Hospital bans nicotine use, Flint Michigan

[Linden]

Report: Flint-based McLaren Health Care will not hire new employees who test positive for nicotine | MLive.com

I wish I could go back 7 years and chosen one of the other 2 hospital systems in the area for the birth of my 3rd child.

 

[Vocalek]

So they prefer employees that are forgetful, inattentive, and depressed?

And fat?

 

[Rickajho]

So, if you are quitting smoking, use a BP approved Nicotrol inhaler, test positive... you are summarily dismissed as a new hire because... you quit smoking? (My head hurts.)

From the article: ""It’s to foster a safe and healthy environment for patients and caregivers," said Prochazka...

Wonder if Ms. Prochazka sells bridges on the side. Oh - her title is "marketing and communications director". She sure is selling something, equally as dubious. These sorts in that line of work really do need to get over themselves. The "if I communicate it you will swallow it" part. (Did I mention my head hurts?)

 

[mwa102464]

I'd like to take away the Idiot Exec who made this rules Coffee, and tell him/her they cant have or use Caffeine or they will be fired, same with if there over eating and over weight, or numerous other things, as well as to kiss my white but tan ...

 

[zapped]

I'd like to take away the Idiot Exec who made this rules Coffee, and tell him/her they cant have or use Caffeine or they will be fired, same with if there over eating and over weight, or numerous other things, as well as to kiss my white but tan ...

Agreed, I'd be much less worried about a surgeon about to perform an operation on me if he was a vaper as opposed to one drinking an energy drink on the way to work and 5 cups of coffee.

 

[Linden]

More and more companies are going to do this as long as the group insurance plans they use continue to test only for nicotine and not carbon monoxide. They are just using PR to disguise this as a health initiative.
There have been some very good responses on the article regarding the use of NRT and vaping.

 

[Judge Dredd]

I don't understand this. Do you they think they someone who has Nicotine in their blood is going to somehow magically exhale addiction powder onto another person?

I could see not hiring smokers, because there's a serious health risk associated with that, but just nicotine?

 

[Linden]

I don't understand this. Do you they think they someone who has Nicotine in their blood is going to somehow magically exhale addiction powder onto another person?

I could see not hiring smokers, because there's a serious health risk associated with that, but just nicotine?

companies who won't hire smokers use the same test for nicotine.

 

[Judge Dredd]

companies who won't hire smokers use the same test for nicotine.

Why don't they stop testing for nicotine (which is in nearly everything naturally), and start testing for the chemicals that only smokers have in their blood?

 

[Linden]

Why don't they stop testing for nicotine (which is in nearly everything naturally), and start testing for the chemicals that only smokers have in their blood?

Excellent question! They could start with carbon monoxide.

 

[sonicdsl]

Yes, as Elaine (Vocalek) from CASAA has pointed out, the carbon monoxide test is the same cost as the nicotine test, so it's not a test cost issue. More of an agenda issue I think.

 

[kristin]

I could see not hiring smokers, because there's a serious health risk associated with that, but just nicotine?

The negative health effects associated with smoking appear after 30-40 years of smoking and only a small percentage of smokers actually get sick because of the smoking. How many people stay at a job that long? What would the added health costs be hiring a 25 or 30 year-old smoker who won't get sick for decades? And why can't they just pass any ACTUAL increased costs to the employee rather than refusing to hire them altogether or exclude coverage of any disease that is shown to have been caused by smoking? (Know why they don't just exclude coverage of proven smoking-caused diseases? Because they know they cannot prove that the smoker got the disease from smoking and not other factors!)

So they discriminate without any actual proof that smokers will cause them any additional health costs. IMO, smokers don't "deserve" to be discriminated against anymore than do smoke-free nicotine users!!

 

[tenshi]

If they ban people who use nicotine for "healthy living" reasons, I guess they should also weigh them at the door and make sure they are within a certain healthy BMI range.

 

[kristin]

If they ban people who use nicotine for "healthy living" reasons, I guess they should also weigh them at the door and make sure they are within a certain healthy BMI range.

LOL! Right? Or have them followed by a PI to make sure they don't drink and drive. Or engage in other risky behavior such as sky diving, snorkeling, skiing, driving in inclement weather, bicycle or motorcycle riding, bungee jumping, mountain climbing....

 

[Linden]

Dr's are at this moment being required to track BMI, drinking and firearms in the home due to Obamacare. Nicotine is just the tip of the iceburg. This (restricting employment of smokers/nicotine users) has more to do with cost-effective running of a business than with health. The ONLY reason they include all nicotine users is because that is what the insurance companies test for. If the insurance companies tested for CO (carbon monoxide) then we could all feel more comfortable. But believe me, discrimination will indeed be more far-reaching than with nicotine users. Insurance companies will now have data on you that will drive your costs up for insurance and it will be for all 'vices' not just smoking.
https://soundcloud.com/dennis-prager/dp20130130-hr-3-sg-c-caller-dr

 

[RosaJ]

If they ban people who use nicotine for "healthy living" reasons, I guess they should also weigh them at the door and make sure they are within a certain healthy BMI range.

Oh, I see that happening in the very near future. I guess the idea of hiring the most skilled person has gone out the window. Everyone now has to fit in the beautiful people mold.

 

[RosaJ]

LOL! Right? Or have them followed by a PI to make sure they don't drink and drive. Or engage in other risky behavior such as sky diving, snorkeling, skiing, driving in inclement weather, bicycle or motorcycle riding, bungee jumping, mountain climbing....

I will predict that health care providers are going to turn to alcohol in order to cope with the very stressful jobs they have. I guess, hospitals are willing to risk providing care to patients by people who are drunk. It already happens, albeit not in all cases. Hospitals do test for drugs, but not alcohol. I'm by no means putting nurses and doctors down, but they are human after all.

 

[TennDave]

The nicotine ban has been happening all over my area for the last year or two including no hiring of those who test positive for nicotine...(almost all in health care fields) and they are usually given "incentives" (being able to keep their insurance at the same group-rate cost) if they already use and then within a time period (when they are suppose to have been off of nicotine with the stepping down from patches/gums, etc), if they test positive, they can be fired. Of course, those on such an "incentive plan" are given "counseling," cessation classes and must use "approved methods."

 

[AJMoore]

How do most "vapor-ers" check out? Positive, negative? I never had a test, just curious. Are we "getting any"?

 

[kristin]

How do most "vapor-ers" check out? Positive, negative? I never had a test, just curious. Are we "getting any"?

My husband and I just had health insurance exams for his employee health insurance (first time since he started there a year ago) and we both came back positive for nicotine. Our insurance premium went up and we got a little pamphlet lecturing us about the benefits of quitting smoking.