Employer charging smokers.. Thoughts?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

This post makes me want to start smoking again.

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.

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