ARIZONA - Humana Won't Hire Smokers

[hippiebrian]

Once the new health care bill (commonly called Obama-care) passes, it will be illegal to increase rates for those with medical histories (including tobacco use). Wonder what the excuse will be then? If the costs don't go up, will they still ban nicotine use? By the way, I have had a few jobs and with them a few health care plans, and none of them ever asked if I smoked, and it has never costed more to insure me than anyone else. Is this something new (within the last 4 years?) that I don't know about? I know they test for life insurance purposes, but I have never had to for medical insurance.

 

[rothenbj]

Brian, I had the same experience, but I'm almost nine years dated at this point so a lot could have changed. Even with group life from work there was no testing done. I had the opportunity when they changed companies to double my policy. There was a stipulated period, 30-60 days, that this could be done without any testing.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

I am in an employer and this is just part of the freedom I enjoy in the US. Why would I hire a smoker when my health care expense goes through the ROOF in a small pool for smokers. And I say this as an ex-smoker myself. If you want to smoke and be able to work anywhere move to a country with socialized medicine. But as things stand where most insurance comes through employers, don't expect me to pay.

I don't understand how it is even a liability for an employer if an employee dies of a smoking related disease? What does social healthcare have to do with it, and how is a person's home habits any of your business, as merely their employer?
Last time I looked, it is perfectly legal to wear a nicotine patch if you have quit smoking. So smoking is not even the indicator is it? You can be an ex-smoker and still fail the test.
So much for being a responsible person, smoke and be persecuted for the rest of your life. Freedom?

 

[PlanetScribbles]

In addition, it is arbitrary for an employer to not employ a smoker. No rule states it, it is a personal choice for the employer to go all cheapskate and discriminate against nicotine use because it will cost them a bit more. The system actually expects you to take that financial hit. How far does that discrimination train roll? Single parents? Drivers of fast cars? Diabetics?

 

[Vap0rJay]

I don't understand how it is even a liability for an employer if an employee dies of a smoking related disease? What does social healthcare have to do with it, and how is a person's home habits any of your business, as merely their employer?
Last time I looked, it is perfectly legal to wear a nicotine patch if you have quit smoking. So smoking is not even the indicator is it? You can be an ex-smoker and still fail the test.
So much for being a responsible person, smoke and be persecuted for the rest of your life. Freedom?

"Freedom is an illusion as you are only free to do as you 'ought' to do - determined solely by the pens that write the 'law.'" ~ My grandfather, God rest. WW2 vet navy vet and one of the most intelligent men I've been blessed to know.

 

[countrygirl1291]

I don't understand how it is even a liability for an employer if an employee dies of a smoking related disease? What does social healthcare have to do with it, and how is a person's home habits any of your business, as merely their employer?

It's not an employer liability if the employee dies -- it's if they live. If they live, smokers statistically have higher health care costs than non-smokers. Higher health care costs translate into higher premiums for employers that provide health insurance benefits or higher claim payouts for employers that self-insure their employees. Not sayin' it's right, just sayin'.

IMO, it would only be fair if all other 'risky' behaviors (lack of exercise, obesity, mountain climbing, sky diving, getting frequent tickets for speeding or other traffic violations, etc.). And that kind of defeats the purpose of a group plan. Group plans are supposed to provide risk sharing so that one person's risky behavior, or bad luck as the case may be, is offset by the experience of others in the group.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

It's not an employer liability if the employee dies -- it's if they live. If they live, smokers statistically have higher health care costs than non-smokers. Higher health care costs translate into higher premiums for employers that provide health insurance benefits or higher claim payouts for employers that self-insure their employees. Not sayin' it's right, just sayin'.

IMO, it would only be fair if all other 'risky' behaviors (lack of exercise, obesity, mountain climbing, sky diving, getting frequent tickets for speeding or other traffic violations, etc.). And that kind of defeats the purpose of a group plan. Group plans are supposed to provide risk sharing so that one person's risky behavior, or bad luck as the case may be, is offset by the experience of others in the group.

Anything wrong with taking the $$ increase in insurance cost, that over and above 'standard cost' of a non-smoker, out of the gross wage earned? Then the applicant gets a fair shot at the job and he pays his share of the extra costs to the employer. That would be agreed to at the interview stage, to save misunderstandings.
It simply seems so wrong to say a smoker cannot get that job under any circumstances. It is basically consigning 25% of the working population to the scrapheap. How can that be right?
I have no problem with giving the applicant the opportunity to contribute to the increased healthcare cost via his wages, rather than subjecting him to a humiliating drug test to determine whether he wears a nicotine patch. What he does at home is utterly irrelevant in the workplace, providing he does not take it to work with him and doesn't effect his productivity.

 

[countrygirl1291]

I have had a few jobs and with them a few health care plans, and none of them ever asked if I smoked, and it has never costed more to insure me than anyone else. Is this something new (within the last 4 years?) that I don't know about?

Brian, I had the same experience, but I'm almost nine years dated at this point so a lot could have changed.

Yes, this is something that's relatively new. My employer has been charging smokers higher rates for 2 years, and then last year, they implemented higher rates for people with metabolic syndrome.

Anything wrong with taking the $$ increase in insurance cost, that over and above 'standard cost' of a non-smoker, out of the gross wage earned? Then the applicant gets a fair shot at the job and he pays his share of the extra costs to the employer. That would be agreed to at the interview stage, to save misunderstandings.
It simply seems so wrong to say a smoker cannot get that job under any circumstances. It is basically consigning 25% of the working population to the scrapheap. How can that be right?
I have no problem with giving the applicant the opportunity to contribute to the increased healthcare cost via his wages, rather than subjecting him to a humiliating drug test to determine whether he wears a nicotine patch. What he does at home is utterly irrelevant in the workplace, providing he does not take it to work with him and doesn't effect his productivity.

There's all kinds of federal laws about the tax status of health insurance premiums and the restrictions that apply if an employer's medical plan provides for pre-tax payment of premiums. It's all kind of boring, so I won't go into it in detail.

I agree, as I've said before, that it's not fair. But it's like your mama told you ... life isn't fair. And as long as good jobs are in short supply like they are now, employers can pretty much call the shots as to what they will and won't allow or do, so long as they don't discriminate against a legally protected class.

 

[Thulium]

I agree, as I've said before, that it's not fair. But it's like your mama told you ... life isn't fair. And as long as good jobs are in short supply like they are now, employers can pretty much call the shots as to what they will and won't allow or do, so long as they don't discriminate against a legally protected class.

That's exactly right, but although smokers are not a protected class, people with disabilities are. According to the ADA as Amended 2008, if you fire or refuse to hire someone on the basis of a perceived disability, they are "regarded as" having that disability and protected from discrimination. You can't, for example, refuse to hire someone because they had or used insulin injections--even if they aren't diabetic, they would qualify for protection from discrimination (of course, employers are not required to make reasonable accommodation unless you actually have a disability) because they are "regarded as having" a disability.

I think a case can be made to apply the ADAA 2008 to nicotine screenings since it is used to treat various diseases and disabilities, but I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Vocalek]

I think we will be seeing more of this in the future. Wonder if any of these products work.

Saliva Test Nicotine


And here is a forum where people discuss methods they used to pass cotinine tests.

Can I Pass a Cotinine test? >> Medical Questions, Weight Loss, Pregnancy, Drugs, Health Insurance

Found this in the above forum. Interesting information.

Cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine they actually test for. While nicitine has a half-life of ~ 2 hours, cotinine has a half-life of around 10 times that. You must think in terms of half-life cycles. Thus, if it takes around 72 hours, or 36 half-lives to rid the body of nicotine, it will take around ten times that to rid the body of cotinine. If you do the math, that is around 30 days, or one month.

there is no escaping half-life truths.

If I went for 30 days with no nicotine in an effort to pass the test to get a job, I wouldn't get the job. I'd be too impaired to drive there.