(8-9-09) "Is It Your Job to Stay Healthy?" (Lyric Wallwork Winik, parade.com) Take steps to improve your health or pay a fine? It's actually happening now in some states.

[Suzan]

Good debate here. Should employers be able to fine employees for being unhealthy? Also, should the healthy be required to subsidize care for the unhealthy?

Obviously, health care costs are an enormous concern, but I'm inclined to say no to both questions. I do worry about privacy issues with the first and with the second, there probably should be some way to reward the healthy.

I'd love to know what everybody else thinks!

Is It Your Job To Stay Healthy?

Alabama state employees have until Nov. 30 to get screened for chronic illnesses such as diabetes and hypertension if they want to keep their free health insurance. After 2010, those at risk for disease must show that they are taking steps to improve their health or pay $25 each month.

Alabama’s move is just one example of a growing trend nationwide: Businesses are hoping to cut health-care costs by instituting “employee-wellness programs” in which workers are financially rewarded for quitting smoking, getting regular checkups, or losing weight. Some companies are going a step further, penalizing unhealthy employees by deducting more from their paychecks to cover insurance or offering less-generous coverage.

President Obama and other supporters of employee-wellness programs point to the benefits of preventive care, both in terms of quality of life and cost savings: One study found that every $1 spent on such programs saves $1.65 in health-care expenses. But privacy advocates say employees should be evaluated based on their job performance, not fitness level. Besides, says Donna Flagg, a human resources expert, “ Not all obese people are taxing the insurance system. What about a hypochondriac who may be thin but is always at the doctor?”

Flagg adds that wellness programs blame the employee instead of addressing the real problem—the high cost of health care. “Why are we constantly looking to pass costs on to the patients?” she asks. “It’s the system itself that is unhealthy.”

Dr. Darwin Deen of Montefiore Medical Center in New York disagrees. “Right now,” he says, “ healthy people subsidize care for everyone else. Some people are asking: If you choose to sit and watch TV while I am out exercising, should I still be expected to pay for part of your health-care costs?”

http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/090809-is-it-your-job-to-stay-healthy.html

[Brooke]

Good debate here. Should employers be able to fine employees for being unhealthy? Also, should the healthy be required to subsidize care for the unhealthy?

Obviously, health care costs are an enormous concern, but I'm inclined to say no to both questions. I do worry about privacy issues with the first and with the second, there probably should be some way to reward the healthy.

I'd love to know what everybody else thinks!



http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/090809-is-it-your-job-to-stay-healthy.html

I think it depends on who your employer is. I had a consulting project at the American Heart Association and it was against company policy to smoke but the workers there were so stressed all the time and not healthy. I found it quite ironic.

[Suzan]

The first question is a particularly tough question if this is true: One study found that every $1 spent on such programs saves $1.65 in health-care expenses.

[Brooke]

I hope they start firing people for being unhealthy, I might have better luck in the market. :laughing:

[mavfin]

The first question is a particularly tough question if this is true:

My company (a non-profit Catholic healthcare corp) charges employees less for insurance if you're tobacco-free.

[Ikasu]

In Japan (or China, I'm not sure), the government measures the waist size of all employees. If a certain percentage of a company's workers is overweight, the company is fined. Such a system could never work in the US. You know, personal freedom and all.

[Suzan]

I think it depends on who your employer is. I had a consulting project at the American Heart Association and it was against company policy to smoke but the workers there were so stressed all the time and not healthy. I found it quite ironic.

Exactly. Health is a complicated issue. I doubt the relaxation that comes with smoking outweighs the health risks, but it's not always so clear cut.

I found this interesting. I never even thought about hypochrondriacs taxing the system, but it makes sense.

But privacy advocates say employees should be evaluated based on their job performance, not fitness level. Besides, says Donna Flagg, a human resources expert, “ Not all obese people are taxing the insurance system. What about a hypochondriac who may be thin but is always at the doctor?”

[Suzan]

In Japan (or China, I'm not sure), the government measures the waist size of all employees. If a certain percentage of a company's workers is overweight, the company is fined. Such a system could never work in the US. You know, personal freedom and all.
Interesting. I've heard that in--I think it's Japan--they are willing to have far fewer personal freedoms for the sake of things like personal safety. I believe the police can search peoples' home with warrants, etc. So, measuring waists may not be a big deal to them.

Sorry, withOUT warrants. We take a lot of our personal freedoms for granted. Over there, Big Brother is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Suzan]

My company (a non-profit Catholic healthcare corp) charges employees less for insurance if you're tobacco-free.
I like that better than fining people, but I wonder which would be more effective. There's a study they should do.

[Suzan]

I hope they start firing people for being unhealthy, I might have better luck in the market. :laughing:

:rotfl:

[Suzan]

It also hadn't occured to me that the healthy are subsidizing health care for the unhealthy, but of course, that's true. But that's the way of any society, I suppose. You take care of those who need care.

BUT, what about those who appear to be bringing it on themselve with unhealthy habits? See, it's not clear. Some people can abuse themselves, so to speak, and not suffer bad health. Others take perfect care of themselves and get sick. This would be tough to police.

[TheTaoOfBill]

I do think you should be rewarded for living a healthy life.

Though I think it's not politically smart to call it a fine or a tax on the unhealthy. Call it a reward for the healthy.

[mavfin]

Call it a reward for the healthy.

My company presents it as: It's <this much> for everyone, and it's <this much less> if you are tobacco-free.

[Suzan]

My company presents it as: It's <this much> for everyone, and it's <this much less> if you are tobacco-free.
Excellent incentive, especially in a recession like this one!

[hobbitt]

Should employers be able to fine employees for being unhealthy?

How do you define unhealthy? From hereditary causes? Or conditions since birth? Caused by accident? Even better, caused by industrial accident? Or are you assuming the usual Dirty Smokers?

A propos of practically nothing, a true story:

The building I was working in had a fire. Real fire, not a fire drill. NYC, February.

Fire marshalls shoving people out the door; no time to get to the coat closet or grab suitcoats if you weren't at your desk. Employee population was outside for almost an hour. Cold. Very cold out there.

Smokers loved it - an extended smoke break.

Exactly one week later, while out on a smoke break, I huffed and I puffed and then announced to my fellow puffers that I had to get back upstairs - as most of my department was absent. And they all jumped in and announced that their departments were empty as well. A bit of research turned up an amazing fact: of those present during the fire evacuation about 80 per cent were absent the next week - colds, and a couple of pneumonia cases. The twenty per cent who showed up for work were all smokers.

Inured to the cold through two, three, six times a day exposure all winter long!

[mavfin]

Exactly one week later, while out on a smoke break, I huffed and I puffed and then announced to my fellow puffers that I had to get back upstairs - as most of my department was absent. And they all jumped in and announced that their departments were empty as well. A bit of research turned up an amazing fact: of those present during the fire evacuation about 80 per cent were absent the next week - colds, and a couple of pneumonia cases. The twenty per cent who showed up for work were all smokers.

Inured to the cold through two, three, six times a day exposure all winter long!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

As a former dirty smoker, that's funny.

I quit when nicotine blood vessel constriction contributed to a heart attack at age 34. Scared straight, you might say.

Of course, I don't get sick because it's cold, either. The weather tends to vary a lot here in Missouri, so you never quite know what you're going to run into.

[Tybee]

Everyone loves to jump on smokers when the talk turns to health care. I agree that's it's bad, but here's one that's a pet peeve for me. Internet users. Not the ones where it's a must for your job, but ones that are on the internet 10+ hours a day just posting :( on forums, facebook, etc. Personally, I blame this for the over-weight and for the growing unhealthy going on in the US. Some that do this can't possible be getting out doors for any amount of time, nor eating the right foods, sitting there hour after hour snacking.

Let's hear it for taxing them....

[foxyladi]

The first question is a particularly tough question if this is true:

that is a significant savings.

[karate kid x]

Good debate here. Should employers be able to fine employees for being unhealthy? Also, should the healthy be required to subsidize care for the unhealthy?

Obviously, health care costs are an enormous concern, but I'm inclined to say no to both questions. I do worry about privacy issues with the first and with the second, there probably should be some way to reward the healthy.

I'd love to know what everybody else thinks!



http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/090809-is-it-your-job-to-stay-healthy.html

So long as it's not a breach of contract, employers can do whatever they want to your paycheck.

[foxyladi]

So long as it's not a breach of contract, employers can do whatever they want to your paycheck.

not only can but often do

[CGP]

As suggested above, perhaps incentives/rewards for staying "healthy" are a better way to go than punishing people who engage in health-harming behaviors.

That said, there is a degree to which individual people should be responsible for their own adverse health outcomes if these were directly caused by their own actions.

If someone chooses to drink, smoke, drug & eat themselves into oblivion, their contributions to health insurance premiums or health care taxes should be higher than someone who does none of these things. But I think it would be near impossible to enforce such rules.

[devildog]

If someone chooses to drink, smoke, drug & eat themselves into oblivion, their contributions to health insurance premiums or health care taxes should be higher than someone who does none of these things. But I think it would be near impossible to enforce such rules.

This is a better alternative than taxing the crap out of the wealthy. Great point.

[foxyladi]

This is a better alternative than taxing the crap out of the wealthy. Great point.

defiantly:thumbsup: a better way..