Employer charging smokers.. Thoughts?

13nicholas

I guess each party has the freedom of contract. From a business perspective, focusing on policing the health of your human resources may distract you from your mission. Is loosing a significant percentage of your workforce worth it? Probably not.

gerbies

Something else to consider:

You are not "required" to participate in your company's insurance program. If a smoker feels they are truly the peak of health, then leverage a health spending account and place your own money into that account for future health costs. Take the gamble yourself and self-insure.

As as aside, have you ever looked around the "smoker's circle" at your place of business? As a generality, most of those folks are not the picture of health. You don't need to be obese to have a heart attack or get cancer. You just need to make poor health choices, like smoking, not exercising, eating the wrong foods, eating too much sugar, etc. It's the MINORITY of people who are regular daily smokers who are runners or consistent athletes.

poncho33

Basically insurance companies are under attack for charging more for preexisting conditions...so if you can't charge the person who is really using the most medical... find a large group of people doing something considered a "sin" and charge them. smoking can cause long term health problems but they are charging for current coverage. So why should a non-ill smoker be charged for more current coverage than any other non-ill co-worker??

Example... if OP smokes this year and only goes in for her yearly check up (free for many companies). How is she costing the group more for the year?? You pay insurance on a year to year basis. Now in socialized medicine... long run she very well could cost the system more money by choosing to smoke. But this is a group plan and she may not be in the same group next year. It's cost covering for things they can't out right cost cover do to discrimination.

You obviously don't understand how insurance works. It's based on probability. A 17-year old could be the best driver in the world but he/she is going to be charged a higher rate due to higher risk in their age group.

I do understand that the system is based on probability... my point however is that it isn't right to pair a 20 year old smoker in with a 50 year old smoker... and say they have the same probability of using more health insurance "this year." Or why should a 20 year old smoker that just started smoking pay the extra and a 60 year old ex smoker that smoked for 30 years get a discount cause he quit?

gerbies

Basically insurance companies are under attack for charging more for preexisting conditions...so if you can't charge the person who is really using the most medical... find a large group of people doing something considered a "sin" and charge them. smoking can cause long term health problems but they are charging for current coverage. So why should a non-ill smoker be charged for more current coverage than any other non-ill co-worker??

Example... if OP smokes this year and only goes in for her yearly check up (free for many companies). How is she costing the group more for the year?? You pay insurance on a year to year basis. Now in socialized medicine... long run she very well could cost the system more money by choosing to smoke. But this is a group plan and she may not be in the same group next year. It's cost covering for things they can't out right cost cover do to discrimination.

You obviously don't understand how insurance works. It's based on probability. A 17-year old could be the best driver in the world but he/she is going to be charged a higher rate due to higher risk in their age group.

I do understand that the system is based on probability... my point however is that it isn't right to pair a 20 year old smoker in with a 50 year old smoker... and say they have the same probability of using more health insurance "this year." Or why should a 20 year old smoker that just started smoking pay the extra and a 60 year old ex smoker that smoked for 30 years get a discount cause he quit?

You are correct: in group benefits through an employer there is less differentiation based on risk characteristics (e.g., age, gender, preexisting conditions, weight, etc.) than individual health plans. This, however, is changing with the inclusion of "credits" or rate adjustments for smoking and weight-based issues. You will continue to see this evolve more and more.

The reason you do not see this at the employer-offered health plan level is due to the administrative aspect of negotiating a rate for an employer and due to the administrative costs related to differentiating cost and communicating such costs at the employee level.

HiKaren

You mean your employer helps out with health insurance plan?

Guess I would think about this more, if my employer was this gracious..

Mine is $460 per month and husbands is $430 per month. For both of us $890 per month. I was rejected by Kaiser when I applied for individual policy. So I joined the california cosmetologist association, and they had to accept me being a member of their group. So its not thru my employer that I get healthcare... I've been here 8 years, and at the initial interview he said he was "Looking into it" Yep right. : ( Everytime I have asked I get the answer that "Times Are Tough"

(We work for the same company, whos first priority is purchasing classic cars & vehicles, instead of helping his employees)

But if he ever does, and I am smoking, then I would gladly pay the $40 to the insurance company.

Rant over

mfpcopine

Basically insurance companies are under attack for charging more for preexisting conditions...so if you can't charge the person who is really using the most medical... find a large group of people doing something considered a "sin" and charge them. smoking can cause long term health problems but they are charging for current coverage. So why should a non-ill smoker be charged for more current coverage than any other non-ill co-worker??

Example... if OP smokes this year and only goes in for her yearly check up (free for many companies). How is she costing the group more for the year?? You pay insurance on a year to year basis. Now in socialized medicine... long run she very well could cost the system more money by choosing to smoke. But this is a group plan and she may not be in the same group next year. It's cost covering for things they can't out right cost cover do to discrimination.

You obviously don't understand how insurance works. It's based on probability. A 17-year old could be the best driver in the world but he/she is going to be charged a higher rate due to higher risk in their age group.

I do understand that the system is based on probability... my point however is that it isn't right to pair a 20 year old smoker in with a 50 year old smoker... and say they have the same probability of using more health insurance "this year." Or why should a 20 year old smoker that just started smoking pay the extra and a 60 year old ex smoker that smoked for 30 years get a discount cause he quit?

You are correct: in group benefits through an employer there is less differentiation based on risk characteristics (e.g., age, gender, preexisting conditions, weight, etc.) than individual health plans. This, however, is changing with the inclusion of "credits" or rate adjustments for smoking and weight-based issues. You will continue to see this evolve more and more.

The reason you do not see this at the employer-offered health plan level is due to the administrative aspect of negotiating a rate for an employer and due to the administrative costs related to differentiating cost and communicating such costs at the employee level.

Excellent explanation. Thanks.

Restybaby2012

As long as it'll apply to "someone else"......it'll always be ok by the few. When and If it starts to target something one of "the few" does or likes or is.......they'll be screaming how unfair it is from the roof tops like a playground full of sissies gettin beat down

Molly_Maguire

so, why target smokers only??

Probably because smoking is an entirely voluntary act, until you become addicted. If you choose to become addicted to cigarettes, then you choose to pay a higher premium. Sucks, but in terms of dollars-and-cents and insurance language, it makes pretty good sense.

Ruger2506

so, why target smokers only??

Because it is easy. That is the simple answer.

It is not as simple to boil it down to hypertension. Hypertension is NOT a good indicator of health. At least not just one BP. Just one BP is simply a representation of the hemodynamic cardiac conditions at that exact moment in time. It can change within an instant.

Another reason they pick on smokers is because smoking is known to have a direct effect on so many health aspects it is scary. Worse part is that it is a delayed effect that shows up years after the smoking offense has occurred. So to smoke today and say you feel great and exercise just doesn't cut it.

schmenge55

Because by and large smokers are looked down upon so it is easier for insurance to target those risks than it is other risks.

pholbert

As an HR rep, I know the extreme cost of having smokers on a group plan. I don't blame the insurance companies or the employer for charging a fee for smoking. Smoking is something you can control. Most plans will even give you free resources for stopping.

Overeating and being obese can be controlled too. Hence this site.

2hobbit1

It is an insurance surcharge since your employers insurance vendor charges a higher premium to insure smokers. If you get life insurance through your employer it also factors into your premium for that as well.
My employer passes the increase on to any who do not certify they are smoke free but will give the reduced premium rate if you participate in their smoking cessation program.

They also give a reduced premium if you get a health screening performed during the yearly sign up period and they also provide wellness programs that help link employees to nutrition and weight-loss programs that help assist those with hypertension, diabetes and weight loss needs.

BinaryPulsar

A lot of times if a person has a pre-existing medical condition the insurance companies will simply refuse to cover them at all in the states (I'm from there). It's a business, so they make the rules based on what is in their best financial interest when they balance out the financial risks. In Canada, where I live now, everyone has medical coverage and it costs about 100 dollars a month for a family of 4, but that is only for basic health, most people need to purchase an additional health insurance plan (or get one available through their job, but not always) to cover other aspects of health..such as going to a physiotherapist or to an eye doctor, etc. Be glad you are healthy and have insurance (it's not actually an entitlement).

VanessaHeartsMasr

My employer not only charges smokers a higher premium, but in order to get a reduced premium for the year, you must complete a health and wellness program (i.e. proof of working out at a gym so many times per week, an on line weight loss program, stress reduction program, quit smoking program, 10,000 steps program, etc.). Plus, we have to fill out a yearly "Health Assessment" form, that calculates our "health scale" based on weight, smoking, nutrition, alcohol, stress, seatbelt use, etc., and we get "points." The higher your point value, the better. It gives us a goal for the next year; to raise our point number. They provide these programs free of charge, plus we get a 20.00 credit if we work out 12 or more times per month at the gym. It's an excellent, EXCELLENT incentive to get healthy. More employers should really do things like this. Plus, to answer the OP. I think it's fair. I used to smoke, and I had to pay the higher premium. It sucked and was a good incentive for me to quit smoking.

dym123

My company does the opposite, those of us that don't smoke, get a discount on our premiums. We've also banned smoking from our entire corporate campus, including the parking garage, which means smokers have to walk over a block and stand under an overpass to smoke

bradthemedic

That's great news. Penalize the obese and smokers. I am 100% all for it.

Chipmaniac

Basically insurance companies are under attack for charging more for preexisting conditions...so if you can't charge the person who is really using the most medical... find a large group of people doing something considered a "sin" and charge them. smoking can cause long term health problems but they are charging for current coverage. So why should a non-ill smoker be charged for more current coverage than any other non-ill co-worker??

Example... if OP smokes this year and only goes in for her yearly check up (free for many companies). How is she costing the group more for the year?? You pay insurance on a year to year basis. Now in socialized medicine... long run she very well could cost the system more money by choosing to smoke. But this is a group plan and she may not be in the same group next year. It's cost covering for things they can't out right cost cover do to discrimination.

You obviously don't understand how insurance works. It's based on probability. A 17-year old could be the best driver in the world but he/she is going to be charged a higher rate due to higher risk in their age group.

I do understand that the system is based on probability... my point however is that it isn't right to pair a 20 year old smoker in with a 50 year old smoker... and say they have the same probability of using more health insurance "this year." Or why should a 20 year old smoker that just started smoking pay the extra and a 60 year old ex smoker that smoked for 30 years get a discount cause he quit?

They both represent increased risk and thus it costs more to insure both of them. Someone has to bear that risk. The people with the risky behavior are naturally the ones who should front the extra cost of their insurance.

cmcollins001

This post makes me want to start smoking again.

SheilaN1976

thats ridiculous!!!!!

Zangpakto

Sure, as a blanket? BMI over 30 qualifies MEDICALLY as obese.

Blanket done and dusted, and if you are thin but muscle makes your BMI over 30? Your taking steroids buddy, so the health risks are the same if not worst.

As for the charge for smokers? Why not!

I think it is unfair they get so many breaks because of an unhealthy disgusting habit that also affects others around them!

They work less. Simple fact, they take those breaks and many smoke more than they need because they can have an extra rest. Oh they also get lunch like everyone else. Except I cannot just walk out for 5-10m whenever I please to the shop because I wanna do something, but the SMOKERS OF DEATH are allowed that very right.

Zangpakto

As long as it'll apply to "someone else"......it'll always be ok by the few. When and If it starts to target something one of "the few" does or likes or is.......they'll be screaming how unfair it is from the roof tops like a playground full of sissies gettin beat down

Not really, when the majority does not like or agree, they will leave and o somewhere else, which is exactly what they companies DO NOT WANT to happen.

While I do agree that smokers should pay more, I do see it by their view in that they pay extra already by smoking, now they need to pay on top? Bit crazy.

However healthy habits should be encouraged. I mean if you pay 1/0th your monthly salary over a year on smoking, surely a little bit extra to to make sure your health is fine is acceptable.

I would never cover a smoker for the same as a non smoker. Same with a fit person and obese person. If you want to put your body at risk voluntarily. Why should it be the insurance that pays for it? You should look after yourself. That is a fact. If you cannot or do not WANT to ensure your healthy, then pay more. SIMPLE!

schmenge55

I read someplace that since smokers tend to die earlier that overall smokers cost less, not more than non smokers as generally speaking the longer you live the higher the medical costs