Pennsylvania Hospital Will No Longer...

[lacrosse_lady72]

I'm a non-smoker and it doesn't bother me. Honestly, I think employers should, within reason (and yes, I realize this is very ambiguous but I'm not qualified to determine specifics on this), be able to choose who they employ. For example, I wouldn't take a gym seriously with a bunch of overweight employees. I won't take an Oncologist seriously if I just saw him/her smoking outside.

I think there are jobs that are better fit for different people. At hospitals for example, I think employees of these institutions should lead by example in promoting a healthy lifestyle.

Also, it's not as if they're going to fire anyone who smokes, just not hire anyone new employee who does. If you want a job at this hospital, you need to make the decision to not smoke. If you want to continue to smoke, you will not be employed at this hospital. Simple.

Smoking is not a medical condition, it is 100% a choice and I know I'm not alone on thinking that. It's up to the prospective employee to decide if they're going to make the choice to smoke, or not.

 

[PaulaSB12]

I'm usually a live and let live kind of person, but smoking does have a negative impact on the health and comfort level of non-smokers. Even though it's much easier to avoid smoke now that it's been banned in most public buildings, there is still no avoiding the odor that follows someone around after they've had a cigarette. I don't see anything wrong with a hospital not wanting patients to have to be exposed to unpleasant lingering odors.

And as a couple of others have pointed out, I see it as also a productivity issue. In every job I have ever held, the smokers always seem to take more frequent and longer breaks throughout the day than non-smokers.

Where I work EVERYONE takes smoke breaks, smokers and non smokers. This isn't just a slippery slope, its practically vertical what next employers refusing to hire non vegitarians? how about someone refusing to hire christians?

 

[FireDancer]

Where I work EVERYONE takes smoke breaks, smokers and non smokers. This isn't just a slippery slope, its practically vertical what next employers refusing to hire non vegitarians? how about someone refusing to hire christians?

Religious discrimination is illegal. If a company only wanted to hire vegetarians I think that is also within their rights. I'm sure there are some very pro-animal rights companies somewhere that actually do have a policy against hiring non-vegetarians.

If it is a private company, especially in at will employee state, they can choose who they hire based on any non-illegal criteria they choose. No redheads, no people with curly hair, no one under 6 foot (or over for that matter). Finding health or cost related justification may be pretty hard but, then again, they wouldn't have to justify it really.

 

[memster]

Another non smoker who thinks this is ridiculous. What next no over weight people? People who eat what the hospital doesn't like? Promiscuous people? people with/without children? At this rate the world as viewed by that daft movie Demolition Man is going to happen.

I was just thinking the same thing!!! The perfect person

 

[wdwfan16]

It depends on why they chose to do it.

To keep the smell of lingering smoke out of the hospital and away from patients - OK

To control what an employee can do on their own time - not OK

 

[eliza61]

Yes and no. It's flawed. You can't predict illness with surety. Too many variables.

Insurance companies do it every single day That's pretty much with life insurance is. Actuarial science is an entire discipline based on predictions. fire insurance, flood insurance is all based on some whiz kid plugging in variables and coming out with a guess.

your rate is determined by how far or close you are to that guess.

 

[FireDancer]

Insurance companies do it every single day That's pretty much with life insurance is. Actuarial science is an entire discipline based on predictions. fire insurance, flood insurance is all based on some whiz kid plugging in variables and coming out with a guess.

your rate is determined by how far or close you are to that guess.

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.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Insurance companies do it every single day That's pretty much with life insurance is. Actuarial science is an entire discipline based on predictions. fire insurance, flood insurance is all based on some whiz kid plugging in variables and coming out with a guess.

your rate is determined by how far or close you are to that guess.

But insurance is another ballgame in regards to employment criteria isn't it? Employers have not had this criteria. I don't think you can apply the same parameters to employment as with insurance. Although it looks like that is exactly what is going on. Obviously, I don't agree with it.

ETA- It looks to me kind of like a whack-a-mole game. You can't predict accidents, illnesses, immediate family illnesses that befall a family. What new parameters will be in place for those examples?

 

[eliza61]

But insurance is another ballgame in regards to employment criteria isn't it? Employers have not had this criteria. I don't think you can apply the same parameters to employment as with insurance. Although it looks like that is exactly what is going on. Obviously, I don't agree with it.

ETA- It looks to me kind of like a whack-a-mole game. You can't predict accidents, illnesses, immediate family illnesses that befall a family. What new parameters will be in place for those examples?

it is a bit like whack a mole. (actually maybe I should put the sad smilie up too).

I do think it will be more and more common as companies are trying to lower cost. I still can't understand why car insurance companies use your credit score to determine insurance rates. some one told me supposedly that a good credit rating is a indication of your trustworthiness? and same thing with employees. some state agencies now include credit checks for employment

 

[Nom]

Anyone know this? If the swab testing is a test for nicotine, will you get a positive if you are using the patch or nicotine gum? This could cause a big problem for using this test for hiring decisions/ terminations.

 

[starann]

So by your standard, they then should be able to pre-screen anyone who comes with a history of heart disease? These people are also at high risk. How about pre-screening for diabetes? Both of the above come at a high cost to the insurance industry as well. Testing for HIV/AIDS?

Should it be, either you want a job or you want a bag of chips? Or, you want a job, or you want a Cola?

I'm for ALL of the above, IF, they go after ALL of the above. I do not believe that selectively choosing is ok at any expense.

Not my standard, it's the hospitals. I can tell you each employee is tested for drugs on hire and if they ever receive a needle stick or body fluid exposure, they are tested for Hepatitis and HIV/AIDS (if you test positive, you will not be fired, to my knowledge, but they will deny workmans comp claims and treatment).


A bag of chips, a coke, will give me diabetes, or make me fat or give me heart disease, or all of the above, but the only one that is potentially harming is ME.....If a persons smokes, they have the potential to harm others (2nd hand smoke). Me being fat, only hurts me, not anyone else.

Right now there are more applicants than there are job, and the hospital or any other employer can be picky....10 years ago, when there was a severe nursing shortage, not so much, but now......yeah they can and since smokers are not a protected group (ADA, ethnic, religious) they can legally discriminate.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Once they get all the users of nicotine out of the workplace, the next likely target will be the fat people. Or maybe caffeine users. I'd like to see them go after caffeine the way they've gone after nicotine. (Note: nicotine is no different from caffeine)

Smoking has nothing to do with your ability to do a great job. Neither does being overweight. But because the public has accepted measuring people based on their health to be one of the acceptable qualifiers, we've opened up a door that I doubt will be closed anytime soon.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Once they get all the users of nicotine out of the workplace, the next likely target will be the fat people. Or maybe caffeine users. I'd like to see them go after caffeine the way they've gone after nicotine. (Note: nicotine is no different from caffeine)

Smoking has nothing to do with your ability to do a great job. Neither does being overweight. But because the public has accepted measuring people based on their health to be one of the acceptable qualifiers, we've opened up a door that I doubt will be closed anytime soon.

Yes. And maybe it will be like car insurance, you know, if you go over a specific number of claims they drop you. Maybe employers will give you a certain number of claims and if you go over, you'll be fired.

 

[FireDancer]

Smoking has nothing to do with your ability to do a great job. Neither does being overweight. But because the public has accepted measuring people based on their health to be one of the acceptable qualifiers, we've opened up a door that I doubt will be closed anytime soon.

Health is an acceptable qualifier if it has an effect on the employer's costs.

For example, if I was renting out a room in my home and as part of renting that room I am paying your health insurance you can bet I would do all I could to make sure I have the healthiest person with the lowest healthcare costs possible.

It is true that a non-smoker who has 5% body fat, eats plenty of fruit and vegetables and little processed food, and runs everyday may end up having more health issues then someone who smokes 3 packs a day, drinks a 5th of whiskey with dinner, eats terribly, and hasn't seen his feet in 5 years. When the insurer determines the cost of the insurance the former will be lower then the later more times then not and since I am paying the bill I am going with the lower of the two.

When someone else is paying for your healthcare costs you health becomes relevant to them, period. Since employers are barred from getting your family health history they can only base this one the limited criteria they have and whether or not you smoke is one of the criteria they can control.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Health is an acceptable qualifier if it has an effect on the employer's costs.

For example, if I was renting out a room in my home and as part of renting that room I am paying your health insurance you can bet I would do all I could to make sure I have the healthiest person with the lowest healthcare costs possible.

It is true that a non-smoker who has 5% body fat, eats plenty of fruit and vegetables and little processed food, and runs everyday may end up having more health issues then someone who smokes 3 packs a day, drinks a 5th of whiskey with dinner, eats terribly, and hasn't seen his feet in 5 years. When the insurer determines the cost of the insurance the former will be lower then the later more times then not and since I am paying the bill I am going with the lower of the two.

When someone else is paying for your healthcare costs you health becomes relevant to them, period. Since employers are barred from getting your family health history they can only base this one the limited criteria they have and whether or not you smoke is one of the criteria they can control.

I'm not sure about that. I was looking into getting a screening for genetic markers for cancer, as it runs in my family. I declined because the doctors could not assure me that my employer would not have access to that information. Granted, I could've paid out of pocket, but I wasn't comfortable with the whole thing. I think it's a gray area that might expand.

 

[Barbossa]

This could open a huge pandora's box for employees. Where would it end? Eating habits? The state of your family and relationships? What about the "politically correct" health hazards like stress and alcohol? This could eliminate 3/4 of the work force, the remaining 25% will be a bunch of perfectly healthy incompetents.

 

[shrubber]

Is there some sort of right to be employed I missed?

 

[eliza61]

Once they get all the users of nicotine out of the workplace, the next likely target will be the fat people. Or maybe caffeine users. I'd like to see them go after caffeine the way they've gone after nicotine. (Note: nicotine is no different from caffeine)

Smoking has nothing to do with your ability to do a great job. Neither does being overweight. But because the public has accepted measuring people based on their health to be one of the acceptable qualifiers, we've opened up a door that I doubt will be closed anytime soon.

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.

But you do have a point about "measuring people". I think a lot of it is human nature. I'm guilty of it, when I hire a personal trainer, I'm sorry I would not hire you if you were obese or a smoker. If you're job is to make me healthy sorry, I have negative "perception" if you show up at the interview 100 lbs overweight.

When I go to a hair salon, I expect a certain "look" from my stylist. unfair, maybe so. but if you look like the cat just dragged you in, hair every which way on top of your head, nope- not letting you near me with a pair of scissors. You may be Piccasso of the hair industry but on the "qualifier" of neat and well groom, you flunk.

 

[FireDancer]

I'm not sure about that. I was looking into getting a screening for genetic markers for cancer, as it runs in my family. I declined because the doctors could not assure me that my employer would not have access to that information. Granted, I could've paid out of pocket, but I wasn't comfortable with the whole thing. I think it's a gray area that might expand.

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.

 

[Barbossa]

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.

Self insuring is an option few people have. When I was self-employed I paid $1300.00/month to insure my family and I. I currently work as an employee and am lucky to have subsidized health insurance with a $120/month deduction.

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).