Hospital to charge employees who smoke

catlynLPN · Jun 23, 2007

If everyone had to submit to testing for every imaginable disease and test negative there would be no sense in having insurance.

So they start out with smoking and overweight, what's next?

They'll test you for every imaginable disease and tendency for diseases and charge you for each one?

Sounds like a way just to get more money.

What a sorry way to treat employees.

If I lived there I would be looking to move, but I guess that would make the insurance people happy....the higher risk employees would be leaving the state. Or would it? Less people equals less money.

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Jun 23, 2007

It's all about MONEY:

Also, in 2009, Clarian workers will submit to health screenings that will take weight, cholesterol and blood pressure into account. People deemed to have issues in these areas will pay higher insurance premiums, Sanchez reported

How about those who drink case beer on WE....diabetics who don't check blood sugar???? Where does this intrusion into personal health STOP?

aerorunner80, ADN, BSN, MSN, APRN · Jun 23, 2007

The article says that it will upcharge the people who work for the system who have the health plan so it sounds like people who don't have their insurance don't have to worry.

Quite frankly I really think it's a good idea. Think about your average patient. A lot of what they go through would not happen if they took care of themselves. 90% of the people that I see come through the unit I work in are obese and have obese-related health issues that are, for the most part preventable. Let's face it, the pepople who do have HTN (which can lead to heart failure, liver failure, kidney failure), high cholesterol that is controllable (increased ischemia and MI risk), and excess body fat (DM and all of its complications) are going to be utilizing (in general) healthcare more than the person who has a normal BP, normal chol, and keep themselves at a reasonable weight/bf%.

Genetics aside from this debate. I'm talking about totally preventable conditions.

I really think it's about time because I bust my butt doing all I can do to keep myself healthy and yet I still end up paying the same premium for the person who doesn't take care of themselves and now has health related issues to it.

If the debate were turned around to say that people who have a normal BP, normal CHOL level, and a normal bf%............I don't think we'd even be having this debate. I think it's upsetting because this company is pointing out the flaws in the American society and we as Americans don't like that much. If they had reworded it as above, I don't think there would be an issue.

Jolie, BSN · Jun 23, 2007

I really think it's about time because I bust my butt doing all I can do to keep myself healthy and yet I still end up paying the same premium for the person who doesn't take care of themselves and now has health related issues to it.

Have you ever consumed alcohol? Sunbathed? Engaged in sexual activity outside of a monogamous relationship? Experimented with illicit drugs? Gone skydiving? Traveled to a foreign country with endemic diseases? Ridden a motorcycle? Failed to keep a yearly physical appointment? Missed a dose of prescribed medication? Eaten a Big Mac? Ridden in a car with an impaired driver? Forgotten to buckle your seatbelt? Declined a recommended vaccine? Enjoyed steak tar-tar? If so, you have risk factors yourself.

It is fortunate that you are currently healthy. That may change tomorrow, because of a risk factor buried deep in your past. (A sunburn when you were a child, exposure to hepatitis that you are unaware of, a "silent" STD, a breast lump that would have been picked up on mammogram if you had remembered to make the appointment, an unknown family history of high cholesterol, etc.) The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk out over a large number of healthy and not-so-healthy members, making the best use of funds to pay the costs of healthcare for everyone. If you decide that others with known risk factors are not worthy of being part of your insurance group, your premiums may temporarily decline, until you need to start utilizing services for your own health problems. Then the younger, healthier members will want to get rid of you.

People have the tendency not to want to pay for services that they deem to be made necessary by the poor habits of others. But if you object to paying for costs incurred by another member who is overweight, you have to accept that someone else will want to deny coverage for your services related to skin cancer caused by your sunburn when you were 10 years old. If we are not willing to share risk and cover each other, then we need to carry individual insurance.

MuddaMia · Jun 23, 2007

:yeahthat: Fabulous Post Jolie!

MsLady06 · Jun 23, 2007

But that is not the same as charging someone for smoking, or having HTN, etc. The hospital has the right to forbid anyone from smoking on campus but they do not have the right to forbid it at all.
And fining someone for being hypertensive/overweight/etc is way out of line.

Yes it is out of line because if you look at what they consider obese than majority will be in trouble. I think your considered obese at about 180 pounds. I understand no smoking at work but not on personal time and off premises. Hell I dont want anyone smoking in my house either...please walk wayyyy down the street.

Raeth · Jun 23, 2007

I'm not saying this is great, but it's not the end of the world either. I have always felt that as a healthcare worker that I needed to set a positive example. I'd feel like a moron telling someone they needed to quit smoking and then running outside to light up. Or even worse is when healthcare workers avoid discussing those issues (smoking, obesity, exercise) with patients because they feel like they don't have any room to talk.

Maybe a better idea would be to pay bonuses to employees who don't smoke, maintain their weight, bp, etc... I dunno.

Even if it's misguided I think it's nice to see someone actually trying to do something about these problems, even if it's for their own financial gain. Taking advantage of the nurtitionist and exercise programs they offer couldn't hurt anyone... nor could it to stop smoking. I just think it would have a much more positive appeal if it was rewarding people for doing those things, and rewarding those who already do those things... might be enough motivation to get some people off the couch. Getting paid to workout sounds like a wonderful thing to me.

nurse-to-be1000 · Jun 23, 2007

"Maybe a better idea would be to pay bonuses to employees who don't smoke, maintain their weight, bp, etc... I dunno.
Even if it's misguided I think it's nice to see someone actually trying to do something about these problems, even if it's for their own financial gain. Taking advantage of the nurtitionist and exercise programs they offer couldn't hurt anyone... nor could it to stop smoking. I just think it would have a much more positive appeal if it was rewarding people for doing those things, and rewarding those who already do those things... might be enough motivation to get some people off the couch. Getting paid to workout sounds like a wonderful thing to me."
I agree with Raeth. I know I have read about companies that offer this type of incentive. I think it is great. If we start punishing people for having bad results for cholesterol testing, mammography, etc, people won't go and then diseases will not be diagnosed and able to be treated early.
As someone who is overweight, I have used the healthcare system an exhorbanant amount but my use of the healthcare system was not due to my weight, actually my weight increased due to the chronic health problem that made it difficult to exercise.

pkapple · Jun 23, 2007

Oh dear..seems I remember we as nurses have to be very careful not to make a 500 pound pt feel "bad" when we about kill ourselves turning them. And didn't they make obesity a disability.....oooh the lawsuits will be so much fun, and since HTN is more prevalent in young men of black/african descent maybe Al Sharpton could help out!!!!

This is getting out of hand, yes smoking is preventable, but like the sunburn when you were 10, the smoke and pollution yuo inhaled from birth won't go away!

P_RN, ADN, RN · Jun 23, 2007

this sounds prejudicial to a lot of people. if the $5 were going toward building a smoking area, then maybe. i've never smoked, but both my parents did, i take etoh once in a blue moon, about 40# overweight, (my desired weight-not the met life tables) have great choles. numbers, bp perfect range......

sheesh.......hospitals are out for the image.....and they're going to get it with this half-brained plan......they will have no staff pretty soon. *i* wouldn't want to work there.

purple1953reading · Jun 23, 2007

The first problem is that as employess many of us DO NOT have HEALTH INSURANCE, these self funded programs, are just that. The money collected as premiums, is invested, and they RENT a network of providers from a true health insurance. IN Missouri, where I live, these programs are NOT subject to the state insurance codes,etc. THE ONLY way to address them or their decisions is in a federal court. For instance, here if you are involved in an accident and don't have MEdicare or Medicaid, then, by law reagarding health ins., you are entitled to collect from the car ins. and the health ins. BUT because they programs are self funded and NOT health ins. you don't. They get to make their own rules, and all you can do is sue them.

In addition, what is to stop the companies themselves from doing the same thing, as they consider the employess for the "insurance".Medicaid in Mo stopped paying for extendedn PT, braces, electric w/c, etc, and it only took one year of threats, etc to get them to start new legislation to give back all they had limited, and more. IF there is any group of people, where there are people who are taking advantage of the health care system, it would be these in state funded Medicaid, as in called in MO. IF employees can be subject to these rules, then why would state programs not be able to do the same thing? BECAUSE they are protected as the state 1. GIVES them everything, and everytime they try to make an adjustment to keep the state from growing broke, they get threatened by the "poor, disabled,etc." and the threats of prejudice, etc. stop them

Several years ago a hospital here in my town, tried the same thing. They switched ins. companies, NO matter how long you worked there, the new co. evaluated each employee separately, and set their contriution to ins. separately. IF you had any chronic conditions,smoked , drank alcohol, had too many kids, were overweight, had genetic or long term disease, your premiums were much higher. ONLY one employee had her premiums lowered, and she had just had a yearly physical with invasive testing, includin angiogram, upper and lower GI, mammo, gyn, everything, and MRI of back,etc, and all was negative. THEY lowered hers. Little dd they know , as they did not screen the spouses, hers was a chronic alcoholic, and was near death before he sought treatment.

THere will be no stop or limit to the conditions they will be able to come up with. That s why I have always supported protecting our private health records from ins. companies, etc. They can research each and everyone of us. Even a TKR, might indicate you would need another, etc. If one of your children was treated for an ear infection or sore throat, the can eliminate anything assoc. with the ear , throat, respiratory system as being covered for up to 2 years, or however long they decide.

Why not prevent physcians, and nurses and so forth from being nurses,drs, PT, if they smoke, drink, eat in excess, etc? That won't be far behind.

I as given MRSA as a post surgery infection, from the hospital where I was a patient, that would work against me, I am sure.

How many times have you seen an obese dr, who is huffing and puffing as he can't get his breath, tell a patient he won't do surgery till they lose weight?

If these conditions are a risk for ins, what about overtime? Should an obese nurse tax their health by taking on longer or more shifts. How about pregnancy, would it not be covered if the patient s obese, or smokes, or is even injured because they participated in something that results in a problem, maybe preterm birth. Would those babies not be covered?

There is no end to what could happen. I realize that health ins rates are out of this world,but it is MONEY , greed, and the amounts they have increasing billed for the same service. Even DRG payments by ins companies, allow for benefits to both the companies and the hospital. Hospitals pad the bills, and ins try to pay less, while increasing premiums.

None of this is for the benefit of the patient, employee, it is all business. States have passed mandatory laws that force employers to offer ins to employess. Those benefits are actually considered as part of your pay.

I knew when I first read this post, that those who are able, and those who enjoy and those who are even addicted to a "healthy, exercise / diet oriented lifestyle" would jump on this as saying they maintain their bodies, and health why can't everybody else. FEW of these have ever been overweight, etc. and don't really understand the sacrifices of losing 100 pounds. I don't either, but have seen the struggles of friends who finally have by pass, and three years down the road are bigger than in the beginning

Laws are meant to protect us, but don't always work that way. This could open the door to "these Insurance co" not paying if you were in a MVA and did not wear your seat belt. The place to start is to eliminate these self funded programs, and at least get back to federally controlled and state regulated real insurance companies, not self funded programs.

Really look at your health coverage, and see what you have. In the past two years, many of the bigger companies, including Aetna, for one, have gone to self funding. IF you have this program you do NOT really have ins, as it is not subject to state jursidiction.You are part of a rental agreeent between the company and whoever they chose to rent from. In the bigger cities, there is so much more competition that they are accepting less and less in drg payments, and being part of a larger and larger group of providers, due to competition. Ins.companies already regulate the meds we can take,or we have to pay bigger co pays, or the diffrence in cost, to use the meds we want, that are not on the approved list. The get to decide what procedures to approve, and who can and cannot be admitted, have PT, and how long. Whether an MRI is needed to help with diagnosis? IT never ends.

This is a bad situation,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, We need to stop further control, and invasion of our personal life and choices. I choose not smoke, drink, drive drunk, etc. but I want to be able to choose.

SouthernLPN2RN, MSN, RN, APRN, NP · Jun 23, 2007

Oh heck no! I think this is entirely offensive! Genetics and other factors play major roles in all the listed issues (except smoking). This is just plain out wrong. :nono: :madface: