Ineligible for Job Based on Nicotine in System

[sjohnson]

A little checking might turn up exemptions to the policy for physicians. As hard as hospitals work to court doctors in certain specialties, are they ready to fire their staff physician who provides excellent care in, say, cardiology because nicotine is present in her body?

If any exemptions ARE being made, a good lawyer might find it easy pickings to sue for job reinstatement for a "lesser" employee, with damages to boot.

 

[nubee]

Sounds like a violation of their (JOB SEEKERS)rights since nicotine is not a illegal substance.

They have every right to bar the act of smoking on their premises, but they have no right to bar all nicotine from the bodies of their employees.

Hopefully someone will file against them over this one.

Unfortunately, I don't think a law suit will succeed. In Michigan and handful of years ago, an employer implemented a no smokers employment policy and "released" all employees that did not comply.

He claimed it was to help lower his and employees health costs. Some sued and lost. Smokers are not a protected class and therefore don't have discrimination protection.

Now that was only at the state level - I don't know if it went any further.

 

[Vocalek]

Unfortunately, I don't think a law suit will succeed. In Michigan and handful of years ago, an employer implemented a no smokers employment policy and "released" all employees that did not comply.

He claimed it was to help lower his and employees health costs. Some sued and lost. Smokers are not a protected class and therefore don't have discrimination protection.

Now that was only at the state level - I don't know if it went any further.

The facts of the case are different. The employer in the Michigan case was probably able to easily prove that insurance companies charged him more for employees who smoke.

Nicotine in the system is not the same as smoking when it comes to health care costs. Does anyone know of a health insurance plan that charges more for employees who use nicotine replacement products?

If employers want to test for smoking, they should not be using a test that can give a false positive.

In many clinical trials they verify smoking status by measuring exhaled carbon monoxide.

 

[Territoo]

A little checking might turn up exemptions to the policy for physicians. As hard as hospitals work to court doctors in certain specialties, are they ready to fire their staff physician who provides excellent care in, say, cardiology because nicotine is present in her body?

If any exemptions ARE being made, a good lawyer might find it easy pickings to sue for job reinstatement for a "lesser" employee, with damages to boot.

In the vast majority of cases, physicians are not employees of the hospitals, and are not covered under the hospitals' health insurance. Such a ban would not cover them in the first place.

 

[steven.rn]

Article on TN hospital barring any job applicants if nicotine is found in their system. Dr. Michael Seigel commented in the article.

Tennessee Hospital Is Hiring; Smokers Need Not Apply - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Ohio doesn't protect any nicotine use either- the local hospitals, some of them, will not hire anyone with nicotine in their system.

The hospital I work in has instituted tests that are not mandatory but if you don't take them annually, you pay 400 a month more in health insurance costs.

On any of several categories (obesity, blood pressure, nicotine, cholesterol, blood sugar) you get charged 50 bux a month per category if you "flunk" them and are not under treatment.

The exception is nicotine, where it doesn't matter if it's treatment, not treatment, vaping, patch, gum, whatever- it's a cash penalty for having it in your system.

Our performance increases are also tied to "healthy behaviors" like gym memberships, seeing a doc regularly, attending classes on health issues, etc., which you have to document "4 behaviours or participations" with receipts and attestations of participation that show you are committed to "wellness". This has a direct bearing on how much you might get as a raise in any given year.

So you can be penalized 400 a month for not getting your blood drawn and going through your "physical" and then have whether you get a raise or not affected by "healthy behaviours".

As a Nurse, I am ambivalent about all this- I don't like the intrusiveness, but I do appreciate the fact that we do need to raise consciousness about what makes for healthier living.

The struggles of folks that have been debilitated by obesity or analogs or *shiver* diabetes, joint problems, cancers, etc. are truly awful.

The ravages on older aged patients that leave them with a life that means maybe nothing more than moving from chair to bed to chair to bed to .... huffing, puffing, and in pain most of the time just plain - suck. Not to mention the younger folk who are statistically unlucky, or anyone that has had a stroke...

I don't like the idea of a nanny state. I don't like limited freedoms. Neither do I think anyone who says they realize the risks they are taking (just like I did for so long) can really appreciate what life on the other side of a failed risk is really like. There's not a one of them that says "I'd do it all over again".

I'm not advocating the way things are being done now, but I wish there was a way to make sure everyone was truly enlightened about the value of healthy behaviors (and vaping is going in the right direction towards that) and how to minimize risk, because the consequences are so... icky.

 

[sjohnson]

In the vast majority of cases, physicians are not employees of the hospitals, and are not covered under the hospitals' health insurance. Such a ban would not cover them in the first place.

Not necessarily so. Many physicians are opting for salaried positions and letting the hospital handle billing, malpractice insurance and overhead.

The physician as an employee is more widespread than you might believe, even to the point where the nuances of such a hospital-physician relationship are discussed on the web:

Hospital-Physician Relationships Growing More Complex <BR> <BR>

http://physicianlaw.foxrothschild.c...ployment-compensation-may-run-afoul-of-stark/

http://www.sparrow.org/carson/humanresources/physemployeebenefits.pdf

A google search using "hospital physician employee" generated these three as the first three hits, there are many more.

 

[Raven1]

Ohio doesn't protect any nicotine use either- the local hospitals, some of them, will not hire anyone with nicotine in their system.

The hospital I work in has instituted tests that are not mandatory but if you don't take them annually, you pay 400 a month more in health insurance costs.

On any of several categories (obesity, blood pressure, nicotine, cholesterol, blood sugar) you get charged 50 bux a month per category if you "flunk" them and are not under treatment.

The exception is nicotine, where it doesn't matter if it's treatment, not treatment, vaping, patch, gum, whatever- it's a cash penalty for having it in your system.

Our performance increases are also tied to "healthy behaviors" like gym memberships, seeing a doc regularly, attending classes on health issues, etc., which you have to document "4 behaviours or participations" with receipts and attestations of participation that show you are committed to "wellness". This has a direct bearing on how much you might get as a raise in any given year.

So you can be penalized 400 a month for not getting your blood drawn and going through your "physical" and then have whether you get a raise or not affected by "healthy behaviours".

As a Nurse, I am ambivalent about all this- I don't like the intrusiveness, but I do appreciate the fact that we do need to raise consciousness about what makes for healthier living.

The struggles of folks that have been debilitated by obesity or analogs or *shiver* diabetes, joint problems, cancers, etc. are truly awful.

The ravages on older aged patients that leave them with a life that means maybe nothing more than moving from chair to bed to chair to bed to .... huffing, puffing, and in pain most of the time just plain - suck. Not to mention the younger folk who are statistically unlucky, or anyone that has had a stroke...

I don't like the idea of a nanny state. I don't like limited freedoms. Neither do I think anyone who says they realize the risks they are taking (just like I did for so long) can really appreciate what life on the other side of a failed risk is really like. There's not a one of them that says "I'd do it all over again".

I'm not advocating the way things are being done now, but I wish there was a way to make sure everyone was truly enlightened about the value of healthy behaviors (and vaping is going in the right direction towards that) and how to minimize risk, because the consequences are so... icky.

Do you by any chance work at Akron General? This sounds like something they would do! This is not just "nanny state" tactics. This is full-blown impingement on one's rights and freedoms. This hospital, and other ones like it, should be reported to the ACLU pronto.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

As a Nurse, I am ambivalent about all this- I don't like the intrusiveness, but I do appreciate the fact that we do need to raise consciousness about what makes for healthier living.

I have no problem with educating people in the value of healthy living. But it is ultimately the choice of the individual as to how they live their life. For the state to try to force lifestyle choices on sane and able people is just plain wrong. I choose what weight I feel comfortable at. I choose whether I want nicotine and caffeine in my system. I do it because it is a lesser of evils.
There are worse skeletons to have in one's closet than to have a reliance on nicotine. Nicotine is certainly not as dangerous as a Big Mac a day. Yet they are not trying to outlaw burger and chips
At the end of the day, it is ABSOLUTELY my choice to do with my own body as I see fit. Sweet FA to do with the state. It is part of the problem that the insurance companies are allowed to financially rape people based on what goes in their bodies. That is like a form of establishment control of the masses. Stop using nicotine or get financially and socially penalised
That is emotional blackmail. Behaviour conditioning in it's purest form.

 

[Territoo]

Not necessarily so. Many physicians are opting for salaried positions and letting the hospital handle billing, malpractice insurance and overhead.

The physician as an employee is more widespread than you might believe, even to the point where the nuances of such a hospital-physician relationship are discussed on the web:

Hospital-Physician Relationships Growing More Complex <BR> <BR>

Hospital/Physician Employment Compensation May Run Afoul of Stark : Physician Law

http://www.sparrow.org/carson/humanresources/physemployeebenefits.pdf

A google search using "hospital physician employee" generated these three as the first three hits, there are many more.

Everything you said is true, except the employee physicians are not HOSPITAL employees, usually it's a physicians' group that then contracts with the hospital to cover services. Medicare rules mandate that a hospital not have direct financial influence over the physician (some exceptions like government run facilities).

 

[LibertyRevolution]

A private company can make any rules it wants.
If they can get a discount on insurance by having their employees be nicotine or caffeine free, they have the right to only hire people that fit that criteria.
You have the right to not work for them...
Same goes with fat people, or ugly people.
A company can turn you down for a job if you do not meet their expectations of what they want representing their company.
Companies DO NOT need to be Equal Opportunity Employers. That is a Choice they make.
The only entity that does not have that right is the Government.
Your right to consume substances, does not nullify their right to set policy or to chose whom to employ.
Personally I will never work for a company that requires physicals, blood tests, or drug tests.
But they are well within their rights to require them.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

A private company can make any rules it wants.
If they can get a discount on insurance by having their employees be nicotine or caffeine free, they have the right to only hire people that fit that criteria.
You have the right to not work for them...
Same goes with fat people, or ugly people.
A company can turn you down for a job if you do not meet their expectations of what they want representing their company.
Companies DO NOT need to be Equal Opportunity Employers. That is a Choice they make.
The only entity that does not have that right is the Government.
Your right to consume substances, does not nullify their right to set policy or to chose whom to employ.
Personally I will never work for a company that requires physicals, blood tests, or drug tests.
But they are well within their rights to require them.

And when you live in a country where ALL employers require tests as a prerequisite? What then?

 

[Scott EE]

So all smokers, and even ex-smokers, may as well go and commit hari kiri? They may as well, as quitting doesn't even qualify you as a non-smoker? Even if you quit, you are expelled from the labor market unless you are 'American' enough to go cold turkey
A country that cannot forgive a person their mistakes, or even give hope to those making an effort, is a country that needs to hit the reset button. IMHO

We only forgive politicians, corporations, celebrities, and professional athletes. Common folks get vilified for everything.

 

[rothenbj]

Ohio doesn't protect any nicotine use either- the local hospitals, some of them, will not hire anyone with nicotine in their system.

The hospital I work in has instituted tests that are not mandatory but if you don't take them annually, you pay 400 a month more in health insurance costs.

On any of several categories (obesity, blood pressure, nicotine, cholesterol, blood sugar) you get charged 50 bux a month per category if you "flunk" them and are not under treatment.

The exception is nicotine, where it doesn't matter if it's treatment, not treatment, vaping, patch, gum, whatever- it's a cash penalty for having it in your system.

Our performance increases are also tied to "healthy behaviors" like gym memberships, seeing a doc regularly, attending classes on health issues, etc., which you have to document "4 behaviours or participations" with receipts and attestations of participation that show you are committed to "wellness". This has a direct bearing on how much you might get as a raise in any given year.

So you can be penalized 400 a month for not getting your blood drawn and going through your "physical" and then have whether you get a raise or not affected by "healthy behaviours".

As a Nurse, I am ambivalent about all this- I don't like the intrusiveness, but I do appreciate the fact that we do need to raise consciousness about what makes for healthier living.

The struggles of folks that have been debilitated by obesity or analogs or *shiver* diabetes, joint problems, cancers, etc. are truly awful.

The ravages on older aged patients that leave them with a life that means maybe nothing more than moving from chair to bed to chair to bed to .... huffing, puffing, and in pain most of the time just plain - suck. Not to mention the younger folk who are statistically unlucky, or anyone that has had a stroke...

I don't like the idea of a nanny state. I don't like limited freedoms. Neither do I think anyone who says they realize the risks they are taking (just like I did for so long) can really appreciate what life on the other side of a failed risk is really like. There's not a one of them that says "I'd do it all over again".

I'm not advocating the way things are being done now, but I wish there was a way to make sure everyone was truly enlightened about the value of healthy behaviors (and vaping is going in the right direction towards that) and how to minimize risk, because the consequences are so... icky.

They haven't gone fare enough. They should be checking driving records, dangerous sports activity like skiing, snowboarding, bicycling, motorcycle riding. All of these can have adverse effects on the medical costs associated with working. I think business can certainly go a lot further to invade one's privacy than they've already gone.

I wouldn't even consider hiring someone coming from a war zone after serving our country. The possible psychological problems and unknown health risks from such activity could certainly affect one's ability to maximize productivity and minimize health costs.

God bless america.

 

[zoppatorsk]

Oh... man this is sick.

Here in Sweden we have jobs where you are not allowed to smoke, but nicotine in the blood is allowed. So patches and snus is obviously allowed.
Vaping i can't say anything about, here e-cigg's with nic is rare beacause it's not allowed to sell e-juice with nic (witchout nic is allowed). On the otherhand it dosen't seem like a problem to order from other countries.

Snus is very popular in Sweden (if someone would trie to ban snus here, then i wouldn't want to be in that someone's shoes) so many who quits smoking starts to snus instead.

I myself quit smoking for a couple of years with help of snus.
Then i got back to ciggs again and had two addictions instead of one
This is a really common problem for Sweds
Huu.... both cigg's and snus are taxed like no tomorrow and really expensive here.

One problem with snus is that many think it's alot harder to quit snus than to quit smoking, guess this have to do with there are no easy alternaive nic sources.

I started vaping a couple of days ago, maybe a week or soo. Now i vape pretty heavy because i cut down from using atleast 1/2 box of snus and 10-15 ciggs to just vaping and 2 snus/day

 

[LibertyRevolution]

And when you live in a country where ALL employers require tests as a prerequisite? What then?

Then you would be living a fascist state? The the free market would not allow ALL employers to require testing. There would always be someone willing to hire people without testing. Said company would then be able to pay a lower wage, in exchange for the increased risk that you may carry. With the lower wages, they could then sell their products below the pricing point of the others.

 

[Raven1]

They haven't gone fare enough. They should be checking driving records, dangerous sports activity like skiing, snowboarding, bicycling, motorcycle riding. All of these can have adverse effects on the medical costs associated with working. I think business can certainly go a lot further to invade one's privacy than they've already gone.

I wouldn't even consider hiring someone coming from a war zone after serving our country. The possible psychological problems and unknown health risks from such activity could certainly affect one's ability to maximize productivity and minimize health costs.

God bless america.

Ha! You sound facetious here, but you are not far from the truth. The company I work for did both a background check and a credit check on me before they hired me. This is supposed to be the "land of the free". What garbage.

 

[beingbekah]

Sieg heil!

 

[sjohnson]

Everything you said is true, except the employee physicians are not HOSPITAL employees, usually it's a physicians' group that then contracts with the hospital to cover services. Medicare rules mandate that a hospital not have direct financial influence over the physician (some exceptions like government run facilities).

True. That's why the physician employment contract includes language to this effect. i.e. language stating renumeration is $XXXX, but the hospital cannot dictate how the physician applies his/her practice. Notwithstanding, the hospital physician employee is subject to the same peer review as any doctor practicing at that hospital.

I've worked in hospitals on and off most of my life. Admitting privileges, physicians groups, and hospital physician employees are all part of the process.

It matters not, with respect to my original post, if the practice is uncommon. It exists, and if even one employee physician of the hospital is present and exempted from the general employee rule, grounds may exist for legal action ordering the rule to be either applied uniformly, rescinded, or otherwise amended to apply in a fair and equitable fashion to ALL employees.

 

[kristin]

Employers have a right to protect their bottom line and smokers aren't a protected class. And they aren't firing current employed smokers, just not hiring any more smokers.

But I don't get the logic of the nicotine test. They could be missing out on quality employees who don't smoke, but are still dependent on nicotine patches or gum. Sounds like cutting off the nose to spite the face to me.

 

[aubergine]

This actually made me cry. But I'm just 5 days into wonderful ecigs and haven't had a smoke and don't want one, and I guess there's SOME withdrawal - everything bad and wrong sort of makes me want to cry at the moment. That I can ride out - these things are a miracle for me.
I'm a psychotherapist and you don't want to get me started on what Pharma urges us to put in people's bodies, with major effective PR, skewed, self-funded research, and a profit margin from Mars. You can carpet bomb the brain of a 5 year old, and pull taxes from every bottle sucked dry by an alcoholic, but if I've gotten hooked on gov. sanctioned poisoned tobacco, or worse, UNhooked myself from it via a safer alternative, well then, better protect me from myself with a slew of legal and social insults. Feh. How very screwed up. Give me a kleenex.
And yes, Virginia, your psychotherapist also has her moments. It's a dirty old world. Let me pull myself together here.
Feh.