Get healthy or else, say employers (Obamacare)

[Subyman]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/13/us-usa-healthcare-wellness-insight-idUSKBN0KM17C20150113

U.S. companies are increasingly penalizing workers who decline to join "wellness" programs, embracing an element of President Barack Obama's healthcare law that has raised questions about fairness in the workplace.

Beginning in 2014, the law known as Obamacare raised the financial incentives that employers are allowed to offer workers for participating in workplace wellness programs and achieving results. The incentives, which big business lobbied for, can be either rewards or penalties - up to 30 percent of health insurance premiums, deductibles, and other costs, and even more if the programs target smoking.

For some companies, however, just signing up for a wellness program isn't enough. They're linking financial incentives to specific goals such as losing weight, reducing cholesterol, or keeping blood glucose under control. The number of businesses imposing such outcomes-based wellness plans is expected to double this year to 46 percent, the survey found.

"Wellness-or-else is the trend," said workplace consultant Jon Robison of Salveo Partners.

Some vendors that run workplace wellness for large employers promote their programs by promising to shift costs to "higher utilizers" of health care services, according to a recent analysis by Lorin Volk and Sabrina Corlette of Georgetown University Health Policy Institute - and by making workers "earn" contributions to their healthcare plans that were once automatic.

Consider Jill, who asked that her name not be used for fear of retaliation from the company. A few years ago, her employer, Lockheed Martin, provided hundreds of dollars per year to each worker to help defray insurance deductibles. Since it implemented its new wellness program, workers must now earn that contribution by, among other things, quitting smoking (something non-smokers can't do) and racking up steps on a company-supplied pedometer.

Lori, for instance, an employee at Pittsburgh-based health insurer Highmark, is paying $4,200 a year more for her family benefits because she declined to answer a health questionnaire or submit to company-run screenings for smoking, blood glucose, cholesterol, and blood pressure. She is concerned about the privacy of the online questionnaire, she said, and resents being told by her employer how to stay healthy.

Highmark vice president Anna Silberman, though, doesn't see it that way. She said the premium reductions that participants get "are a very powerful incentive for driving behavior," and that "people deserve to be rewarded for both effort and outcomes."

I think on the surface, it sounds like a neat program. Trying to get people healthy is a good thing right? Then it get implemented and its creepy as hell. "Company-supplied pedometer", online health questionnaires, docking pay for not wearing a pedometer, and the general feeling of awkwardness that your employer is keeping tabs on your body and it directly correlates to pay regardless of job performance.

What bothers me most is that they aren't giving value to some people, they are actually penalizing them. Some companies have decided to dock pay for not participating, so the person is much worse off than before these programs were implemented. I can get behind a reward system where the person gets incentives for participating, but cutting healthcare to some of the people that need it most seems strange.

I understand how smoking and morbidly obese people hurt health programs, but its still a strange situation to be in with your employer.

 

[theeedude]

404 - Obamacare not found.

 

[rudder]

Torn on this. On one hand I don't want to have to submit a blood sample to check my cholesterol levels to get a job... but on the other diabetes, heart disease and other easily preventable illnesses cost a lot of money to treat.

I try to maintain a healthy lifestyle so sure... throw some financial incentives my way.

 

[momeNt]

Right to be fat campaigns coming shortly.

The campaigns will likely be twitter or facebook campaigns, you won't be seeing any marching out of the fatties.

 

[theeedude]

Americans love their employer provided health insurance, we are told. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

 

[Subyman]

404 - Obamacare not found.

It says in my first quote how Obamacare affected these policies.

 

[Subyman]

Right to be fat campaigns coming shortly.

The campaigns will likely be twitter or facebook campaigns, you won't be seeing any marching out of the fatties.

Maybe if he get them mad enough they'll march all that fat off.

 

[theeedude]

It says in my first quote how Obamacare affected these policies.

It also says that those outcome based policies go beyond ACA.

 

[glenn1]

Doesn't matter, the people who Obamacare supporters care about and want to shovel taxpayer subsidies towards don't have jobs or employers anyway.

 

[Subyman]

It also says that those outcome based policies go beyond ACA.

They aren't required, but, as I understand it, they weren't possible to implement at these levels before Obamacare. So it has everything to do about Obamacare. Certainly not "404."

 

[theeedude]

They aren't required, but, as I understand it, they weren't possible to implement at these levels before Obamacare. So it has everything to do about Obamacare. Certainly not "404."

Why is that your understanding?

 

[theeedude]

Pre-Obamacare:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/winter09healthincentives/

Employee wellness programs prod workers to adopt healthy lifestyles

A Massachusetts man lost his job at a Scotts Miracle-Gro lawn and garden center in 2006 when a routine drug test came back positive. The finding: nicotine. Company leaders were cracking down on smoking and other unhealthy behaviors they saw as bad for the bottom line.

That same program saved another Scotts employee’s life. In this case, the worker—following the advice of a company-paid health coach—had some medical tests done and discovered that he was likely just days away from a massive heart attack. Two stents inserted into his coronary arteries saved him from a life-threatening blockage.

These are just two examples of how U.S. employers are dangling “carrots” and swinging “sticks” to prod workers to change their behavior and better their health. Companies have long had an interest in keeping workers healthy, productive, and satisfied while cutting health-care and insurance costs. Increasingly, though, they are using incentives—and disincentives—to rein in these costs’ runaway growth.

So far, tobacco use and obesity are getting the most attention. To prompt workers to stop smoking and lose weight, employers are, among other things:

adopting no-tobacco policies on and off the job
offering cash-incentive payments and gift cards
reimbursing workers for gym memberships
providing free health coaching
offering insurance-premium discounts to those who meet health standards—and surcharges to those who don’t
According to a 2008 national survey by Harris Interactive, 91 percent of employers “believed they could reduce their health care costs by influencing employees to adopt healthier lifestyles,” wrote two Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) experts in the July 10, 2008 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. Michelle Mello, a professor of law and public health in the Department of Health Policy and Management, and colleague Meredith B. Rosenthal, an HSPH associate professor of health economics and health policy, spelled out the legal parameters of employer-sponsored wellness programs as they stand today.

According to surveys cited by Mello and Rosenthal, 19 percent of employers with 500 or more employees offered wellness programs as of 2006. Almost 40 percent said they planned to offer monetary rewards for healthy behaviors within two years.

Thanks, Obama!

 

[Subyman]

Why is that your understanding?

I already said it is in my first quote, I'll repost it again:

Beginning in 2014, the law known as Obamacare raised the financial incentives that employers are allowed to offer workers for participating in workplace wellness programs and achieving results. The incentives, which big business lobbied for, can be either rewards or penalties - up to 30 percent of health insurance premiums, deductibles, and other costs, and even more if the programs target smoking.

Obamacare allowed employers to go beyond what they previously could.

 

[theeedude]

I already said it is in my first quote, I'll repost it again:



Obamacare allowed employers to go beyond what they previously could.

It was 20% under a HIPAA law passed by Republican Congress in 1996! Didn't hear a pip from the right about that. But Obama expands it by half as much, and it's all his fault? Thanks, Obama.

 

[Subyman]

It was 20% under a HIPAA law passed by Republican Congress in 1996! Didn't hear a pip from the right about that. But Obama expands it by half as much, and it's all his fault? Thanks, Obama.

You are being hyperbolic and no one said that. Again no "404" in this thread. Obamacare raised the incentives, so its a part of this discussion.

 

[BoberFett]

Americans love their employer provided health insurance, we are told. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Americans have no choice, they have to love their employer provided health insurance, it's the only way to not pay tax on it. The company writes it off as an expense, and the employee doesn't have to claim the employer paid portion as income.

Government causes the problem, then idiots on the left wonder why some of us don't trust them to fix it.

 

[Subyman]

Americans have no choice, they have to love their employer provided health insurance, it's the only way to not pay tax on it. The company writes it off as an expense, and the employee doesn't have to claim the employer paid portion as income.

Government causes the problem, then idiots on the left wonder why some of us don't trust them to fix it.

Not only that, corporate america lobbied for this increase. Think they were doing that to promote health in the US? Nah. They want to levy heavy penalties on people that can't meet the requirements.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Americans love their employer provided health insurance, we are told. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

I love my employer low deductible/max out of pocket plan. I also like the reduced premiums from attending the company sponsored health fair and getting an annual physical.

 

[BoberFett]

Not only that, corporate america lobbied for this increase. Think they were doing that to promote health in the US? Nah. They want to levy heavy penalties on people that can't meet the requirements.

I have no problem with that generally. People who choose to be unhealthy should pay more. Want to eat like a pig? Pay higher rates to keep mine down.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It was 20% under a HIPAA law passed by Republican Congress in 1996! Didn't hear a pip from the right about that. But Obama expands it by half as much, and it's all his fault? Thanks, Obama.

Ted Kennedy's program?

Well government doesn't understand health care. Not surprising considering that's owned by Republicans and Democrats.


Anyway, this isn't really a huge thing compared to a lot of other concerns. Incentives are fine. I don't care for the punishment part.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I have no problem with that generally. People who choose to be unhealthy should pay more. Want to eat like a pig? Pay higher rates to keep mine down.

What about companies who reward or punish their employees based on policies which encourage or require people to choose productivity over health? They should put back money into the system from boardroom compensation.

 

[BoberFett]

What about companies who reward or punish their employees based on policies which encourage or require people to choose productivity over health? They should put back money into the system from boardroom compensation.

Those companies already pay more since their group rates are higher. Ever worked at a midsize company where you can see the rates go up when a couple of employees develop major health problems?

 

[Subyman]

I have no problem with that generally. People who choose to be unhealthy should pay more. Want to eat like a pig? Pay higher rates to keep mine down.

It is a tough problem. I'm having a hard time believing that a company is doing just to be fair to everyone. I can see a situation where the company begins to profit from penalties and can begin to wiggle out of their healthcare obligations by saying you aren't healthy enough for full benefits or you have to pay significantly more.

A personal issue for me is the collection of data. They need a lot of information to properly run these programs and I think its a little creepy to penalize someone for not strapping a pedometer on. Or, in the future, a heart rate monitor tied to your phone that sends data back to corporate.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Those companies already pay more since their group rates are higher. Ever worked at a midsize company where you can see the rates go up when a couple of employees develop major health problems?

I worked for a large corporation who's boardroom policies directly harmed other's health. They got bigger bonuses as a result.

 

[BoberFett]

It is a tough problem. I'm having a hard time believing that a company is doing just to be fair to everyone. I can see a situation where the company begins to profit from penalties and can begin to wiggle out of their healthcare obligations by saying you aren't healthy enough for full benefits or you have to pay significantly more.

A personal issue for me is the collection of data. They need a lot of information to properly run these programs and I think its a little creepy to penalize someone for not strapping a pedometer on. Or, in the future, a heart rate monitor tied to your phone that sends data back to corporate.

If it's not your company, it'll be your government.

What, you think Uncle Sam won't bring the hammer down on people if and when we get universal healthcare?