Employer charging smokers.. Thoughts?

Options
2456789

Replies

  • cmcollins001
    cmcollins001 Posts: 3,472 Member
    Options
    My opinion is it makes sense b/c smokers cost a company more in medical bills. I'm no doctor but I read that smokers will get sick easier than non-smokers, have a higher risk of developing cancers, heart disease (even if blood pressure is not high), and other diease that simply makes a smoker more expensive than an identical person who did not smoke.

    How do you figure? I smoked for 20 years and not once did I go to the hospital for anything "smoking" related.
  • alpine1994
    alpine1994 Posts: 1,915 Member
    Options
    i only smoke when i drink... so, i dont take breaks to smoke at work. and, i dont know where this money goes, i will learn more later. in my head, why not charge folks that are obese with awful eating habits & that are sedentary.

    You are a risk to the insurance company. It doesn't matter when you smoke/how much you smoke, but the fact that you do poses a significant risk to the insurance company that they'll have to pay more money on your medical bills down the road. My insurance company definitely jacks the premium based on obesity too. I think it's perfectly fair for them to do this. Any other kind of insurance does the same thing (car, home ownership, etc). It's just another of the millions of incentives to lead a healthy lifestyle.
  • ChrisRS87
    ChrisRS87 Posts: 781 Member
    Options
    I agree with it. I work in the finance dpt of my company and I see the increasing health care costs. My company pays 100% of the premiums and a few employees are driving the premiums up with huge claims. Rather than demand a few pay an increased premium we opted for a Wellness initiative, every employee had to have bloodwork done and reviewed by their doctor and physical done to keep their premiums free, otherwise they'd be responsible for 25% of the premium. This worked out really well and one employee said it even saved his life.

    Your company is just doing something similar. Mitigating the cost to the non smokers who are less at risk by charging the smokers more.

    Car insurance companies do the same thing. Progressive even has a thing you can opt in where it sends you a device which records for a month the times you are driving (4 am saturday morning is a high risk time) and how many times you hit the brake hard. By recording low risk driving the premium can drop significantly.
  • EnchantedEvening
    EnchantedEvening Posts: 671 Member
    Options
    i only smoke when i drink... so, i dont take breaks to smoke at work. and, i dont know where this money goes, i will learn more later. in my head, why not charge folks that are obese with awful eating habits & that are sedentary.

    come up with a definition of obese for a company to use as a blanket policy...
    Agreed. Smoking is yes/no. Weight is trickier. They can't use weight/BMI as a blanket measurement because that will punish athletes who are full of beefcakey muscley goodness. There's no way to check a box for "Yes" or "No" like there is with smoking.
  • sunnyside1213
    sunnyside1213 Posts: 1,205 Member
    Options
    I think it's a good idea.

    Where I live, if you smoke, you get a smoke break. If you don't smoke, too bad for you!

    the main reason my wife smoked in HS...as a waitress it's the only way she got a break "like everyone else".

    I was in the cracker factory years ago and pretended to smoke so I could get up at night. Only smokers could. It is hard to pretend to smoke.
  • meeka472
    meeka472 Posts: 283 Member
    Options
    i only smoke when i drink... so, i dont take breaks to smoke at work. and, i dont know where this money goes, i will learn more later. in my head, why not charge folks that are obese with awful eating habits & that are sedentary.

    My company makes smokers ether go through a stop smoking program or pay the extra premium. They also make the obese with 2 out of 3 indicators for metabolic syndrome go to a weight loss program like naturally slim or weight watchers or they have to pay extra as well.

    The result a drastic decrease in the number of smokers and a huge reduction in the cases of metabolic syndrome in my company...
  • Maebull
    Maebull Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    I wouldn't worry about it. I would sign the waiver as a non-smoker. Occasionally having a smoke doesn't hurt anything. I would keep in mind that they can test you for it by swabbing your mouth.
  • kclynn7
    kclynn7 Posts: 71
    Options
    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.
  • HopefulLeigh
    HopefulLeigh Posts: 363 Member
    Options
    so, starting in 2013 my employer will charge employees that smoke. i smoke on occassion. i don't know all the details as of yet but what I do know is that all employees will have to sign a waiver upon enrollment for insurance. basically i must certify that I had been a non-tobacco user for the 12 months immediately prior to completing my enrollment. since i can't certify this, i am subject to a $40 monthly premium deducted from my pay. i understand that smoking can lead to lifelong medical expenses. in my city, the largest medical claims are high blood pressure/ hypertension back & join pain. every year i get a medical exam & i get consistently get a clean bill of health. i excercise and watch what i eat. as i understand, one cause of high blood pressure is smoking, but it's also caused by being overweight or obese, lack of physical activity, poor diet etc. so, why target smokers only??

    just wondering thoughts on this? and, yes, i know smoking is bad for me. wah wah.

    I popped open this thread completely ready to tell you to talk to a lawyer. Upon actually reading what's going on, it's the insurance company that is charging that premium, not your employer, and you have the option of opting out by not enrolling into the company's insurance plan. It's an entirely reasonable fee, and many insurance companies also carry additional fees for obesity and such. Why doesn't that company? It's entirely possible that it is due to them having a greater knowledge of who is incurring these costs than you have and they've found that it is the smokers.
  • drmerc
    drmerc Posts: 2,603 Member
    Options
    I wouldn't worry about it. I would sign the waiver as a non-smoker. Occasionally having a smoke doesn't hurt anything. I would keep in mind that they can test you for it by swabbing your mouth.

    Fraud is always a good bet
  • HolsDoinIt
    HolsDoinIt Posts: 327 Member
    Options
    my job already does that..its like 25.00 per month for it and it comes directly out of smokers checks...but i do know of alot of employees who say they dont smoke and marked it with HR and arent being charged for it..also for the non smokers; we get $25.00 (for the month) added to our paychecks for being a non-smoker...i think it has something to do with the BCBS insurance company...
  • apnovack
    apnovack Posts: 40
    Options
    so, starting in 2013 my employer will charge employees that smoke. i smoke on occassion. i don't know all the details as of yet but what I do know is that all employees will have to sign a waiver upon enrollment for insurance. basically i must certify that I had been a non-tobacco user for the 12 months immediately prior to completing my enrollment. since i can't certify this, i am subject to a $40 monthly premium deducted from my pay. i understand that smoking can lead to lifelong medical expenses. in my city, the largest medical claims are high blood pressure/ hypertension back & join pain. every year i get a medical exam & i get consistently get a clean bill of health. i excercise and watch what i eat. as i understand, one cause of high blood pressure is smoking, but it's also caused by being overweight or obese, lack of physical activity, poor diet etc. so, why target smokers only??

    just wondering thoughts on this? and, yes, i know smoking is bad for me. wah wah.

    We must work for the same company
  • mell6355
    mell6355 Posts: 171 Member
    Options
    I wouldn't be suprised if they try to target overweight people someday. Once they get everyone paying out the wahoo for smoking, through cigarette taxes, insurance premiums, and what not, they will need the next group to target. Smoking is easier than weight to pin point tax, and fee to death. I smoked for half of my life before quitting in January, I will never go back, but I definately understand those who haven't quit, it is hard, just as hard if not harder than losing weight. My insurance bills going up was another incentive for me to quit.

    Some people quit smoking, for many reasons including how expensive it is. Some others keep smoking, can't afford it, so they get on welfare, spend everyone elses money for food, insurance, and rent and go buy their cigarettes anyways!

    Found my soap box!
  • Chopshopcop
    Chopshopcop Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    The insurance companies charge it as a risk factor, similar to auto insurance charging more for an 18-year old driver versus a 40-year old driver.

    If the insurance companies start charging more for obese patients, those costs will eventually get passed on as well.

    I'm not sure how your employer can enforce this, though. How would they verify if someone is a smoker, especially if (like you) they only smoke when drinking? Weight goes into a medical record, but smoking doesn't (unless you admit to it). I'm genuinely curious about this.

    You're signing an affidavit swearing under penalty that you do not smoke. If the insurance company suspects that you are smoking, they can demand a blood test to check for nicotine levels. Test positive, they can dun you extra money for smoking, they can charge you for the months that you claimed you didn't smoke and can drop you from the policy all together. Depending on the wording in the contract (that's what it basically is), they can do all of these things all at once.

    My insurance started it last year...luckily, we had both quit several years ago. They also require that if spouse or other person in the home smokes, you pay extra
  • melsmith612
    melsmith612 Posts: 727 Member
    Options
    Personally I think it's discrimination on the part of insurance companies to pinpoint certain medical conditions (including addiction) and not others. And why do they only target tobacco users? Do people who smoke marijuana, meth or crack have a lesser chance of costing the insurance companies money in long-term health care expenses?

    As someone who is trying desperately to quit smoking and STAY quit, I can understand your issue with disclosing your social smoking in the 12 months prior and having to literally pay for it.
  • pixtotts
    pixtotts Posts: 552 Member
    Options
    One of my friends took up smoking because the smokers got smoking breaks and the none smokers didnt get anything :|
    x
  • SMarie10
    SMarie10 Posts: 953 Member
    Options
    My opinion is it makes sense b/c smokers cost a company more in medical bills. I'm no doctor but I read that smokers will get sick easier than non-smokers, have a higher risk of developing cancers, heart disease (even if blood pressure is not high), and other diease that simply makes a smoker more expensive than an identical person who did not smoke.

    How do you figure? I smoked for 20 years and not once did I go to the hospital for anything "smoking" related.
    I work for one of those big-bad insurance companies and while you personally may not yet have experienced health issues due to your smoking history, that doesn't hold true for smokers - they are much more prone to lung disease (Copd, emphysema, and lung cancer)... Consider yourself fortunate that you gave it up.

    For the OP - maybe you can pull a Bill Clinton remark and claim that while you do smoke, you don't actually inhale. If you only smoke when you drink, maybe it's time to wean yourself off and give it up. Your lungs will thank you.
  • Fnarkk
    Fnarkk Posts: 61 Member
    Options
    Your employer is kind of going about this the wrong way. The insurance companies have been increasing prices and charging the employers more who then pass it on to the employees. However due to wellness programs, people who take care of themselves get a bonus or a reduced price. It is not supposed to be that they are charging you more for smoking, it is supposed to be that they are giving non-smokers a $40 reduced price for not smoking. Difference is between positive and negative reinforcement and encouraging the employees to quit smoking v.s. making the ones who do [smoke] feel like crap. Your employer either missed that part of the memo, or has an issue with positive reinforcement. (Shortly, our work is going to be doing this as well however our employer let us read the letter from our insurance company which couched it in the above terms.) Oh, and they are also talking about giving a reduced rate for people who are in better shape (read: not obese) or are in a program to exercise and reduce their weight though the details haven't been made clear.

    Oh, edited to add this; I worked for many years on a respiratory floor in a hospital awhile back and you wouldn't BELIEVE how many people with lung cancer had no problems with their health until they well, they got lung cancer. From smoking.
  • paleirishmother
    paleirishmother Posts: 242
    Options
    that is your insurance, not the employer, and this is not a 'new' thing.
  • charleneagilmore
    charleneagilmore Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    i only smoke when i drink... so, i dont take breaks to smoke at work. and, i dont know where this money goes, i will learn more later. in my head, why not charge folks that are obese with awful eating habits & that are sedentary.


    Never heard of someone getting fat sitting next to an overweight person.

    How about the children of obese/overweight parents who also end up overweight due to learned poor diet choices and inactivity? It's not quite like second hand smoke, but these bad habits become ingrained for kids who aren't exposed to good choices.

    As for the premium on smokers (most insurance companies give 'rebates' to the non-smokers, rather than charge the smokers extra), I support it because it helps people quit and the impacts of smoking aren't usually felt in youth. They come years later- just like the longer term impacts of obesity. The costs then to cover the illnesses cause by smoking skyrocket. I'd support a charge/premium for people who are obese (that includes me) for the exact same reason.

Categories