(Personal Finance) Where there's smoke

Status
Not open for further replies.

ezmoose

Guest
Dec 18, 2009
438
1
70
USA
Personal Finance - Where there's smoke

Life assurers penalise smokers by making them pay high premiums. So what happens to your premiums if you have switched from tobacco to an apparently healthier alternative? We took a deep breath and went looking for answers.

This is a South African source; however, answers some questions that are probably (more or less) applicable universally. After all, it's the New World Order otherwise known as Global Marketing! lol
 
Last edited:

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Correct. Reserarchers who studied nicotine replacement products verified non-smoking status by measuring exhaled carbon monoxide. They knew that the NRT product would affect blood levels of cotinine.

Neither using non-smoked nicotine products nor inhaling 2nd-hand smoke should affect exhaled carbon monoxide levels. It might take a lawsuit against an insurer before they agree to change to the more accurate test of smoking status.

BTW: Anyone who has had their employment affected by being falsely accused of smoking due to a positive result on a cotinine test should seek the assistance of an attorney and let them know about tesing for "exhaled carbon monoxide" instead of cotinine.
 
Last edited:

rothenbj

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 23, 2009
8,248
7,647
Green Lane, Pa
Correct. Reserarchers who studied nicotine replacement products verified non-smoking status by measuring exhaled carbon monoxide......

I sent an email to Personal Finance about the article and questioned why the insurance companies don't use pulse cooximetery to detect patients' smoking status. Apparently, it is a quick, inexpensive, and noninvasive way to detect patients' smoking status , and that the outpatient clinic is an ideal setting for its use.

It should be interesting if they follow up with the insurance companies.
 

rothenbj

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 23, 2009
8,248
7,647
Green Lane, Pa
What I specifically asked was-

This article brought up Electronic cigarettes and the fact that-



"Esme Hitchcock, a chemical pathologist at Pathcare, says the tests carried out look for traces of cotinine in your blood. Life assurers do not test for nicotine because nicotine is metabolised very quickly."

This test would find cotinine in you blood even on E cigs, NRT products or smokeless tobacco such as Swedish snus.

Why aren't carbon monoxide blood levels tested? This test would differentiate smokers from other forms of nicotine use and properly rate insureds.

Pulse co-oximetery is a quick, inexpensive, and noninvasive way to detect patients' smoking status. It would appear that the insurance companies prefer over charging, rather than getting the correct information.

My email was forwarded to Dr Pieter Coetzer at the ASISA Medical and Underwriting Standing Committee. His response follows-

When it comes to testing, the life insurance industry rates quality over cost. It is better to pay slightly more and have reliable test results, than to save a little, but run the risk of inconveniencing customers with false positive tests.



Regarding the cotinine tests, the following information is important:



· Serum cotinine tests have been proven to be specific and accurate.

· The cut-off value for a positive result is set high enough to eliminate passive smokers.

· Cotinine is a breakdown product of nicotine. Therefore, if your cotinine value is elevated, it follows that this is because you consumed high levels of nicotine, with its associated negative health effects. The source of the nicotine is therefore irrelevant.

Am I confused or did he not answer my question? I suppose he has just bought into the fallacy that smoking = nicotine = tobacco = identical health risks.
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,264
20,289
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
I found this on e-How, but not sure how accurate it is:

From the time you last consume a product with nicotine, it will take up to 72 hours for the product to leave your body. Cotinine remains in the bloodstream up to four days after the last consumption of nicotine.

I'll just pick up a bottle of Essence 0mg Mocha Madness! :D
 
Last edited:

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,973
San Diego
Am I confused or did he not answer my question? I suppose he has just bought into the fallacy that smoking = nicotine = tobacco = identical health risks.
Oh man, that would make me really angry.

I would reply and ask him if he was aware that nicotine is NOT the dangerous part of smoking.
And then I would question how he could become a doctor without knowing something so basic.

And then I would say it scares me that anybody so ignorant would be on an Underwriting Committee.
 

PlanetScribbles

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 3, 2009
1,046
124
Londinium, Brittania
Oh man, that would make me really angry.

I would reply and ask him if he was aware that nicotine is NOT the dangerous part of smoking.
And then I would question how he could become a doctor without knowing something so basic.

And then I would say it scares me that anybody so ignorant would be on an Underwriting Committee.

I expect that he already knows this, but is happy to continue screwing his customers on some trumped up health risk.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,973
San Diego
It all comes down to the almighty dollar again. Positive test = higher premiums or certain medical bills not having to be paid.
If there is one thing I am learning from all this...

It is that we CAN make things happen if we try hard enough.
Our effect on ban attempts by different states tells me we have some power.

This is not impossible, and no one should think it is.
At least not yet.
:)
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
What I specifically asked was-



My email was forwarded to Dr Pieter Coetzer at the ASISA Medical and Underwriting Standing Committee. His response follows-



Am I confused or did he not answer my question? I suppose he has just bought into the fallacy that smoking = nicotine = tobacco = identical health risks.

I suggest you write back and state that the evidence is quite clear that nicotine is much less harmful to human health than smoking. Cigarette smoking exposes individuals to carbon monoxide and many other combustion products. Recommend that he read the book, Nicotine Safety and Toxicity, edited by Neal L. Benowitz (Oxford University Press).

"Some individuals may stop smoking using nicotine therapy but relapse when they stop the nicotine treatment. For such individuals, the safety of long-term nicotine maintenance therapy has to be considered. Because exposure to nicotiine during nicotine replacement therapy is generally no greater than during cigarette smoking, and because there is less exposure to other tobacco toxins, the benefits of nicotine maintenance therapy almost certainly outweighs the risks." Page 193

Ask him to explain why those who switch from smoking to Swedish snus (a type of moist snuff) have the same life expectancy as smokers who stop using any form of nicotine.

Assessment of Swedish snus for tobacco harm reduction: an epidemiological modelling study : The Lancet

Gartner CE, Hall WD, Vos T, Bertram MY, Wallace AL, Lim SS. Assessment of Swedish snus for tobacco harm reduction: an epidemiological modelling study. The Lancet, Volume 369, Issue 9578, Pages 2010 - 2014, 16 June 2007.

"FINDINGS: There was little difference in health-adjusted life expectancy between smokers who quit all tobacco and smokers who switch to snus (difference of 0.1-0.3 years for men and 0.1-0.4 years for women)."

If former smokers who continue some form of nicotine intake have the same life expectancy as any other former smoker, then they present no greater financial risk to the life insurer than any other former smoker and should not be charged higher rates.
 

rothenbj

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 23, 2009
8,248
7,647
Green Lane, Pa
Good input Elaine. I shall get back to them and I'll use your information as part of my question. I've been investigating an additional angle, woodsmoke.

Breathe Healthy Air


"The EPA estimates that the lifetime cancer risk from wood stove smoke is twelve times greater than that from an equal volume of second hand tobacco smoke. (The Health Effects of Wood Smoke, Washington State Department of Ecology)"

Wood smoke creates carbon monoxide as well as PM2.5 (the component that James Enstrom studied at UCLA before he got fired).

There's a certain logic that rather than testing for cotinine, they should be testing for CO since the levels in individuals that burn a lot of wood would certainly be elevated. This is certainly a health risk that effects both morbidity and mortality.

From another website-

How are you exposed to wood smoke?

"Ironically just as cigarette smoking is being phased out of public places, restaurants cooking with wood or charcoal, often run by national chains, are springing up all over the country, in shopping malls and dense urban neighborhoods like Forest Hills Queens, NY, Longmeadow, MA, Palo Alto, CA, and even a little town like Point Arena, CA. Air regulatory agencies overlook their pollution as they each burn up to one thousand pounds of wood a week. They are a nonstop assault on the people who live in and work in these areas. Measurements inside a non-smoking restaurant using gas for cooking fuel showed no detectable PM2.5 or carbon monoxide (CO). Measurements of PM2.5 and CO inside a restaurant using wood equaled pollution levels similar to levels measured in a restaurant with cigarette smoking."

My emphasis.

Then there is this study-

Lung Cancer Pathogenesis Associated With Wood Smoke Exposure* ? CHEST


"Sixty-two patients with primary lung cancer were examined prior to chemotherapy (Table 2). Approximately 38.7% of the patients had an association with wood smoke (24 of 62 subjects), and 37.1% had an association with tobacco smoke (23 of 62 subjects). "

"Conclusion: This study suggests that there is a possible association of lung cancer with wood smoke exposure. Likewise, our findings demonstrate that wood smoke could produce similar effects on p53, phospho-p53, and MDM2 protein expression as tobacco. "

Beside a question on why they're only testing for cigarette smoke, I'm finding the information fascinating in looking at another reason for lung cancer as well as the perspective of second hand wood smoke.

It really is dangerous firing up that fireplace, especially with young children in the house or the neighborhood. I don't think the smoke Nazis have considered the other possibilities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread