Did you hear Alabama will start charging its obese state employees $25 a month until they take steps to slim down? According to the story:
The State Employees’ Insurance Board this week approved a plan to charge state workers starting in January 2010 if they don’t have free health screenings.
If the screenings turn up serious problems with blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose or obesity, employees will have a year to see a doctor at no cost, enroll in a wellness program, or take steps on their own to improve their health. If they show progress in a follow-up screening, they won’t be charged. But if they don’t, they must pay starting in January 2011.
Here’s the threshold:
The board will apply the obesity charge to anyone with a body mass index of 35 or higher who is not making progress. A person 5 feet 6 inches tall weighing 220 pounds, for example, would have a BMI of 35.5. A BMI of 30 is considered the threshold for obesity.
Employers charging employees who smoke has become somewhat commonplace, but charging workers who are overweight is a fairly unique stance. Think these “incentives” will induce better health? Is it better to reward employees who engage in healthy behaviors or penalize those who don’t?
5 Comments
Given the fact that they increase health insurance costs it makes a certain amount of sense to charge them. As long as there is a ‘way out’ for the worker (as seems to be the case here) then it just might be a good idea.
In early 2004 I was told that due to the health problems of one employee (heart condition) I could have reduced the individual employee premiums by over $125.00 each by eliminating that one employee. We had 13 employees at the time. That is not a solution to rising health care costs.
How do you handle “obese” health care issues like depression, diabetes, lupus? Because someone is overweight thay should not be discriminated against, for any reason. They can either do the job or they can’t. That is the employer’s responsibility to make that decision.
This “slippery slope” needs to be stopped immediately. We may be only a few years away from genetic markers that if we continue down this path of judge and jury will make health care coverage a true thing of the past for many individuals.
Is it just too simple to allow small business to pool companies to decrease insurance premiums?
Jerry – I think this answers at least some of your concerns:
“employees will have a year to see a doctor at no cost, enroll in a wellness program, or take steps on their own to improve their health. If they show progress in a follow-up screening, they won’t be charged”
Hi bth,
Thank you for the response but I am still not in favor of it. Let’s say that there is a race of people that have a much higher risk of liver disease than another. Should they be subjected to higher insurance rates? Should they be denied insurance altogether? Should they be denied employment?
I feel we should avoid that path at all costs.
All the best!
Slippery slope – agreed. And the devil is in the details. BUT – if it is the sort of thing that can be addressed as indicated and IF not punitive it might not be a bad thing.
You are correct though – tread carefully.