Hey Smokers, enjoy paying extra for those health benefits

Gannett smokers to pay

from JoeUser Forums
Yet another tilt towards lowering health care costs by making the "sinners" pay for their sins. I'm very curious though to what measures Gannett (the employer providing the higher cost health care for their smokers in this case) will use to determine who is a smoker and who is not?

And again, I see this as the beginning of charging more for health care for the obese, and more for others that may carry genetic markers for heart disease or cancer or other health issues that could be partly hereditary or come from lifestyle decisions.

Sooner or later we will be made to pay more as individuals because we all have different base info to start with when getting insurance. In the past, when we were part of one big pool, smokers saw their costs lowered because non-smokers were paying extra. While it seems to be a good thing to drop the cost for non-smokers, what happens when those same ideas are carried out to their logical conclusions (discussed above) and everyone starts paying more as individuals? Will we wind up with everyone -- insurers included -- demanding that we just go back to a more simple one price for all plan because it's easier, less complicated, and less likely to infringe upon our rights to privacy?


Original source is Washington Times. Headline is linked.




Gannett smokers to pay

By Marguerite Higgins
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 19, 2005

Gannett Co. Inc.'s employees this month are receiving a notice that tells them to kick their nicotine habit or pay an extra $50 for their health insurance each month next year.
The McLean-based publisher of USA Today and 98 other daily newspapers nationwide is the latest company to institute a smoking disincentive to encourage healthy lifestyles and curb rising health care costs.
"This is part of a health and wellness initiative the company started a few years ago," said spokeswoman Tara Connell. For the past two weeks, the media company has sent letters explaining the policy to its estimated 40,000 U.S. employees. The surcharge will go into effect in January.
Gannett employees will be asked during the company's re-enrollment period whether they smoke. Workers who admit to smoking will be given the choice of enrolling in a company-funded cessation program or paying the $50 fee.
The measure includes any employee who uses tobacco products, even if the use is "occasional," Ms. Connell said, declining to explain further.
"We expect our employees to be honest," she said.
Gannett is encouraging all of its operating units to establish their own rules regarding smoking in the workplace with the hope of being a smoke-free company by Jan. 1, 2007.
The company's initiative follows similar programs from businesses nationwide.
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., a Milwaukee health insurer, in March announced plans to impose a $25-a-month health insurance surcharge in January for employees who smoke.
State employees in Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama and Georgia who smoke face a similar fee for their health insurance this year.
In response to the trend, more than 20 states have passed laws that prohibit companies from discriminating against workers over lifestyle decisions.
But the trend is not likely to fade, said Linda Cushman Ruth, a senior health care strategist with Hewitt Associates LLC, a Lincolnshire, Ill., human-resource services firm.


... more at linked article

Oooooooh, just re-reading - they are going to "trust" their employees to be honest and tell them if they smoke. I wonder how long that "trust" will really last when non-smokers are seen outside the office smoking? Or when non-smokers are found to be using insurance benefits for smoking related health problems? Will tests for high levels of nicotene be conducted?

It's a very slippery slope folks.....
1,790 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's all part of an attempt to let health plans be tailored more to the individual health needs of the employee. It basically rewards individuals for having healthy habits. I'm not a smoker, and I'm not crazed about helping subsidize the health insurance of those who do smoke... or those who over eat and don't exercise (though choice, not because they are incapable). It's also an attempt to reduce the skyrocketing costs of healthcare, placing more of the financial responsibility in the hands of the employees.

I want to pay for the health care I need. It's not my responsibility to cover costs on someone who's being treated for lung cancer cause they smoked for 30 years.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
In theory, I think it makes sense to charge more for people who are making unhealthly lifestyle choices but you make a good point about where this could all lead.

I do think there is a big difference between someone who choses to smoke or choses to be overweight compared to someone who has a genetic predisposition to a disease. It seems very wrong to me to charge someone more for something that they can't control. You can control whether you smoke or not.

I also think that it would be better for these companies to offer employees incentives to make a healthly choice rather than a penalty for making an unhealthy one. Have an onsite gym. Offer smoking cessation classes, hypnotism, patches. Have a contest to see who can lose the most weight etc.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's all part of an attempt to let health plans be tailored more to the individual health needs of the employee. It basically rewards individuals for having healthy habits. I'm not a smoker, and I'm not crazed about helping subsidize the health insurance of those who do smoke... or those who over eat and don't exercise (though choice, not because they are incapable). It's also an attempt to reduce the skyrocketing costs of healthcare, placing more of the financial responsibility in the hands of the employees.I want to pay for the health care I need. It's not my responsibility to cover costs on someone who's being treated for lung cancer cause they smoked for 30 years.


Not to pick on Zoomba, but I'll reply to some of the comments and see how things go from here.

Zoomba, you have what seems to be a great idea -- individualizing the costs of health care -- that could be fine, or could take a very severe turn for you very quickly.

Again, lets say that health insurers start pointing out that costs for say colo-rectal cancer are going haywire. The health insurers decide that they want to offer a discount to anyone that doesn't have genetic markers that help to predict that you are or are not someone likely to get the disease. You turn out to be someone that has the genetic marker, and because of it, your costs for insurance go up by $50 to $100 a month.

Are you not worried that this will happen? It is certainly a possibility, and actually becoming more a probability as we learn more about DNA and our own genetic make-up. We're finding out that things we have little or no control over can influence our health well into our futures. And because of it, we could wind up paying a lot more money to get the al a carte insurance you seem to be talking about.

Should I be forced to carry a bigger burden to help you remain insured against your dread disease if I have no such pre-dispositions myself?

For that matter, extend your thoughts into politics and tell me why then anyone that is more successful than anyone else should be forced to pay more in taxes - whether in real numbers or in percentages - than anyone else. After all, if the successful individual isn't using services, then why pay?

Again, it's a slippery slope, and sooner or later things point back to each of us that can and will be used to justify higher costs for all of us as individuals. Will we find several years from now that we're still far better off when we just pool everyone's money and let everyone pay a small price rather than making some pay much higher prices while others pay next to nothing?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Some people smoke up into their 60's and 70's. My nextdoor neighbor did, and started when he joined the military at 18. Contrast that to someone who has a family history of heart disease who eats at McDonald's for lunch every single day. SHould they pay more? Obviously the person who eats at McDonalds is doing just as much to hurt the insurance company's bottom line.

Wrap your head around this. What about people who are genetically predisposed to be obese? Their weight is as bad as smoking cigarettes, BUT it is a predisposition. Can you give someone higher premiums because of a genetic predisposition? Is someone who is anorexic/bulemic any better than someone who smokes?

This is a can of worms the insurance companies don't want. In the end we'll all have to get a yearly physical, and the physician is going to be the one to determine our insurance rates. That is already illegal in some states, and they don't want that kind of backlash in all 50.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, there are a ton of "really really bad" scenarios you can draw.... you can take it to the ridiculous extreme of genetic markers and such. Fact remains that there are certain behaviors, like smoking, that do increase health care costs. It's especially bad when it's entirely voluntary and offers no real benefit.

This is actually a direction in health insurance that consumers want. It's part of the migration away from the horribly flawed HMO system to what is generally called "consumerism" or consumer-centric. You're going to see all the major insurance companies drop the HMO plans in the next 2-3 years and move to more clearly defined, more individually tailored health insurance plans. As time goes on, they're going to move away from flat rates on insurance for everyone across the board (very expensive) to rates that vary depending on your desired level of coverage, and certain major risk factors (cheaper overall).

The shift is to having you pay (and your employer pay) for the coverage you need. This works out great for those of us who are young and healthy, and still works out well even for those who are older and healthy. Who it doesn't work out for are the people who are engaging in high-risk health activities. Right now it's just smoking, and I'm willing to wager that it will stay fairly limited to things like smoking because you can say without a doubt that the act of smoking is a voluntary one. There is NO way you can argue genetic predisposition or dependence with smoking. Being overweight, it's too hard to prove that it's because you eat McDonalds 7 meals a day. No real gray area exists with smoking like that. Insurance companies will be smart and limit to such behaviors, because they know if they do something really stupid like monitoring your diet, they'll lose their customers FAST.

And you already see other insurance rates increase due to risk factors. Car and home insurance changes depending on where you live. Car insurance definitely goes up if you exhibit high-risk behaviors (because the chances of getting in an accident rise significantly if you're a aggressive/dangerous driver).

Oh, and on the issue of invading privacy. The rate is determined through the insurance company who has access to your medical records ANYWAY.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Fact remains that there are certain behaviors, like smoking, that do increase health care costs. It's especially bad when it's entirely voluntary and offers no real benefit."


Like, say... owning a gun? Living in a particular neighborhood? Driving on a particular freeway at a particular time of day. Any one of those could be ranked as high as smoking on the risk factor. You aren't locked into your job, it's a choice just like owning a gun or what route you take to work. What about construction workers versus CEOs? I wonder how it would go over when construction workers paid for high risk insurance while suits paid much less...

I think if you go back and check, eating at McDonald's every day is AT LEAST as hazardous to your health as smoking. Your blood can be tested for cholesterol as easily as nicotene. And if I am not mistaken, cholesterol problems are VERY genetic. ...just like a propensity to addiction, which is considered a handicap in the case of drugs and alcohol. Nicotene is as bad or worse than most other addictions.

I think you need to read up on insurance regulation around the country. They literally can't do those things in my state. They actually can't deny someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They can't even ask. It was one of the reasons I moved here in the first place. You pretend that they can do anything they want. On the contrary, insurance is a HUGELY regulated industry, for better or worse.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
They're not denying coverage. What they're doing actually is charging non-smokers LESS. My insurance is going to be $15 a paycheck LOWER next year because I don't smoke. If I did smoke it would remain the same. I am a lower health risk due to making smarter choices than a smoker has.

I already said why they couldn't touch overweight people because it's too hard to draw the line between genetic and choice without spying on the person.

I'm fairly aware of what generally insurance companies can and can't do... can't deny coverage on an employee-by-employee basis for having a medical condition. That's not being done here, it's just a rate difference which you see in every other form of insurance out there. They're also only touching an absolutely willful behavior that has no redeeming value. It doesn't equate to driving a dangerous route to work, because that has a valid reason (work to earn money to live). And they don't have to ask if you have a condition, if you go to the doctor regarding a preexisting condition while under their coverage, they know about it, they get all the medical records sent back to them.

And construction workers already do pay more than suits in offices. With the shift away from HMOs, they'll probably pay more too because it's going to shift to a fixed-dollar amount per year coverage plan where they get covered up to a certain amount and then it starts coming out of pocket. They're more likely to require medical attention in a year than a guy in his 30s, so given enough doctor visits, they'll end up paying out a fair bit more. I bet the employeer coverage is lower for them too.

This move is still in the OK area as far as individual state regulations are concerned. Major health insurance companies are rolling this out across the nation as we speak, and believe me when I say, they're VERY careful about those ISRs.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
As I said regarding the preexisting conditions, they can only roll this kind of thing out in places the laws allow them to, and new laws can be written. Put simply, I don't think people will tolerate this, if they do, it will be taken further to a level they won't.

This is a "slippery slope" issue, punishing people for legal behavior. However you can philosophize it, if they can legally do this with smoking, they can legally do this with any other behavior they can spy out. Less and less people smoke every year. It isn't like smokers are destroying the insurance industry.

So, this isn't about smoking, it is about the regulation of what we legally do in our private lives. As smoking declines, they'll use this ability to move to other "dangerous" behaviors. Insurance companies aren't like some strapped airline industry. They aren't barely keeping their head above water.

So if you think they are actually going to lower rates for non-smokers, I think you are pretty naive. I'd be willing to bet that $15 will evaporate within a year, and non-smokers will be paying the same or more while smokers pay even more than that. It is a shell game, like the cable companies, etc. The 'hype' price is just a temporary ruse.

This is basically Las Vegas casino odds tweaking. They are looking at statistical realities and trying to build a system where they simply can't lose money on anyone. That's great, as long as they don't become public policy enforcers invading our privacy.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top