Nicotine users not alone anymore in the health insurance game...

[NICnurse]

NBC news has had this story on a couple of times today......CVS is starting the initiative to have body weight, BMI, glucose levels, cholesterol, etc screened by your doctor, and based on those numbers, your health insurance premium rates are calculated. IIRC, it is roughly a $60 penalty if your numbers do not "line up" with the standards the company set forth.

I remember some of us thinking this would be a next step in the health insurance game after they started screening for nicotine users and requiring some of them to pay higher rates. It is irritating that the choices we make outside of work (vaping, using smokless tobacco, enjoying a donut, a beer, eating a pizza) are now being penalized by employers. While I am a nicotine user, I do not have a dog in the fight with the health screenings. I am healthy and well within my BMI parameters. Cholesterol is low and glucose is normal. But I have several co-workers that do not use nicotine and are definitely not within the biometric screening parameters. And I am sure there are more than a handful where I work that would pay a lot higher premiums due to using nicotine AND being overweight/high cholesterol/diabetic.

We are going to be an employed nation of people with risk riders attached to every piece of insurance we take out on ourselves. Jeesh!

 

[MarleysChains]

My company has been doing this for years now which is why as soon as I could, I got on my wifes policy. I don't fall into the so called "high risk" groups other than nicotine, but I just didn't think my company had any reason to know any of my private health information. I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies are offering better premiums as an incentive to the employers for implementing these policies.

 

[Blurgas]

I've always been told BMI is a horrible way to determine whether or not someone is healthy/overweight/etc mainly because it doesn't take muscle vs fat into account.
There are athletes that could be considered obese based on the BMI scale

 

[Renolizzie]

The real problem with this sort of thing is that health decisions are being made with very little scientific evidence. BMI is not really a great indicator of how healthy you are. Being a little overweight may be good for you in that you may live longer. Cholesterol is not the whole story and is probably a limited part of the story when it comes to heart disease. Almost everyone who is older has pre-diabetes by today's standards but many of them are not and will not be diabetic. People in this country are falling into the trap of thinking that if they have this or that test that it will determine their health and longevity and that just isn't the case. Insurers are using this to their advantage to make it so that people pay more and they are working so that almost everyone has to pay more at the rate they are going. IMHO.

 

[Plumes.91]

someone did just post a link to an article saying that one of the life insurance companies is now openly embracing e-cigs. I believe it was Prudential. We will get there. We'll get to a point where the recognize us.

 

[PRIMER]

never been able to afford health insurance, so no sympathy.

 

[Scoop224]

never been able to afford health insurance, so no sympathy.

I would be dead several times over if it weren't for my health insurance. Not an exaggeration, either.

 

[Trick]

I would be dead several times over if it weren't for my health insurance. Not an exaggeration, either.

I'd only be dead once over, but once is usually enough. The wonky heart is what got me to finally quit. Well that, and the ol' Provari.

The place I work has offered discounts for years if you literally give them some body fluids. I've never taken them up on it, though. I guess I'm willing to pay a little more if it means I don't have to give some insurance company intimate knowledge of my internals.

 

[TigerLadyTX]

This has been going on with my hubby's company for 3 years now. Pass all of the parameters, and get a discount on our health insurance premiums. Fail even one of them, and pay a surcharge. Sadly, we have no other insurance options.

~Tiger

 

[p-doze]

These systems are in place to encourage a more healthy lifestyle, and to reward the people financially who make these decisions. Fat smokers that don't exercise are going to start having to pay more, because the rest of us will be subsidizing their medical treatments and medication. Nobody is penalized for their choices to not be healthy, but the people who choose to do the screenings, participate in smoking cessation programs, and make an effort to be more healthy will get discounts off of their premium.

Everybody wants cheap health insurance, but very few want to put the effort in to minimize how much they actually have to use that insurance.

 

[flintlock62]

I would be dead several times over if it weren't for my health insurance. Not an exaggeration, either.

 

[D4rk50ul]

Stupid. The health industry is so corrupt it's not even funny, I have less of a problem with the military using 1 million dollar hammers.

 

[exnihilo]

Well, BMI is crap, so...

cg

 

[Uncle Willie]

No different than Auto insurance discounts for safe driving ..

 

[Byten]

I've always been told BMI is a horrible way to determine whether or not someone is healthy/overweight/etc mainly because it doesn't take muscle vs fat into account.
There are athletes that could be considered obese based on the BMI scale

It would be very difficult for an athlete to hit a BMI over 30, for most it would be impossible to carry that amount of lean mass.. without pharmaceutical help that is.

I have been bodybuilding for a lot of years, my absolute highest BMI I have ever hit was 29 and that took 3 months of training to failure, whole body twice a week while consuming 5000 calories a day, far more than most would ever try as performing in a sport would be very difficult while under those conditions. I have tried multiple cycles trying to become obese with less than 12% body fat and after researching for years how to break that barrier I finally started researching if it was even possible. The short of it is, No. Overweight is easy, obese is simply impossible unless you are using hormones. Easy way to pick out who's on the juice, imho. I am 5'9" if anyone was wondering.

It is a worthless number unless you are a stereotypical average American, as is cholesterol. During my bulking cycles, I usual consume about 6 dozen eggs and 6 lbs of fatty red meat(ribeye, brisket and 85% hamburger). My serum cholesterol during these cycles is always tested LDL 100 -110 , HDL 90 - 100 and my highest ever triglycerides was 124 while consuming a diet that most medical professionals argue would kill a man within a few years. From my research, high cholesterol is only a conditional health risk in the first place.

There is no way to quantify a cost increase for the unhealthy, every number has a flaw and every vice has a benefit loophole but the financial interests have to be forcing their inaccurate ideals on us.

What we need is a way to pass these tests, anyone working on that?

 

[p-doze]

that's one way to completely overreact...
the purpose of penalizing bad health and eating habits is to increase wellness so that healthcare costs go down. regardless of how you view BMI's accuracy, or what your definition of obesity is, if you are a sedentary smoker that eats fast food and junk food, you are at a much higher risk of developing myriad chronic diseases down the line.

the purpose of these screenings, and the reasons they are free, is to get rid of copays and deductibles for preventative care so that even if people aren't feeling sick, they still go to the doctor and get a baseline on their numbers because it costs them no money out of pocket, and could result in a premium decrease. if in a year's time, their numbers improve, it COULD result in a premium reduction for their health insurance at renewal. the other purpose is to get people to go to the doctor to find undiagnosed issues, that if left untreated, will result in massive bills to the individual, their employer, and the health insurance company that wrote the policy.

and just to briefly defend the health insurance companies, the goal here isn't for them to not pay claims, it's to get people medical attention before their maladies are terminal. ie, early stage cancers, heart disease, diabetes.

 

[sawalke4]

brb moving to Europe

 

[d9mel]

My wifes policy is offered at a great price, but if you fail to go in for an annual checkup ($0 co-pay) your annual rate increases. There is no factoring according to patient health, you just have to go in for an annual

I think thats a good approach to promoting basic health, not penalizing for statistical variations

 

[tj99959]

NBC news has had this story on a couple of times today......CVS is starting the initiative to have body weight, BMI, glucose levels, cholesterol, etc screened by your doctor, and based on those numbers, your health insurance premium rates are calculated. IIRC, it is roughly a $60 penalty if your numbers do not "line up" with the standards the company set forth.

I remember some of us thinking this would be a next step in the health insurance game after they started screening for nicotine users and requiring some of them to pay higher rates. It is irritating that the choices we make outside of work (vaping, using smokless tobacco, enjoying a donut, a beer, eating a pizza) are now being penalized by employers. While I am a nicotine user, I do not have a dog in the fight with the health screenings. I am healthy and well within my BMI parameters. Cholesterol is low and glucose is normal. But I have several co-workers that do not use nicotine and are definitely not within the biometric screening parameters. And I am sure there are more than a handful where I work that would pay a lot higher premiums due to using nicotine AND being overweight/high cholesterol/diabetic.

We are going to be an employed nation of people with risk riders attached to every piece of insurance we take out on ourselves. Jeesh!

You must be still young. Wait a few years and see how those numbers work out. You get penalized for getting old in this country now-a-days.

 

[p-doze]

My wifes policy is offered at a great price, but if you fail to go in for an annual checkup ($0 co-pay) your annual rate increases. There is no factoring according to patient health, you just have to go in for an annual

I think thats a good approach to promoting basic health, not penalizing for statistical variations

this is how a lot of companies are starting the process. it's impossible to implement all of the wellness programs and penalties on year one, especially if people have spouses and dependents on their policy. years 2-3 are when the more in depth testing and upside/downside to participating will get rolled out. instead of looking at those tests as erroneous or invasive, look at it as a way to get yourself and your co-workers more healthy, and get financial rewards for doing it.