Companies tell employees to slim down or pay up

[elehhhhna]

Companies tell employees to slim down or pay up
Some reward for pounds shed; some charge for obesity


By DANIEL COSTELLO
Los Angeles Times

Looking for new ways to trim the fat and boost workers' health, some employers are starting to make overweight employees pay if they don't slim down.

Others, citing growing medical costs tied to obesity, are offering fit workers lucrative incentives that shave thousands of dollars a year off health care premiums.

In one of the boldest moves yet, an Indiana-based hospital chain last month said it decided on the stick rather than the carrot. Starting in 2009, Clarian Health Partners said it will charge employees up to $30 every two weeks unless they meet weight, cholesterol and blood pressure guidelines the company deems healthy.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5008627.html

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. There is another lawsuit...

Just waiting to happen.

[MADem]

15. Yep--what do they do when they find out that some of those conditions have NOTHING to do with

"lifestyle" in some people....ah, the lawsuits they could bring!

[PeaceNikki]

2. Depending on how this is handled, there could be positive results

We need to all work together to address the obesity problems in this country. The problem is not just with those carrying the extra weight, but society as a whole.


Thomas Dunlap, the county's benefits administrator, said the plan had witnessed a nearly 30 percent drop in claims — and provoked changes in the workplace.

Workers can get free weight reduction classes and there are now regular competitions between departments to see who can lose the most weight.

"When we have birthday parties now," he said, "people don't want sugar-laced cake and candy; they want fruit and deli trays."

Acknowledging that it could be partially the result of the new deductible, he noted that the county didn't have to raise its insurance premiums this year and likely won't next year.

[Occulus]

6. There is no good reason for an employer to charge employees

for being heavy.

This is just hate for fat people. My mom has a cholesterol problem she takes medication for. I wonder if they would charge her, too.

I wonder at DUers who find thinks like this just okey-dokey peachy-keeny.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. I guess that goes into the same place of those from the no-jeans-in-the-WH thread, am I right?

Zero tolerance, mmmkay?

[PeaceNikki]

13. I don't agree with charging them more.

Not at all.

I was a smoker and I was paying higher premiums than my co-workers for 3 years. Significantly higher. And I was angry when I found out that my employer was the one dinging me, NOT the stupid insurance company that I hate with every fiber of my being.

I like the fact that co-workers get together and support one another - that had been a HUGE help in my smoking cessation.

I don't know the answer, but this country and our society needs to help one another deal with it. Our consumption of crap is out of control.


Edited to add: myself included. My BMI and cholesterol levels would likely "cost" me significantly. I am, however working on it. I would love help from my employer in this. Help with weight loss classes, help with reduction of health club expenses. Food co-op discounts and bringing in local farmers for market day...

[MADem]

16. What's next? Charging people because they're ugly or dress badly?

This is fucking IDIOTIC. You don't FINE people--you give them free health club memberships, on site exercise classes, and lots of lettuce and fruit and so on in the employee cafeteria.

[PeaceNikki]

17. Please read my post #13. That's what I am saying.

Employers should offer the assistance without the penalty.

It helps everyone.

[Deja Q]

64. Except it's not being handled for the right reasons.

The actions of corporate America are saying "No longevity, we'll fire and maybe re-hire you for a much lower wage, even if your record is excellent, we prefer giving jobs to people in communist countries said to dislike us, America needs to be competitive again so that means take a pay cut even though Americans are getting poorer while other countries are building middle classes, et cetera".

Why will people give a damn about anything if all they see is doom and gloom?

I am not disagreeing that people need to take better care of themselves, myself included. What I am saying is nothing is adding up. Why be fit? To live off of macaroni cheese because proper fruits, vegetables, and other quality foods cost too much?!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. As we in the health care field are tasked with maintaining the utmost privacy in managing our

patients' health, and rightly so, I wonder at the fact that employers will have that level of access to that extremely private medical information.

A brave new world. MKJ

[alarimer]

48. I don't get that either

How would they get this information and what if you refused to tell them? Right now employers do not have access to your medical records as far as I know.

[madaboutharry]

4. This will be challenged in the courts

This move is highly suspect. What about employees who have diabetes or genetic heart disease? Are they now to become unemployable?

[tsuki]

59. Yes. This is the insurance company's way to tell you that you are

the problem. Rather like "pre-existing" conditions. Amazing that this does not happen in countries with single payer. Divide and conquer.

[asthmaticeog]

5. You know what kills me about this?

If it were government doing this, the right - especially the libertarian right, of course - would be up in arms.

I guess abuse of power and authoritarianism are just dandy so long as it's the corporate sector abusing power. :eyes:

[Occulus]

7. b-b-but

"employers have the right to run their business the way they want to"

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[malaise]

8. It is abuse of power

by corporations.

[pink-o]

22. Yes..but it's corporate abuse that brought us the "obesity epidemic" in the first place!

I've said it before in many threads, with little response from my fellow DU'ers (crickets chirping in my ears) but I'll continue to rant that the reason such a high percentage of Americans are obese is because CORPORATIONS MAKE BEACOUP $$$$$$$ FROM IT!!!! Let me state again: McDonald's happy meals in childhood, dubious nutritional claims from General Mills et al (Whole Grain Lucky Charms?? And people buy it!) parents too busy trying to make a living to be vigilant about their kids' food, junk food ads all over kid's shows--so the kids sit in front of a computer/television screen getting marketed to.

Then comes the young adults who're obese. You got lotsa bucks going to Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, lots more nutritional confusion, since all the magazines print more dubious studies that such-and-such is good for you (studies paid for by the fast-food industry). You got young adults who blame themselves, and turn to more food for comfort, fueling the industry all over again.

And this is the best: if those young adults don't get fit by the time they're in their 50s then here comes Big Pharma. Diabetes, cholestrol, high blood pressure--all require very expensive drugs. Does anyone really really think that medical or drug companies want us to get fit and quit using their products??? A little conflict of interest perhaps??

So all these huge corporations with huge lobbies to Congress have a vested interest in keeping us fat and ill. Now all of a sudden, they realise they have to pay for their employees' health care and so they're once again punishing the victim!

If we want to survive in this land mine of mass-marketing with the potential to destroy our health, we have to take care of ourselves. Trust nothing you're told by "The System" and mainstream health "experts". And most of all, we need to stop blaming ourselves for the consequences of eating a lifetime of poisons. It's not our fault--we've been blitzed by marketing from the time we could turn on the TV.

[malaise]

29. Indeed and then the HMOs and Pharma

cash in on their illnesses.

[KatyaR]

37. It's also "we'll give you more coverage if you live your life the way

we want you to."

My company may be moving to this same type of nonsense next year. Employees already pay next to nothing for next-to-nothing coverage--high deductibles and it seems that you ALWAYS have to fight to get anything paid.

However, my employer is a very conservative company run by two right-wing fundamentalists, so I should have seen this coming. They love to stress how "moral" our company is (which I won't EVEN go into). And we're in the healthcare business, which is even more idiotic. Sometimes I feel it's just a ploy to get us to use our own company's medical services.

I've already told people that if anything dire happens to me, that's it--I'm done. No need to fight for me--it's just not worth it when you know you'll lose in the end.

We're in a sad state of affairs these days.

[AX10]

11. Correct. Libertarians are the biggest corporate whores around.

[bbgrunt]

45. yes. Remember when the courts decided it was okay

for employers to require employees to not even smoke off the job? Or the guy who was fired for being seen drinking beer from a company rival?

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. SEE? First it was the smokers and now they're moving on to overweight people. WHO'S next?

People who drink alcohol? Disabled people? Depressed people? Who will be the next to cost the companies too much $$$ in insurance costs? It could be ANYONE and for ANY disease/illness.

This is sick.

Once that Pandora's Box was opened to go after smokers, that was all she wrote. Now they feel free to go after ANYONE THEY deem too costly/dangerous to others/or not the perfect human specimen/too sickly/too fat/too depressed/drinks too much alcohol...it will go on and on and on.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

20. You know it!

The "human" element must be removed.

[suffragette]

24. Bingo

Agree with your point now and have posted it before myself. Anti-smoking fervor has been used to fundamentally alter how health care is and will be paid for and delivered. It started there and many people were ok with that because they were against smoking. But it's not about smoking, it's about control over behavior both inside and outside the workplace. And it will be applied by people who include in the list of behavior and conditions that which they disagree with and exclude that which they approve.


In addition, there are the serious privacy issues BleedingHeartPatriot brought up in Post #3.
The lines over what is private and what is not are being chipped away at. First, with smoking and weight, which can be verified visually. Now cholesterol and blood pressure, which are identified through testing. And if you refuse the company access to that once private medical data? I imagine you'd have to then pay the highest rate. And who now has access to this data? Very troubling.

[tsuki]

61. It started with drug testing, and the drug free work place. As an

employer, I am supposed to monitor my employee's off duty behavior. No one said anything about it.

[suffragette]

62. Great point

[TahitiNut]

40. "WHO'S next?" Not illegal aliens, that's for sure.

:puke:

I gotta wonder what they do with H-1B visa holders who smoke or are overweight. :eyes:

[tsuki]

60. Do you have diabetes in your family? Ovarian cancer? High

blood pressure? Breast cancer? Moles? Do you sunbathe? Go out in the sun without sunscreen? Without sunglasses? The list will get longer.

[Deja Q]

65. Then why won't they be compassionate and silently snipe everyone

who doesn't fit their idea of 'perfect breed'? Excessive suffering is as disgusting as any other tinfoil theory being mentioned around here; particularly the ones I conjure up.

[TwilightGardener]

12. I prefer the carrot rather than the stick approach--

that said, I wish the population at large (ha ha!) would come to the realization that slimming down, eating better, cutting out the smokes, etc. would really go a LONG way toward reducing our health-care expenditures in this country. Simply put--healthy is MUCH cheaper than sick. I applaud employers who strongly encourage (NOT force) healthy behavior. We can't always blame "the system" for everything--personal responsiblity needs to be a factor too.

[TomInTib]

18. Amen, sister.

While I have been casting about for a new GF, I decided to start eating healthier and walking a bit more.

Even though I was already in pretty good shape, I have somehow lost 15 lbs in the last month or so. But I still drink as much as ever (probably more than anyone I know).

I cannot believe how much better I feel.

Good thing I am a collector of shirts and not of pants because none of my old pants fit any more.

[NotGivingUp]

14. We should all SUE the FRIGGING CORPORATIONS for making so many people fat.

It's their frigging fault for loading up all the food with high fructose corn syrup and msg. They KNOW what these ingredients do to people and they keep putting more and more of it into our food.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

19. More debasing of the American worker.

This is so fucked up on so many levels...

[WinkyDink]

42. More "Hollywoodization" of them.

[treestar]

21. How about anorexia and bulimia

I wonder how much those two diseases cost.

[Missy Vixen]

34. But they're THIN!

If they're thin, everything's fine. Truly. It doesn't matter how they got there or maintain it, they're THIN, and therefore, much more healthy than the fatties...

Julie

[Nay]

23. Want the citizens to slim down? Outlaw/tax heavily junk food.

Wanna know why that'll never happen? Of course -- we'd be hurting a bunch of CORPORATIONS if the govt did that. Never mind that they are already hurting the citizens. It's easier, cheaper, and more fun to blame the citizens (personal responsibility, dontcha know) for:
1. being unable to resist the thousands of hours of advertising devised by some of the most efficient psychologists and social science experts ever produced
2. eating Frankenfoods, when that is all that most restaurants serve
3. thinking sodas and candy must be OK, or they wouldn't SELL THEM IN SCHOOLS, would they?
4. I could go on and on, but I'm too mad.

I forget where I read it, but it is very true that this society is the ONLY society on the face of the planet where people are required to RESIST everything that society tells them if they want to live a sensible human life. Think about it. That's very true. We are constantly urged to eat more, eat this, spend more, buy more stuff, etc., etc., and then we are condemned for doing the very things they encourage us to do!! Is it any wonder we're all schizy, depressed, ADHD, fat?

[LeftishBrit]

25. How are employers supposed to KNOW all these things about people?

Sounds like a real invasion of privacy. I suppose if someone is very overweight it's noticeable; but meeting 'weight, cholesterol and blood pressure guidelines'? And the Right say that putting the government in charge of health care can lead to infringements of personal freedom!!!! Businesses seem to be able to outdo government in this matter any day of the week.

Another issue: what if an employee has a tendency to anorexia? Could not these policies make the problem worse?

I think it's a good idea for businesses to encourage healthy lifestyles by serving healthy food in the cafeteria, providing subsidies for gym and sports club memberships, etc. - though the best way of encouraging a healthy lifestyle may be simply to PAY people adequately. Many people have unhealthy lifestyles because it's all they can afford.

[TahitiNut]

39. Funny 'bout that ... and they say they can't know if an employee is an "undocumented worker"?

How conveeeenient. :eyes:

[davsand]

26. I have mixed feelings about this.

Let me open by saying that I personally think that health care is a RIGHT rather than a commodity to be sold. Health insurance should become a thing of the past in this nation, and THAT is the root of all evil, in my opinion. When we have Universal Health Care corporate policies regarding insurance will no longer rule our lives.

Now, having SAID that, I will also say that I understand that there is data to support the idea that weight loss and smoking cessation would not only benefit people's health, but reduce insurance claims. I think they got that part of it right. What I think they got terribly wrong, however, is the idea that this stuff should be penalized. I'd think it would be FAR more productive to reward the people who DO adopt and maintain healthy lifestyles.

"Quit smoking and stay off smokes for a year and we'll give you a check for $___!!!" "Take off ____ pounds, keep it off for a year and we'll give you $____" "Reduce your blood pressure, cholesterol AND your BMI for one year and we'll fly you to the location of your choice!" (Hell, give them a freakin toaster oven or a new iron--just recognize and support healthy choices...)

Think of it as a sort of Skinnerian approach to public health: Reward the behaviors you want to encourage!


Laura

[Missy Vixen]

36. It's much more fun to treat those who are overweight

as social pariahs.

Fat is a moral issue in this country, not a health issue. Everyone who is fat is considered lazy, lacking in self-control and undesirable as a social or romantic companion. It's one of the few issues that others believe they have every right to moralize and berate others (even complete strangers,) over. I might also mention that it is an appearance issue as well. After all, the fat are considered so repulsive there are people here who openly admit they have no interest in even having a fat friend.

I'm sure this also has nothing at all to do with maximizing the $6 billion per year diet industry, either.

Julie

[bbgrunt]

44. ...and don't forget the study released last week that Fat is seen as socially contagious!

[davsand]

46. A "Poverty Diet " is not always conducive to weight control.

You can eat healthy on a budget--I know it can be done--but I have to tell you I think it costs me more to buy the better quality stuff. We've made serious changes to our diet in the last couple of years and I am spending WAY more to buy leaner meats and fish and fresh stuff that is non-processed.

I have not looked at that study but I wondered when I saw that headline how much attention was paid to socio-economics when they came up with that statement.

Sorry, but I don't run with Paris and Nicole, and frankly you have to expect they are probably not too worried about the price of lean beef or fresh produce...



Laura

[bbgrunt]

43. golly, then all the people who are naturally slim and non-smokers

would be penalized. Would this be an incentive to start smoking so you could get a bonus?

[dsc]

27. As horrible as the main idea of this plan is

I am just as amazed at some of the deductibles. $5000 a year? What use would that be?

[mondo joe]

32. The insured are the new uninsured. With premiums, copays and deductibles out of

reach, they are still effectively uninsured. :-(

[dsc]

51. I can see some copays and deductibles

but I couldn't begin to afford 5k.

[MissB]

28. Contrast this with England's approach

where the National Health Service rewards doctors for helping their patients make positive life changes.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

30. Yep. We are going about this bass-ackwards...

Heavy *sigh*

[cynatnite]

31. So fine them rather than offer incentives to encourage them...

:eyes:

This is beyond stupid.

[Rex]

33. Fascism by any other name.

They throw cheap food at us and all kinds of 'treats' and as consumers we are supposed to do both; consume all their cheap food AND maintain a certain standard to please the bottom line OF BOTH.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. America, look and feel and be a certain way OR ELSE.

[mmonk]

35. Sometimes size is genetic. Real health professionals know that.

Jobs should not be predicated on that unless they are looking for runway models or something.

[Zodiak]

38. My blood cholesterol is 500

I have the French Candian version o fht efamiliar hypercholeterolemia gene.

It costs me hundreds of dollars a month for drug therapy, and the drugs only bring it down....not to "normal" levels.

And if I worked for this hospital, they would CHARGE me because of my genetic condition?

Fuck that...this is employee harassment and rather fascist. Whoever thought of this idea would be more at home working for Kim Jong Il in North Korea. But all of this free market bullshit we have bought hook, line, and sinker over the last 20 years has allowed American to turn over all of their rights as employees to thse fascists.

It is for policies like this that I think we need to end corporate personhood forever. As far as I am concerned, every American has a right to gainful employment free of harassment. We've earned it after all of the fucking abuse we've had put up with for far too long.

[WinkyDink]

41. Sounds like discrimination to me. Who says THESE employees cost more in health premiums?

My uncles are beanpoles, and they have fake hips, high B.P., allergies, etc.

[Individualist]

47. First they came for the smokers, but I was not a smoker, so I did not speak out

Next they came for the overweight, but I was not overweight, so I did not speak out....
Then they came for me.

[Bluebear]

49. Clarian Health "Partners"...SHAME on you.

Did you ask all the insured what they thought, since they are your "partners"?

[BlooInBloo]

50. Anyone who's ok with smokers being treated this way should have no problem with this.

[GreenPartyVoter]

63. How do you inhale secondary fat?

[Mugu]

52. Maybe the time has come to outlaw all-you-can-eat buffets.

Perhaps levy huge taxes on any meals that are over 100 calories and make people that eat meat do it outdoors so the rest of us don't have to smell it. Maybe ration cards issued to limit restaurant dining to once a month unless you can prove need.

My dad resided at an assisted living home the last couple of years of his life. When I went to visit, I always noticed that there were a few smokers, but no fat people. Maybe management simply discriminated and would not allow fat people to live there.

Regards, Mugu

[ikojo]

55. Some nursing homes will not take overweight

people because they fear the staff will not be able to lift them from their beds. They already don't hire enough staff.

[Mugu]

56. This was a assisted living place,

and they would only take people that could get around without aid.

Regards, Mugu

[ikojo]

53. The war on smokers is almost complete so begins

the war on fat people. I saw this coming in the early 1990s. The same thing they said about smokers are now being said about fat people.

Figures an insurance company would go the way of punishment rather than reward. I'd like to see what the CEO of Clarian Health Partners looks like.

[elehhhhna]

58. here ya go -- he's got a bit of a double chin, imo --

[ikojo]

54. Here comes Godwin.....

You know there was another society, not so long ago, that was OBSESSED with the body...they went down to defeat in 1945 but much of their philosophy remains intact...

You know who they are......


This society wanted a super human (ubermensch) and showed off their representations at an Olympics attended by the dictator of said society.

[Raejeanowl]

57. This Is A Little Backwards

I'd previously heard about the United Health Care proposal, which disturbs me even more considering how deeply insurers are already into our private health issues; certainly, to the point of trying to insert themselves between you and your physician and pre-emptively control ALL of the decision-making. Already being in the business of denying coverage to maximize profit, rather than facilitating the provision of appropriate health care to their customers, I suppose they wish to nip most of the procedural appeals in the bud by eliminating them before recommendations can even be raised.

Don't get too complacent about this trend because you don't happen to fall into one of these golden categories!

What do these employers propose to do (if not yet, then soon) to the drinkers, the drinking drivers especially, the drug users, chronic insomniacs, unsafe sex practitioners, the 100@ sedentary, the chronically constipated with low-fiber diets, and anything else that carries an inherent health or safety risk or medical characteristics that might impact in some fashion directly or indirectly on the job, via your health and fitness? How are they going to deal with obese employees suffering a handicap related or not to the obesity, and do they care about any difference between an occasional smoker vs. someone with a three-pack daily habit?

Are they going to invoke fines against all people having any of the known risk factors, or are they just grabbing for the low-hanging fruit of observable behaviors and characteristics (when they think them insupportable and the general populace unsympathetic to them)? What comes next: higher rates against African Americans because we "know" they suffer more heart disease? More costs for drinkers, drug users and male homosexuals because we "know" they suffer more from certain deadly diseases?

Getting beyond some of the blatantly discriminatory possibilities, there is the practical reality that, despite medical care and scrupulous lifestyle regimens, some people will never have perfect cholesterol, blood sugar, heart rates, and blood pressure every day. How will all of this human variety be adjudicated? Who will be left to fit the paradigm?

Any business opting for the (SELECTIVELY) punitive approach against the health status of their employees might just as well consider budgeting all of that lovely revenue from collected fines toward keeping the legal department afloat in a sea of incoming litigation.

[Blackhatjack]

66. This is the opening salvo to Insurance Companies using genetic profiles to exclude/limit coverage...

If the Insurance Company can charge the employer a higher premium for so-called 'conditions' and not call it a 'genetic pre-disposition' then the employer can be pressured to make these kinds of punitive decisions --which naturally leads to the employee either leaving or paying an unfair share of the employer's overall insurance contribution because the Insurer couched its increased premiums charged as a status rather than a genetic predisposition.

So reconsider whether you want the Insurance Companies to have access to all your medical records, including any genetic testing you have had done.

We are entering territory where genetic predisposition discrimination is becoming public. And employers are buying into it simply because of the monetary pressure placed on them by the Insurance Industry.