As a nurse I absolutely see the value of Wellness programs, and preventative medicine. If we are able to coach or give incentives to enhance wellness then intuitively it seems we will save money and people's health down the road.
However, to implement such plans the insurers must dig into people's private lives.
A way to strike a balance would be ideal.
According to this article:
"Under the proposed rule, a wellness program is considered voluntary if employees aren't required to participate, it doesn't deny or limit health insurance coverage if people don't participate, and it doesn't retaliate against or otherwise interfere with employees who don't participate."
The original CVS proposal was extremely invasive and mandatory (conditional for employment). The employer would have access to all the data and the wellness program would set goals that employees must achieve.
CVS cashier Roberta Watterson claims the company made her disclose personal information, including her weight and level of sexual activity, threatening to charge her $600 a year if she refused. (Source: Huffington Post)
The original CVS proposal was extremely invasive and mandatory (conditional for employment). The employer would have access to all the data and the wellness program would set goals that employees must achieve.
Totally missing the point.
I guess a medical FICO score scares nobody.......
It seems to me you missed the multiple times that the article said the information would be sent to a THIRD PARTY, not the employer.
The medical FICO score would be meaningless. What would it actually do? You will still be able to walk into any hospital and obtain treatment. If anything, a medFICO score could be a tool for case managers to be more effective for their patients. But what do I know? I took off my hat to sleep last night.
Eta: they are bending their wording in what you quoted. Incentive programs give a discount off the insurance premium. It sounds to me what the incentive program would do for her is give her $50 a month off her bill if she participates. If you want to view it as forcing her to pay $600 more per year if she doesn't, that's your right. An employee who takes active measures to remain healthy will cost an employer less money per year. They are incentivizing this knowledge by giving employees who do try to stay healthy a discount off insurance. The employee has to prove that they are taking those measures. If that makes you feel paranoid (ahem...my apologies... "Uncomfortable") then you can go hang out with conspiracy chicken. He looks lonely anyway.
The original CVS proposal was extremely invasive and mandatory (conditional for employment). The employer would have access to all the data and the wellness program would set goals that employees must achieve.
Totally missing the point.
I guess a medical FICO score scares nobody.......
CVS's wellness program was not actually mandatory, employees who choose to take part and lower their risks of incurring high costs get a discount on their insurance, which seems totally appropriate. I have no problem with insurers or the purchasers of insurance encouraging people to keep our healthcare costs down, and actually would argue that it should be mandatory for them to make some effort to reduce our healthcare costs.
"MedFico" scores that predict someone's ability to pay don't actually exist, hospitals have actually always used regular credit scores to predict whether someone will pay their bills.
FICO does have a service that predicts medication compliance, which insurers, hospitals, Physicians, etc can use to implement interventions to help alleviate the problems that lead to medicaiton non-adherence (inability to physically get the medications for instance) which is also a very good thing.
The original proposed CVS wellness program was mandatory. The threat of lawsuits caused them to back off.
It seems to me you missed the multiple times that the article said the information would be sent to a THIRD PARTY, not the employer.
CVS's wellness program was not actually mandatory, employees who choose to take part and lower their risks of incurring high costs get a discount on their insurance, which seems totally appropriate. I have no problem with insurers or the purchasers of insurance encouraging people to keep our healthcare costs down, and actually would argue that it should be mandatory for them to make some effort to reduce our healthcare costs.
Do you think that the employer is not going to get that info? How does a 3rd party charge for that if not showing results? It is very common for large employers to be partially self insured with health insurance. They have the legal right to ask for loss runs. The loss runs do not show name, SSN, etc., but they do show location (store #), Dx, treatment, etc. The same is true of wellness programs. Can they not figure out who is who? BMI: 40 Dx: Diabetes. Store: #389. Simple, the 250 pound manager at store....
Do you really trust your employer that much? I guess seeing how well nurses are treated by big corporations the size of CVS. Just saying... I would not be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat.
Eta: they are bending their wording in what you quoted. Incentive programs give a discount off the insurance premium. It sounds to me what the incentive program would do for her is give her $50 a month off her bill if she participates. If you want to view it as forcing her to pay $600 more per year if she doesn't, that's your right. An employee who takes active measures to remain healthy will cost an employer less money per year. They are incentivizing this knowledge by giving employees who do try to stay healthy a discount off insurance. The employee has to prove that they are taking those measures. If that makes you feel paranoid (ahem...my apologies... "Uncomfortable") then you can go hang out with conspiracy chicken. He looks lonely anyway.
NOT properly staffing a unit "will cost an employer less money per year" also. Point well taken.
The original proposed CVS wellness program was mandatory. The threat of lawsuits caused them to back off.
Do you think that the employer is not going to get that info? How does a 3rd party charge for that if not showing results? It is very common for large employers to be partially self insured with health insurance. They have the legal right to ask for loss runs. The loss runs do not show name, SSN, etc., but they do show location (store #), Dx, treatment, etc. The same is true of wellness programs. Can they not figure out who is who? BMI: 40 Dx: Diabetes. Store: #389. Simple, the 250 pound manager at store....
Do you really trust your employer that much? I guess seeing how well nurses are treated by big corporations the size of CVS. Just saying... I would not be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat.
NOT properly staffing a unit "will cost an employer less money per year" also. Point well taken.
The original proposed CVS wellness program was never mandatory, the employee who suing described as being "essentially" mandatory since to get the discount you had to take part (which would seem pretty obvious that you can't get a discount if you don't meet the requirements of the discount). Under the ACA wellness programs cannot be mandatory.
Personally, I'm all for disconnecting employers and health insurance, although there's unfortunately very little desire as far as popular opinion goes in doing away with that connection, at least if you look at current proposals to replace the ACA.
So long as employers are the ones purchasing health insurance, it only makes sense that they should take some responsibility in trying to keep those costs down, and encouraging people to be more healthy is an obvious way to do that.
The original corporate proposal was mandatory. Employees in the corporate headquarters (i.e. rank-and-file workers such as administrative assistants) told their bosses [/COLOR](i.e. executive class) they would not participate, sue, quit, etc. They ran it past legal who said even if it was legal, it would be a PR nightmare. This original proposal was modified to include incentives/penalties.
I agree that if employers are providing insurance, then they have a right to try to keep the cost down. But what about when the employee pays part of the premium? What rights do they have as a consumer?
Again, do you honestly trust that big companies will not take advantage of the situation?
Why do we need the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? Because, if left to their own devices, companies would never hire these people.
ixchel,
I am NOT trolling you.
My whole point here is "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (-Baron John Dalberg-Acton)
Gone are the days of Sam Walton buying American made goods and caring about his employees. As part of the sales process (selling of wellness programs) is the return on investment (ROI) that the wellness company shows the potential corporate client. Since the savings and benefits of the wellness program is only an estimate, they also sell that the company has all that data which is a concrete benefit.
Anyone who thinks that a big company is instituting a wellness program because the company cares about it's employees is a fool! They may do it to save money on health insurance, attract/keep good employees, gain access to employee health data, PR, etc., or a combination.
There was a recent case where a Mc Donald's franchise required all employees to be paid by debit card. Beyond the card saving the company money (not printing and distributing checks), the franchise received a kickback for each debit card. The franchise found a way of making money off their employees. (Source: The Huffington Post) This harkens back to the days of "the company store."
Ford calculated the value of a human life in the famous "Ford Pinto case."
...Ford used a calculation called a Cost/Benefit analysis to justify their actions in not recalling all of the Pinto's from 1971 to 1976. This Cost/Benefit analysis weighed both the cost and the benefit to society and to Ford Motor Company if they were to recall every car that was defective. If the numbers turned out in Ford's favor, that is, if the cost outweighed the societal benefit, they were justified in not recalling the Pinto's because they would be spending more money than what would affect society. At the time, NHTSA valued a human life to be worth about $200,000...
...The total value of human life per fatality was $200,725. Rounding the number down, Ford came up with a Cost/Benefit analysis. The benefits accounted for 180 burn deaths prevented, 180 serious burn injuries prevented, and 2,100 burned vehicles prevented. If those numbers are multiplied for $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, the final benefit, or amount of money Ford would have to pay if they did not recall any of their vehicles, to society was $49.5 million. Following is the Cost analysis for the recall of Fords Vehicles: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks. For recall it would cost $11 per car, and $11 per truck. After the math was done, Ford would end up spending $137 million on recalls. As stated earlier, Ford was justified by not recalling their affected vehicles because the amount of money they would have to spend on recalls far outweighed the amount of money they would spend on compensation to customers for death, injury, or harmed cars... (Source:)
"
," a 1980 film released by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), that looks at the history of occupational health and safety in the U.S. from the Industrial Revolution to the 1970s. Then there is the issue of equal pay based on gender, and the list goes on.
On the other side, look what the unions did to the garment industry, auto industry, steel industry (just to name a few) in this country.
I don't have the answer, but there needs to be some sort of balance between employee and employer.
Let me ask the following:
Does anyone dispute that the nursing profession is being made needlessly difficult and hard to do; with staffing shortages, more duties, more paperwork, longer hours, lower pay, less benefits, etc?
Does anyone dispute that these are due to big companies focussing on profit and saving a penny/making a penny anywhere or anyhow that they can (even if on the backs of their employees)?
Finally, as part of your employer's wellness program, would you really want to disclose your sexual practices?
ixchel
4,547 Posts
My family has begun preparations. The thread may continue.