you start reporting, and is that threshold guaranteed in the contract?
13. How do you demonstrate anonymisation to the works council?
14. How is withdrawal of consent handled, and does it go through us?

Delivery

15. How is registration organised, and at what point does HR learn anything?
16. How do you cover shift work, field service and multilingualism?
17. How is cooperation with our occupational physician and our occupational safety specialist arranged?
18. What are your rules on safe instruments, hygiene plan and disposal under TRBA 250?
19. How are abnormal findings and emergencies handled?
20. What is your actual average participation rate, how do you measure it, and across how many projects?
21. How do you deal with the fact that GOÄ fees are mandatory for medical services when the employer pays? (BGH, 4 April 2024, III ZR 38/23)
22. How have you established that the activity is permitted under professional law at our location, and with which state medical chamber?

Sources#

Legal sources

1. Sections 5 and 6 ArbSchG (risk assessment, including Section 5(3) no. 6 mental stress): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbschg/__5.html
2. Section 21(1a) ArbSchG (minimum inspection rate of 5% from 2026): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbschg/__21.html
3. Sections 25 and 26 ArbSchG (fines and penalty provisions): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbschg/__25.html · https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbschg/__26.html
4. Section 87 BetrVG (co-determination, conciliation board): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/betrvg/__87.html
5. Section 23(3), Sections 50, 58, 77(6), 80, 88 no. 1 and 89 BetrVG: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/betrvg/
6. Sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9(3) and 11 ASiG: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/asig/
7. Sections 3 and 6 ArbMedVV: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbmedvv/__3.html · https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbmedvv/__6.html
8. Sections 20 and 20b SGB V: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_5/__20.html · https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_5/__20b.html
9. Section 167(2) SGB IX (BEM): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_9_2018/__167.html
10. Section 3 no. 34 EStG, Section 8(2) sentence 11 and (4) EStG, Section 42e EStG: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/estg/__3.html · https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/estg/__8.html · https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/estg/__42e.html
11. Section 3(1) EntgFG: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/entgfg/__3.html
12. Section 612a BGB (prohibition of victimisation): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__612a.html
13. Section 203 StGB: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__203.html
14. Section 38 BDSG: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bdsg_2018/__38.html
15. Section 3a(2) ArbStättV: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/arbst_ttv_2004/__3a.html
16. MPBetreibV, version of 20 February 2025: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/mpbetreibv_2025/
17. Section 2(2) GOÄ: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/go__1982/__2.html
18. Musterberufsordnung für die in Deutschland tätigen Ärztinnen und Ärzte, Section 17 (version adopted by the 130th German Medical Assembly, 13 May 2026). The binding text is the professional code of the relevant state medical association (Landesärztekammer): https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/themen/recht/berufsrecht
19. Drittes Bürokratieentlastungsgesetz of 22 November 2019, BGBl. I 2019 p. 1746

Official regulations and guidelines

20. DGUV Vorschrift 2, version in force since 1 January 2026. The version issued by the competent employers' liability insurance association is the binding one: https://www.dguv.de/de/praevention/vorschriften_regeln/dguv-vorschrift_2/index.jsp
21. TRBA 250 'Biologische Arbeitsstoffe im Gesundheitsdienst', edition of November 2025
22. LAGA-Mitteilung 18, 'Vollzugshilfe zur Entsorgung von Abfällen aus Einrichtungen des Gesundheitsdienstes', June 2021
23. RiliBÄK, version of 14 April 2023 with amendment of 3 July 2025
24. ASR A3.6 (ventilation)
25. GDA-Leitlinie 'Beratung und Überwachung bei psychischer Belastung am Arbeitsplatz', as at 11 January 2018, PDF version of 17 June 2025: https://www.gda-portal.de/DE/Downloads/pdf/Leitlinie-Psych-Belastung.pdf
26. GDA-Leitlinie 'Gefährdungsbeurteilung und Dokumentation', as at 5 December 2025
27. DGUV and GKV-Spitzenverband, Leitfaden zur Abgrenzung von Arbeitsschutz und betrieblicher Gesundheitsförderung, February 2022, web code p022060

Health insurance funds and prevention

28. GKV-Spitzenverband: Leitfaden Prävention, version of 17 December 2025: https://www.gkv-spitzenverband.de/media/dokumente/krankenversicherung_1/praevention__selbsthilfe__beratung/praevention/praevention_leitfaden/20251218_Leitfaden_Pravention_2025_barrierefrei.pdf
29. GKV-Spitzenverband and Medizinischer Dienst Bund: Präventionsbericht 2025, reporting year 2024, as at November 2025: https://www.gkv-spitzenverband.de/media/dokumente/krankenversicherung_1/praevention__selbsthilfe__beratung/praevention/praeventionsbericht/2025_GKV_MD_Praventionsbericht_barrierefrei.pdf
30. Zentrale Prüfstelle Prävention, review process: https://www.zentrale-pruefstelle-praevention.de/
31. BGF-Koordinierungsstelle: https://www.bgf-koordinierungsstelle.de

Federal Ministry of Finance

32. BMF letter of 20 April 2021, ref. IV C 5 - S 2342/20/10003 :003, published as Annex 18c to the payroll tax guidance (Lohnsteuer-Hinweise): https://esth.bundesfinanzministerium.de/lsth/2023/B-Anhaenge/Anhang-18c/anhang-18c.html

Research and surveys

33. BAuA: Betriebliche Gesundheitsförderung 2024: Entwicklung von Angebot und Teilnahme, baua: Fakten, series BIBB-BAuA-57, 2026: https://www.baua.de/DE/Angebote/Publikationen/Fakten/BIBB-BAuA-57
34. Hollederer, A.: Betriebliche Gesundheitsförderung in Deutschland: Verbreitung, Inanspruchnahme und soziale Disparitäten in der BIBB-/BAuA-Erwerbstätigenbefragung 2018, Das Gesundheitswesen 2022;84(08-09):753, n = 20,012, DOI 10.1055/s-0042-1753687
35. Techniker Krankenkasse, IFBG and Haufe Personalmagazin: #whatsnext 2025, n = 1,529, field period 6 January to 14 February 2025: https://www.tk.de/resource/blob/2197646/74c9dbc71dac772c8cd5d7bb71d2729b/whatsnext-2025-data.pdf
36. Soziologisches Forschungsinstitut Göttingen: SOFI-Impulspapier BGM 2025: https://sofi.uni-goettingen.de/fileadmin/Impulspapiere/SOFI-Impulspapier_BGM_2025.pdf
37. Kiesche, E.: Betriebliches Gesundheitsmanagement. Betriebs- und Dienstvereinbarungen. Analyse und Handlungsempfehlungen, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung and Bund-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2013, ISBN 978-3-7663-6274-2, 125 agreements analysed
38. WIdO: Fehlzeiten-Bilanz 2025, press release of 16 March 2026 (eAU model calculation): https://www.wido.de/news-presse/pressemitteilungen/2026/fehlzeiten-bilanz-2025-leichter-rueckgang-der-krankheitstage-weiterhin-hohe-ausfallzeiten-wegen-langzeiterkrankungen/
39. iga: iga.Report 40, 1st edition, November 2019: https://www.iga-info.de/fileadmin/redakteur/Veroeffentlichungen/iga_Reporte/Dokumente/iga-Report_40_Wirksamkeit_und_Nutzen_Gesundheitsfoerderung_Praevention.pdf

This page explains the publicly available legal position and practice. It is not legal or tax advice and does not replace a review of your individual case. For employment law and co-determination, rely on your legal department or a specialist employment lawyer; for tax questions, rely on your tax adviser or a binding payroll tax ruling (Anrufungsauskunft) under Section 42e EStG.

As at September 2026. Next review: when the GKV Prevention Guide (Leitfaden Prävention) is revised, when the GKV Prevention Report is published (each November) and when DGUV Regulation 2 changes.