It occurs to me that there exists an employer interest in keeping salaried employees healthy. With fixed costs, employers face the full actualized cost of lost productivity, in a way the salaried employees do not - they are, for a time, getting paid for doing nothing. So there's risk in hiring people who might have chronic illness (for instance, "chemo brain" has particularly acute risks to work output), as those costs escalate, and it would suck for someone to be fired or not hired because they have cancer.
But we might find it intolerant (someday) to have this institutional prejudice against those with chronic illnesses, and employers may wish to offset the risk of the lost labor with a financial product targeting this risk. Of course, almost all businesses are already purchasing similar products – it's called insurance!
So now the organization gets a payout when workers get sick, so it's no downside when that happens – but of course the premiums would still be a proxy for health. So we might imagine a subsidy program, letting sick people work (at the margin) more easily, in addition to creating statutory limits on discrimination (which will be so hard to demonstrate the subsidy might be more effective at any level of subsidizing).
Don't get me wrong, this proposal isn't total solid yet. But it's a much better idea than, say, giving tax breaks to employers who want to give lavish bonuses to employees, right? Surely "subsidizing employer health insurance" wouldn't mean favorable treatment for more wealthy Americans? Right?