awesome monday morning!

So i get to work around 7 every morning, most come in around 8-9am. I arrive and i start to hear chit chat like its a Friday afternoon. I don't think anything if it and just think its cause of it being a 3 day work week. Then i receive am email stating to go to the cafe at 9am for a company meeting

At the meeting they begin to tell all employees that if you continue to smoke or use tobacco after the 5th of July (5 days from today) you will be charged $150 more a month for your health insurance, and the room erupted in anger! this does not effect me since i do not use tobacco products. I understand the tobacco users anger since they were only given a week to quit without getting charged.

Do you think this is fair? Can they really do this?

Their reasoning was health insurance costs more for a smoker cause they are generally in worse health. But their premiums will not be raised so i don't understand where the $150 is going.

Now if all smokers quit in the company will my insurance go down? Prolly not

Just curious on what you think.... Should be am interesting day.... Peeps are crushings cigs outside today.... Smoke em if ya got em!

I'm sure there is going to be a lot more of this sort of thing as health care costs continue to go up. Not necessarily a bad thing, as I believe people need to take personal responsibility for their lives. No reason why the rest of us need to subsidize those who make poor health choices. However, does seem like a slippery slope, though. I can see being charged more for health insurance premiums for tobacco use, being severely overweight, and similar sorts of things, but how long before lifestyle choices start coming into play? Like to rock climb or skydive? Well, those are dangerous hobbies, so you can pay more. Obviously, no easy answers. Welcome to the future.

I've heard of this happening with tobacco products, but not with the other issues yet. My employer does not charge smokers a surcharge, as far as I know (I'm a non-smoker). If they charged for weight, I might find the motivation useful



A moderator-word-of-warning: This thread could easily descend into debate about health care reform, etc. If it does, it will need to be moved to the debate forum. As long as you stick to the OP's question/topic (does your company charge smokers more for insurance?), without debate, vitriol, or politics, then it can stay here.

ours does not, yet that I know of. but the steel yard I worked in would not hire smokers. if you started smoking after probation period, then they couldn't do anything about it.

Ours gives a credit to not smoke. So they jack it up up front for every body, then give you credit. Its the same thing, but probably a better way to avoid grumblings.

Wow that really sucks! Class action lawsuit?

I work in the healthcare industry and this has been coming down the pipe for 2 yrs now for us.

Many employers are going to be doing this in an effort to decrease overall costs.

Each year, we have until June 30th to complete 4 basic "Wellness Incentives"
1) Have a annual visit with our primary care physician.
2) Complete an online wellness survey
3) Attest to be smoke-free OR complete a smoking cessation program

If you do not complete them, your insurance premiums go up $54.

The smokers at our facility (I quit 5 yrs ago when they paid us $500) to do so) have 2 options:
1) Quit
2) Complete the cessation program and then continue to smoke (at least they tried).

It is not unheard of and I think that you will see it happening a lot more.

Next they will be cracking down on drinking! And deciding how much is "moderate" drinking...

I used to get health insurance through my company (on my wife's now), and there was a questionnaire when you signed up/renewed, and on there was tobacco use. If you used tobacco, you got a higher premium. Never bothered me, since I don't use tobacco products. Our company also does wellness incentives, you would fill out a survey, or get a physical, or something along those lines, and then in a month or two you'd get a check for anywhere from 10-50 bucks. Free money. And if you did it on the company's dime, even better

An interesting occurrence that happened at my hospital last Xmas was more smoker specific.
Each Xmas, the medical staff gives every employee a lottery ticket that has a label affixed to the back with a 4 digit #.
They have a daily drawing for 1 week:
(10) $25 winners on Monday
(5) $50 winners on Tuesday
(5) $75 winners
(2) $100 winners
(1) $250 winner

This past year they included a "small" qualification that in order to pick up your prize, you had to show proof of being a non-smoker.
You wanna talk about grumblings? The issue was brought up to Dept. of Labor by a couple of disgruntled employees and the decision was that since the Dr's were sponsoring the drawing (instead of the hospital) then they could do whatever they wanted!
Good news...? I am a non-smoker and one of the re-drawings benefitted me when I won $100

Melana said:

Wow that really sucks! Class action lawsuit?

Click to expand...

Can't. Smokers are not a protected class. There is no legal right to smoke.

It does suck though. A week is ridiculous notice. It's causing undo stress to people and is doing nothing to promote morale/productivity. They should have thought this out better.

Did they offer a free cessation course? Access to free nicotine replacement? How about a bonus for those that quit?

Disclaimer: I operate a statewide tobacco cessation program here in CT. That said, I'm on the fence about these increased premiums. I can see how they might help mortivate people to quit, but it's still a hardship.

There is a cessation program but it takes 3 weeks to get the products part of it

I get it and if it was beer instead of tobacco i would be angry also

They are doing this for the betterment of the company and stock holders....btw the people that are complaining are stock holders...we all are as employees here

So I'm torn

brewkinger said:

This past year they included a "small" qualification that in order to pick up your prize, you had to show proof of being a non-smoker.

Click to expand...

What constitutes proof of being a non-smoker?

My company has had this for 5 years or more now. They do offer free cessation support and at least subsidized access to tools to quit. The kicker is that if you're a smoker who quits, you don't classify as a non smoker until a few (I think 3) years after quitting.

We also have to "health assessment" which includes risk assessment of alcohol consumption. Even when I answered on the low side my alcohol consumption labeled me as very high risk and gave me all sorts of info on treatment for alcoholism. Which is quite an exaggeration.

BinghamtonEd said:

What constitutes proof of being a non-smoker?

Click to expand...

Nothing too serious, just a signed document that states that you do not smoke.
For me it was not needed because I quit 5 yrs ago and at that time signed the paperwork needed to get my $500 bonus.
I know from Life Insurance protocol that they can (and do) test for nicotine levels in the blood, but as far as I know they do not test our blood where I work to verify nicotine levels.

One of the hospitals in my area doesn't hire smokers. Kind of makes sense, seeing is how its an establishment for healthcare. I am a non smoker and generally keep my mouth shut when I see people smoking, unless its someone I care about, then I give them a hard time about it because I don't want to see them die at an early age.
Heart disease is the number one killer in America, and I'm sure smoking has something to do with that.

Some of that is diet and exercise though too. So are they going to start asking up to verify our daily fat intake? Videotape our workouts?

I ain't sayin smoking ain't bad for you, but overeating and a sedentary lifestyle are MAJOR reasons we have cholesterol clogging our arteries and our depression levels are rising.

Maybe they should raise rates for people who drink more than 1 soda a day??

Strange how the number of smokers has trended down significantly since the mid sixties, and yet our cost of health care is rising and rising. Seems there could be some OTHER reason for the cost of health care to be going up so much... Smoking is an easy target.

Homercidal said:

Some of that is diet and exercise though too. So are they going to start asking up to verify our daily fat intake? Videotape our workouts?

I ain't sayin smoking ain't bad for you, but overeating and a sedentary lifestyle are MAJOR reasons we have cholesterol clogging our arteries and our depression levels are rising.

Maybe they should raise rates for people who drink more than 1 soda a day??

Strange how the number of smokers has trended down significantly since the mid sixties, and yet our cost of health care is rising and rising. Seems there could be some OTHER reason for the cost of health care to be going up so much... Smoking is an easy target.

Click to expand...

Which costs more: a dying cancer patient or a person retiring at 60 and living off social security and medicare till they are 100 years old. I'd say healthcare is far outpacing "oldcare".

My dad retired from a printing company. Years ago, easily over a decade, maybe even two, the company decided to go 100% smoke free on company property. They gave all the employees more than sufficient notice, I think it was somewhere around 9 months. And they gave employees major incentives toward medical assistance and smoking cessation products. I thought this was a very well laid out plan, years before it was such a political topic as it is now. If there was model on how to go about something like that, this is it. Not the way your employer did it. If they are truly interested in the well being of the employee, then they would take reasonable measures. What they did to you was purely driven by profits IMHO.

Homercidal said:

Some of that is diet and exercise though too. So are they going to start asking up to verify our daily fat intake? Videotape our workouts?

I ain't sayin smoking ain't bad for you, but overeating and a sedentary lifestyle are MAJOR reasons we have cholesterol clogging our arteries and our depression levels are rising.

Maybe they should raise rates for people who drink more than 1 soda a day??

Strange how the number of smokers has trended down significantly since the mid sixties, and yet our cost of health care is rising and rising. Seems there could be some OTHER reason for the cost of health care to be going up so much... Smoking is an easy target.

Click to expand...

Homercidal said:

Next they will be cracking down on drinking! And deciding how much is "moderate" drinking...

Click to expand...

Legitimate concerns, for sure.

Our facility went smoke free in buildings many years ago. It quickly became to mean just in the office type buildings. When I got there, no one cared if you smoked in equipment buildings, so long as there weren't butts all over.

About a year ago, we went whole hog tobacco free. They gave one month notice. At first, they said no use of any tobacco at all on or in company property by anyone. Then, some how, they decided they could not enforce that on non company workers who came to our facility. But, they could still enforce the no smoking or dipping in buildings.

There was grumbling, but several people said they were glad to have the push to quit. The company also offered assistance with patches, gums and lozenges. But no e-cigs. That bent up people more than no smoking or dipping. They never said why, but we imagine it's because people would try to pass off real cigs as e-cigs. Sounds dumb, but I could see someone doing it. That and they don't want to look like they are promoting e-cigs as being healthy, healthier or as a stop smoking aid. The jury is still out on most of that. And, we think they wanted people to quit, not just change habits.

The reason given was rises in health care costs and sensitive electronic equipment.

I came in today and there was a no tobacco use sign on the computer rooms. One of the contract devs had left a spit cup in the server room.

They are coming for the fatties next. Just a heads up.

Laughing_Gnome_Invisible said:

They are coming for the fatties next. Just a heads up.

Click to expand...

Funny but true... Smokers are an easy target but obese people are even easier

JohnnyO said:

Can't. Smokers are not a protected class. There is no legal right to smoke.

Click to expand...

I am not saying that the smokers could state a claim for relief here, but the concept of "protected class" has nothing to do with whether someone can bring a class action. Smokers have brought many class action class lawsuits before, such as against tobacco companies. The concept of "protected class" applies only if you are talking about discrimination in the sense of a claim for a violation of a civil right.

If I were a smoker and actually had health insurance, I would look to whether the employer were allowed to do this under state law. Insurance and employee benefits are highly regulated areas. There may be state laws that prohibit employers from charging employees different rates for the same employer provided health insurance.

Early on in this thread, a moderator cautioned this could steer towards a debate on healthcare, AND if so it would need to be moved. So do we proceed or wait until it gets moved to the proper location?
The OP asked if there was other experiences with this kind of apparent discrimination against smokers?

brewkinger said:

Early on in this thread, a moderator cautioned this could steer towards a debate on healthcare, AND if so it would need to be moved. So do we proceed or wait until it gets moved to the proper location?
The OP asked if there was other experiences with this kind of apparent discrimination against smokers?

Click to expand...

Don't start a debate on healthcare reform here, please. Continuing to post on the OP's topic is fine (your experience with your employer regarding a surcharge for smokers' insurance or a discount for non-smokers insurance). Thanks to folks for generally keeping on topic.

Feel free to start a new thread in the debate forum, if that's where you want to take this discussion.

Thanks for moderating Pappers.

Laughing_Gnome_Invisible said:

They are coming for the fatties next. Just a heads up.

Click to expand...

Mmmmmm sausage and cheese wrapped in bacon....

Melana said:

Mmmmmm sausage and cheese wrapped in bacon....

Click to expand...

Great, Melana, I read this at 5:30 pm, just as I'm thinking about getting some dinner around . . .

We got policy(full out no smoking on property) last Jan with maybe 3 month's notice. Obviously not all the smokers quit, I would say 1 out of 10 perhaps. Now it's kinda like school where you have to sneak them.

Fair? The only thing fair would be letting people without insurance deal with the consequences. I think raising the rates for smokers is fair, perhaps not all at once though.

I am retired, but I still fill in occasionally so I know what's happening in our healthcare facility.

In partnership with Blue Cross (the carrier), the didn't raise the rates but lowered them for people at lower risk.

We were tested in several areas. The first via an online "test" questionnaire about lifestyle and diet. We were then tested in person- blood pressure, weight, and body fat measurements. Then they drew our blood to check sugar, cholesterol, and nicotine.

I don't have the insurance, but I did want a health assessment. I got a 96 out of 100- for everything but the questionnaire. My body fat was athlete/average, my cholesterol was low, my fasting blood sugar was low, and my weight was low. I don't use anything with nicotine.

I flunked the health quiz, though. The reason is simple. They count the USDA pyramid as ideal, and hold onto outdated information about low fat/high carb diets.

For example, one of the questions was: How often do you eat meat or processed food? The answers were "Never, occasionally, rarely, often" or something like that.

Welllll.....................I don't eat ANYthing that comes out of a package. I follow a primal/paleo lifestyle and don't eat wheat, corn, sugar, etc, and I eat grass-fed beef and farm-raised chickens. But lumping it into "processed food" means that it came out as bad.

In any case, I still did very well because I am very healthy. I am never sick, and I'm extremely fit. I like to think I don't even look my age.

Later, when I talked to coworkers, many people half my age are going to be paying the max for insurance, while I would qualify for the minimum in spite of my apparent unhealthy lifestyle. Rates didn't go UP, but they went down for those who did well.

I think while that's invasive, it's a good way to encourage people to get healthier. They are having yearly screenings, and they are "opt-in" only. If you don't opt-in, you just pay the insurance rate at the higher level. This will encourage people with high sugar levels to lose weight, exercise, and drop their risk of diabetes.

I don't think smoking is the whole enchilada- there are a lot of non-smokers who are too fat and unhealthy as well. I think a whole life approach is more fair, and I think it would actually help us get on the right track to health.

It's a shame, but most of us are too fat and too sedentary and it's killing people. Healthier people tend to have less medical costs, just as a group.

Yooper said:

I am retired, but I still fill in occasionally so I know what's happening in our healthcare facility.

In partnership with Blue Cross (the carrier), the didn't raise the rates but lowered them for people at lower risk.

We were tested in several areas. The first via an online "test" questionnaire about lifestyle and diet. We were then tested in person- blood pressure, weight, and body fat measurements. Then they drew our blood to check sugar, cholesterol, and nicotine.

I don't have the insurance, but I did want a health assessment. I got a 96 out of 100- for everything but the questionnaire. My body fat was athlete/average, my cholesterol was low, my fasting blood sugar was low, and my weight was low. I don't use anything with nicotine.

I flunked the health quiz, though. The reason is simple. They count the USDA pyramid as ideal, and hold onto outdated information about low fat/high carb diets.

For example, one of the questions was: How often do you eat meat or processed food? The answers were "Never, occasionally, rarely, often" or something like that.

Welllll.....................I don't eat ANYthing that comes out of a package. I follow a primal/paleo lifestyle and don't eat wheat, corn, sugar, etc, and I eat grass-fed beef and farm-raised chickens. But lumping it into "processed food" means that it came out as bad.

In any case, I still did very well because I am very healthy. I am never sick, and I'm extremely fit. I like to think I don't even look my age.

Later, when I talked to coworkers, many people half my age are going to be paying the max for insurance, while I would qualify for the minimum in spite of my apparent unhealthy lifestyle. Rates didn't go UP, but they went down for those who did well.

I think while that's invasive, it's a good way to encourage people to get healthier. They are having yearly screenings, and they are "opt-in" only. If you don't opt-in, you just pay the insurance rate at the higher level. This will encourage people with high sugar levels to lose weight, exercise, and drop their risk of diabetes.

I don't think smoking is the whole enchilada- there are a lot of non-smokers who are too fat and unhealthy as well. I think a whole life approach is more fair, and I think it would actually help us get on the right track to health.

It's a shame, but most of us are too fat and too sedentary and it's killing people. Healthier people tend to have less medical costs, just as a group.

Click to expand...

The more i think about it the more i side to this opinion.... If this is what it takes to get Americans, on the whole, more healthy then i agree with the strategy... I think if we are hit in the wallet we will be more apt to change our life style

Yooper said:

For example, one of the questions was: How often do you eat meat or processed food? The answers were "Never, occasionally, rarely, often" or something like that.

Click to expand...

Do they drop your policy altogether if you eat a hot dog? That's processed meat.

I think the system you described, providing incentives to be healthier as opposed to punishment for making poor decisions, sounds good to me. I think if people see an opportunity to save a bunch on insurance (like switching to Geico), they're more likely to do something about it to save that money. I think if you tell someone, in this case the smokers, that you're going to up their rates because they smoke, they're more likely to just get pissed about it.

That being said, no amount of incentive from my insurance company could get me to stop weekly Hotdog Humpday.

BinghamtonEd said:

Do they drop your policy altogether if you eat a hot dog? That's processed meat.

I think the system you described, providing incentives to be healthier as opposed to punishment for making poor decisions, sounds good to me. I think if people see an opportunity to save a bunch on insurance (like switching to Geico), they're more likely to do something about it to save that money. I think if you tell someone, in this case the smokers, that you're going to up their rates because they smoke, they're more likely to just get pissed about it.

That being said, no amount of incentive from my insurance company could get me to stop weekly Hotdog Humpday.

Click to expand...

That is weird...we do hot dog Wednesday where i work also

I'm jealous. Our work doesn't provide food. Hotdog Humpday is a strictly enforced dinner rule at home.

BinghamtonEd said:

I think the system you described, providing incentives to be healthier as opposed to punishment for making poor decisions, sounds good to me.
I think if you tell someone, in this case the smokers, that you're going to up their rates because they smoke...

Click to expand...

Which is exactly what the reasoning behind these employer decisions. It is not punishing the smokers, it is crediting and rewarding the healthier employees.
Like Yoop, we have insurance that is a subsidiary of BC/BS and the process that she describes is exactly what we had to do.
The rates that "unhealthy" employees pay is around 2% higher than they used to be (which is normal inflation, it costs a lot for healthcare) BUT those of us that were deemed "healthier" receive about a 12% reduction in the cost of healthcare.
The end result according to the CFO at my hospital is that the hospital saves about $145,000 annually. And the small to medium number of employees that have made "healthy" lifestyle changes (around 26 so far) is an added benefit to the hospital but more importantly to themselves.

I think it is a great idea and like I said earlier, this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. When this idea catches up with the rest of the workforce, I think this will be the norm.