Pennsylvania Hospital Will No Longer...

[Kathi OD]

It's is not soley about how well you do your job. Cost does factor into it. The hospital has been totally upfront about the reasons. Regardless to what we deem acceptable, smokers cost more money health care wise than non smokers. that has been proven. Same premise on life insurance. smokers are charged more because statistically they are unhealthy.

Those of you who are using healthcare costs as a reason for the policy should note that the article posted quotes the Senior Vice President for Human Resources as saying,

"While some may view this as a bold move, our organization feels strongly that promoting a healthier workplace benefits everyone."

He never mentions healthcare costs to the hospital.

If they are using healthcare costs as a reason, then they aren't being upfront about the real reason for the change in hiring practices.

 

[FireDancer]

Those of you who are using healthcare costs as a reason for the policy should note that the article posted quotes the Senior Vice President for Human Resources as saying, He never mentions healthcare costs to the hospital.

If they are using healthcare costs as a reason, then they aren't being upfront about the real reason for the change in hiring practices.

Well, I think that the way in which a "healthier workplace benefits everyone" is multifaceted. One of those ways is a lower co-pay because of lower healthcare costs. Another is higher profit (assuming revenue is unchanged of course) in relation to those costs and all the benefits that come from a more profitable employer. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I believe that in many states it is illegal for employers to obtain your medical records when considering you for employment. Indeed, most group health insurance plans don't have pre-existing condition requirements (and may not be allowed to in many states).

Believe me, I think there should be laws baring health information being shared with employers, I was under the impression HIPAA handled that.

This is what it comes down to for me:

• An employer can use any criteria not prohibited by law to preclude employment
• Smoking is habit that is 100% controllable and increases the statistical likeliness of illness and poor health, even if it is years down the line.
• Part of the cost not only to a business but to all the employees via their co-pay is the cost of their healthcare
• An employer has a right to do everything they can (legally) to lower their healthcare costs.

 

[OceanAnnie]

The bottom line is when anyone else is footing all or part of the bill they have a vested interest in its cost and the factors that determine its cost. It can all be eliminated if you self insure as opposed to have your employer do it.

My point is it's new territory for employers, that has a lot of room to grow. I'm not a smoker, but the writing is on the wall. It's beginning to sound a lot like health care reform.

 

[Metro West]

My point is it's new territory for employers, that has a lot of room to grow. I'm not a smoker, but the writing is on the wall. It's beginning to sound a lot like health care reform.

 

[MerMom60_94]

That is pretty much what I was getting at. Health Insurance is not really any different from car or flood insurance in many ways.

Someone living on the banks of the Mississippi will pay a higher rate for flood insurance then I would because I don't live on a flood plain. It doesn't perfectly predict who will have a flood and who won't because there are other variables but with the available information they make a best guess estimate and quote me a rate that will cost me more over its life then they expect to pay out.

An 18 year old male pays higher insurance then a 40 year old female (all other things being equal like same vehicle and zip code) because statistically they are more likely to cost the insurer money. A particulare 18 year old could drive better then a particular 40 year old but over a large population it will not hold out that way.

There is a weird view of insurance often, especially health insurance. It is a business that exists to make a profit, just like every other service industry. They will use all the information they have to attempt to (imperfectly) predict the costs associated with a customer and make sure to charge a premium high enough that they make a profit on them. This won't happen for all customers just like all retail customers don't necessarily make a retailer a profit but it is what any company aims for.

That being said though, Frank, I would go along with variable rates for health insurance based on individual risk. If the health insurance industry wants to charge more to smokers, or more to drinkers, or more to overweight people that would be more comparable to what you are saying. My concern is with employers who want to dictate the lifestyles of their employees and tell them what they can do in their own free time outside of work.

Frankly, I think if our goal is to eliminate smoking our focus should be on the tobacco companies and those who sell cigarettes, moreso than the smoker. Most people pick this addiction up at a very young age - before they are adults - and then they are hooked. Why not make the tobacco business an undesirable business to be in with the goal of making products less available to consumers.

 

[2binak]

I have severe allergies & allergy-induced asthma and have been in the hospital and been worked on by a nurse who had smoked right before seeing me and I had a reaction, so I applaud this policy. In fact, when I was pregnant with DD, I made a comment to DH that if the nurse assigned to me was a smoker, I was going to ask to for another nurse because I didn't want to go through that again. Hospital workers are in very close contact with patients throughout the day and the residual smoke left on their clothes & in their hair can really cause harm to their patients.

 

[FergieTCat]

... delete

 

[FireDancer]

That being said though, Frank, I would go along with variable rates for health insurance based on individual risk. If the health insurance industry wants to charge more to smokers, or more to drinkers, or more to overweight people that would be more comparable to what you are saying. My concern is with employers who want to dictate the lifestyles of their employees and tell them what they can do in their own free time outside of work.

Frankly, I think if our goal is to eliminate smoking our focus should be on the tobacco companies and those who sell cigarettes, moreso than the smoker. Most people pick this addiction up at a very young age - before they are adults - and then they are hooked. Why not make the tobacco business an undesirable business to be in with the goal of making products less available to consumers.

I would be all for variable cost but most employee benefit plans I know of aren't. If that was the case there would be a thread about how that isn't fair and it also discriminatory against the obese, smokers, or whatever. Things can be better but as of right now we work with the system we have while also trying to make it better.

The second part I have to disagree with. Not because I like the tobacco companies, because I don't, but because of simple supply and demand dynamics. Whenever there is a demand for something someone will meet that demand with supply (provided there is profit in it). The reverse isn't true. Supply can not dictate demand. It can effect it but not dictate it as demand can with supply. This is true about the war on drugs and against child pornography as much as it is true about smoking.