Insurance

[strayling]

Not sure if this would be better in the "Legal" section, but here goes.

What do you tell your insurance company if you've quit analogs but vape? How about if you only vape zero nicotine?

I can see a nasty situation where an insurance company withholds payment because you broke a leg but didn't tell them you used a personal vapouriser.

 

[ROB26]

Strayling, I was thinking the same thing! I'm currently searching for a job and realize that some health insurance companies test to find out if you truly smoke or not....At the same time, I don't know if I would feel like going into great detail about me e-smoking...I can only imagine the barrage of questions that would ensue! I'll be interested to see if anyone responds to this with any relevant first hand experience

 

[thatguyjeff]

Probably depends upon how the question is phrased. Questions most common in my experience specifically refer to the use of tobacco. As in, "have you used any tobacco in the past 6 months?" That one is easy enough to answer as no, I think.

If the question asks about "smoking," I still think the answer can be no. But if the question refers to nicotine use, well....

 

[thatguyjeff]

I was going to add, the company I work for uses the term, "tobacco" on its forms.

 

[strayling]

This seems to be another area where FDA interest could be a good thing if it puts out a consistent message on the classification of personal vapourisers. I hate the idea of some poor sod having to fight an insurance company to set a legal precedent, because those insurers can afford the best justice money can buy.

 

[thatguyjeff]

And if you look at it another way...

If you're a conventional smoker and you intentionally lie on some sort of application or health history questionaire, the burden of proof is on the insurance company to prove that you lied.

 

[K.P.]

"What do you tell your insurance company if you've quit analogs but vape?"

They pay people to pick up the phone and answer questions like these. I would assume the company would classify you the same as someone who'd quit smoking but was using nicotine gum or a patch. I'd be less worried about them denying a claim because you were sorta-kinda-but-not-really-smoking and ticked the non-smoker box...and more worried that you're taking a drug in a bottle and a manner not approved by the FDA and without your doctor's supervision.

Life insurance and personal-accident insurance policies will typically state quite clearly that they will not pay out if the person dies or is injured while doing something illegal or excessively reckless. For example, you would be covered if you bungee-jumping under th supervision of someone who took your money, asked you to sign a release form, and declares that income to the IRS but you would not if you used the exact same equipment and jumped off the same bridge.

There is a very good possibility that your health insurance policy states that you would not be covered for any condition arising directly from or contributed to by your ingesting an unapproved drug, an approved drug in an unapproved manner, or without your doctor's supervision--although for other problems in no way connected to inhaling nicotine or PG, you would still be covered.

 

[TropicalBob]

Actually, this has been covered in several threads in the past. Here's the kicker:

The test for nicotine use is a test of urine for cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine use. Cotinine doesn't pinpoint whether you smoke cigarettes, chew tobacco, puff a pipe or inhale e-cig vapor. It just shows you have ingested nicotine.

Bingo. You are classified as a smoker by that test. You must be free of all cotinine traces to qualify as a non-smoker for corporate insurance purposes. Your word is no good. Your urine, saliva and blood are all they're interested in.

There are problems here: What if you're on approved NRT to quit smoking? What if your spouse is a heavy smoker and you inhale second-hand smoke at home?

Not all questions have been answered, but this much is certain: Nicotine use of any kind will ring the smoking bell when employee tests are done. You will not qualify for non-smoker status.

 

[thatguyjeff]

There is a very good possibility that your health insurance policy states that you would not be covered for any condition arising directly from or contributed to by your ingesting an unapproved drug, an approved drug in an unapproved manner, or without your doctor's supervision--although for other problems in no way connected to inhaling nicotine or PG, you would still be covered.

Not true.

Drugs are often prescribed for "off-label" use. This is especially true for cancer patients. If the above were true, medical attention for an illicit drug overdose would never be covered.

 

[strayling]

Actually, this has been covered in several threads in the past.

...

Not all questions have been answered, but this much is certain: Nicotine use of any kind will ring the smoking bell when employee tests are done. You will not qualify for non-smoker status.

I'm sure it's been covered before, but there are a lot of us new people here so I figured it's worth revisiting.

The bottom line there is about what I expected. I'm not at all surprised that the insurance companies use an inappropriate test in order to save themselves money

 

[K.P.]

Not true.

Drugs are often prescribed for "off-label" use. This is especially true for cancer patients. If the above were true, medical attention for an illicit drug overdose would never be covered.

Yes, drugs are prescribed for off-label use, and they key there is that they are prescribed by a doctor.

I'm not familiar with health insurance specifically and I'm sure it has its own specific general principles that set it aside from other types of insurance. Insurers are generally happy to cover a person engaging in a somewhat risky activity provided that someone with some official credentials has (by selling or supervising or otherwise approving) made the judgement that it is an acceptable amount of risk being undertaken. You can be covered for an injury you get skiing down a very steep run at a ski-resort, but not covered for an injury if you go skiing down a gentle hill near your house (for example). Your auto insurance might cover you for an accident the day before your license expires, but not the day after, even though your ability to drive safely hasn't actually changed. Your computer is still under warranty when someone at Circuit City breaks it, but not if you attempt to make certain repairs yourself (even if you previously worked at CC). And so on.

Strayling, difference companies and different policies will vary. You might be stuffed as Bob says, you might not. Call them, ask them, make your own record of the call, staple it to your insurance documents, and try to get them to follow up your call with written verification of what they've told you.

 

[strayling]

Strayling, difference companies and different policies will vary. You might be stuffed as Bob says, you might not. Call them, ask them, make your own record of the call, staple it to your insurance documents, and try to get them to follow up your call with written verification of what they've told you.

Appreciate the advice K.P, thanks. The question wasn't for me specifically though. I've still got my fallback insurance of a trip back to the land of the NHS