I think this metaphor is missing a step - it would be like if you somehow bought "shampoo insurance," and under this policy the insurance company paid for your shampoo needs in exchange for a fixed monthly fee. And since people are buying under their shampoo insurance policies, then one shampoo company starts paying people directly to effectively direct the insurance companies dollars towards their brand. Isn't that a bit more like what is happening? You are being paid to influence the direction of your own policy.

I don't think this is as much as a problem with normal kickbacks since the party being directly "harmed" here is an insurance company not getting as good a deal as they could and their whole job is to set prices for policies to account for that. Of course, this could lead to a bigger problem, because insurance companies could account for programs like this in rates, and now you have an arms race where your policy only makes cost sense if you are getting these incentive payments.