July 31, 2007
Slim Hopes
Women's Bioethics Project mulls a Los Angeles Times report about employers' charging workers what amounts to a fine until they meet company-determined weight, cholesterol, and blood-pressure guidelines.
"In one of the boldest moves yet," says the article, "an Indiana-based hospital chain last month said it decided on the stick rather than the carrot. Starting in 2009, Clarian Health Partners will charge employees as much as $30 every two weeks unless they meet weight, cholesterol, and blood-pressure guidelines that the company deems healthy.
"'At first, I was mad when I thought I would be charged $30 for being overweight,' said Courtney Jackson, 28, a customer service representative at Clarian. 'But when I found out it was going to be broken into segments — like just $10 for being overweight — it sounded better.'"
Blogger Kelly Hills asks:
"Is this the appropriate way to deal with spiraling out of control health costs? Should people be penalized for not being in good health? And is refusing to hire people because of their BMI the next logical step, after refusing to hire people who smoke?
"Smoking is an addiction, and one that we know can be broken with effort and encouragement. But should obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol -- things that can be genetic -- be looked at with the same light? Should you have to pay $60 a month because your father gave you his high cholesterol? Should you have a higher insurance deductible because you have a chronic health condition that leaves you unable to exercise as much as others, thus pushing your BMI higher than it should be?
"Perhaps most troubling, though, is the simple fact that the 'solution' to our growing health coverage crisis is to pass the cost along to the individual employee, who may or may not have direct control over the issue they are being financially penalized for."
Alex Kafka | Posted on Tuesday July 31, 2007 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Now This Is Academic Blogging
Next: A Modern Response, in Glass
Ah yes, another capitalist solution to life’s tribulations … and from a hospital (oh, I had to read it again) CHAIN.
Can’t you just envision the yahoos that came up with craziness … sitting around in some over-priced conference room, in their over-priced apparel, eating over-priced (and indeed, high cholesterol) food, sipping over-priced water(tap) in some plastic bottle (w/out a corporate recycle policy), claiming to use their over-valued intellect to resolve a problem.
New law of nature:
No one, including government officials, can impose a law, rule, regulation, etc. that cannot FIRST be met by those voting to impose the mandate.
— Michael Jul 31, 11:03 AM #
I’m a bit divided on this.
Shared risk (insurance) means that one person’s unhealthy choices cost others money (higher healthcare expenses). On that basis, I would like to see those who create costs by their choices to bear those costs.
But genetic predisposition is another issue. If the only medication that lowers such a person’s cholesterol has serious side effects — should they be fined for choosing quality of life over medication?
The problem is distinguishing choices for which a person may reasonably be held responsible from predispositions that cannot easily be addressed. There is no fool-proof way to do this that will not, at times to some people, be unfair. But then my having to pay for the consequences of others’ unhealthy choices isn’t fair either. Is there a way to move down this road in a way that is more fair to more people? I hope so.
— Jim Jul 31, 02:45 PM #
Next thing you know your property taxes will be based not on the size of your house, but the number of public-school-attending kids who live in it.
Let’s just do away with the notion of society. You want police protection – hire a goon. You want national defense, throw a block party and buy a bomber. Everybody pays their own way.
— next step Jul 31, 02:51 PM #
Shortly before I left there, my previous university instituted a cash incentive for employees who lost weight—something like $100 for an employee losing 10% of body weight, with further incentives for keeping it off. While I applaud efforts to get employees to live a healthy lifestyle, I was kind of annoyed that there was this bonus of up to $300 that I was ineligible to receive because I was already maintaining a healthy weight. I don’t know what the answer is, but cash incentives don’t seem to be a great solution.
— leo Aug 1, 10:36 AM #
This is totally outrageous. I am slim, athletic and healthy. But because of my genes, my LDL is over 130. My HDL is high too, and my 10-year heart attack risk is under 1%. Most doctors wouldn’t prescribe cholesterol-lowering drugs for people whose risk of heart desease is so low. Yet Clarion’s plan would penalize people like me if we refuse to take drugs to supposedly reduce our 10-year heart attack risk from 1% to .7%. Never mind that our risk of side effects may be higher than that. Never mind, that the benefits of statins for PRIMARY prevention in women are far from proven. Never mind that they would need to medicate a lot of people to save money on one person and that it is likely to be expensive.
This is a total violation of people right to refuse treatment, of people right to informed consent to medical treatment.
— kitty Aug 8, 11:42 AM #