This week we were informed that as a Baylor Heath Care System employee, you must submit a personal health screening including: BMI, fasting glucose, BP and cholesterol signed by your physician, as part of a "wellness program."
Ok, fine whatever. BUT if you don't, you will be charged $25 per paycheck!
In addition, Baylor will no long be hiring tobacco users. In addition to your drug screening, you will be screened for nicotine and denied the position if tested positive.
This was on the front page of the Metro section in the Dallas Morning News today, and it has a lot of people up in arms.
No problem. Unions do tend to have a bad image sometimes, and for good reason. I worked for General Motors for 21 years before becoming a nurse and some of the cons to having a union have really bugged me too. To my way of thinking though, unions are a necessary evil, and I shudder to think where we'd be if we were without them entirely.
Yeah- I do see where manufacturing plants need safety issues and back up. I got a horrible image of teachers' unions when growing up....they'd know the contract was up before classes started, and ALWAYS (more years than not while growing up) chose to strike causing up to 2 weeks of delays in getting the year started. So, us kids would be waiting daily, for news about whether or not we were going to school or not. I was the kid of educators (high school principal and a private elementary school teacher) and I hated being held hostage by a bunch of adults who CHOSE to not take care of business- using the start of school as a pawn. Made me sick.
Here are some scenarios that really have not been addressed:
1. Nancy Nurse lives with Bob the Builder and has been working for "X" hospital for five years now. Nancy has never touched a cigarette a day in her life, but her husband Bob the Builder smokes like he has stock in the tobacco company. Nancy submits her blood samples and tests positive for nicotine, yet, she does not smoke. What does the company do then? Charge her extra for not divorcing her husband, or being able to convince him to stop smoking? What if she gets fired for elevated nicotine levels and going through several "smoking cessacion" classes without any change in her nicotine levels? Hmmmm.....
2. Nancy Nurse was so desparate to keep her job, that she chose it over her husband, and gave Bob the Builder the boot. Although she now tests 'clean' for tobacco, the stress of the divorce and all that laundry and housecleaning to get the smoke smell out has finally taken their toll - her blood pressure and cholesterol is through the roof, and she has gained about 120 pounds in the meantime because now that the smoke smell is gone, food is just the ticket to take Bob's place in her life. Does the company start charging her for elevated b/p and chol readings?
I've mentioned this before, but my husband's firm eliminated group health insurance coverage options for tobacco users. They had to, or there would be no insurance for any of his 300 employees. They would have cut everyone's hours to 32/week so they would not have had to provide benefits at all. Right now, BMI, BG and lipids are not being targeted by their carrier, but if/when they are, they will have to make the necessary changes to keep providing a benefits package, or eliminate it and leave all those people with fewer hours, lower income, and zero coverage. I'm sure ALL of them would chose to comply with health promotion directives rather than lose everything. It is just reality under the current health care system.
I've worked for two hospital systems(HCA, MEMORIAL HERMANN) that require these screening within 30days of employment and especially if you are planning on signing up for their insurance plans.
Specializes in Cardiology, Research, Family Practice.
I'm not saying I agree with it, on principal.
With health care costs spiraling out of control, it's not surprising.
If you could do something similar to decrease your own household expenses wouldn't you do it.
Yes, and by that reasoning it makes sense to perform these screenings for use in determining insurance premiums. I don't want to be offensive, but a high risk lifestyle (e.g. using tobacco and/or being obese) places a disproportionate financial burden on the system. Those costs are distributed to everyone else, and therefore it is only fair for those individuals with modifiable behavioral risk factors to either reduce their risk or pay a higher premium. And let's not fool ourselves, hyperlipidemia and hypertension (and obviously BMI) are most often associated with obesity and other modifiable behaviors.
That said, I do not think employers should be privy to my federally-protected health information. The insurance company can see the information, but the employer should not. Furthermore, having the money deducted from the paycheck is just plain dumb. If this is about the cost of insuring high risk employees, then raise their premiums...unless it's about something else like image? As for hiring/firing decisions, the only "protected" classes are race, gender, religion, Americans with disabilities...
For a company to decide whom to hire based off of BMI versus qualifications is wrong pure and simple. A person's weight no more equals capability to do one's job effectively than age, natural hair color, height, etc. and it's a slippery slope to say that it does. You never know, if companies continue to push the way they are there may be NO "protected" groups when it comes to employment one day and when it happens we'll have only ourselves to blame for allowing them an inch to begin with.
It has nothing to do with being "entitled" to have a job when companies are using factors unrelated to job skill to hire, fire, and control people.
Husband employer requires bmi, chol, bp, etc each year prior to health insurance sign ups. Get certain amt off premiums for good results. Get nurses calling at intervals for bad results. Nurses supposed to tell you how to get your results wnl. Its a pain as far as I'm concerned. Also have questionaire regarding exercise, eating habits etc. Getting more and more intrusive all the time.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
Wow, talk about being up in your business! BUT, I can see their point: smokers, obese persons, hypertensive clients--they run the risk of raising the insurance premiums being paid by the corporation.
I am okay with requiring higher insurance premiums for smokers, obese people, etc. I am not okay with hospitals basing hiring decisions (or firing) due to legal activities that employees engage in during their personal hours.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
For a company to decide whom to hire based off of BMI versus qualifications is wrong pure and simple. A person's weight no more equals capability to do one's job effectively than age, natural hair color, height, etc.
That's not what they're doing and it's not what anyone is cliaming they're doing.
xtxrn, ASN, RN
4,267 Posts
Yeah- I do see where manufacturing plants need safety issues and back up. I got a horrible image of teachers' unions when growing up....they'd know the contract was up before classes started, and ALWAYS (more years than not while growing up) chose to strike causing up to 2 weeks of delays in getting the year started. So, us kids would be waiting daily, for news about whether or not we were going to school or not. I was the kid of educators (high school principal and a private elementary school teacher) and I hated being held hostage by a bunch of adults who CHOSE to not take care of business- using the start of school as a pawn. Made me sick.
Thanks again :)