Weigh-in Wednesday: HR’s latest way to cut costs
August 28, 2008 by Fred HosierPosted in: Special Report, unusual programs
Now it appears employers’ war on unhealthy employee habits is extending from smoking to eating. Back in May, HR Blunders ran a story, “Employees’ war on smoking goes ballistic.” In it, we recounted how Whirlpool Co. had suspended 39 workers who signed insurance documents that they didn’t use tobacco and were observed smoking on company grounds.
That story is one that drew a large number of comments, including:
- “I agree that smoking isn’t healthy. Neither is … eating too much … “
- “I believe obesity causes more health risks than smoking.”
- “Isn’t obesity just as much a health risk as smoking?”
- “How about the extremely overweight employee and their health problems?”
- “Next we will have employees weigh in and be measured to ensure that they have an ideal BMI (body mass index).”
The HR manager who made the last comment successfully predicted the future.
State workers in Alabama will have to start paying $25 a month for medical insurance that is otherwise free if they can’t get their BMI below 35.
Obese employees cost more
The screening for employees will start in January 2010.
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 don’t improve sufficiently by January 2011, they must pay the $25 per month for insurance.
Alabama already charges its workers who smoke. That charge is $24 per month.
The state’s plan actually lets employees considered simply overweight and even some who are obese off the hook.
A BMI of 18.5-24.9 is considered normal. Less than 18.5 is underweight. Between 25.0 and 29.9 is overweight. Over 30.0 is obese. More than 35.0 is considered morbidly obese when combined with other health problems such as high blood pressure or cholesterol.
The state will spend an extra $1.6 million next year on screenings and wellness programs, but expects to see significant long-term savings.
Someone with a BMI of 35 to 39 generates $1,748 more in annual medical expenses than someone with a BMI less than 25.
Alabama is the first state to institute a program like this. State of Ohio workers get $50 for having health assessments and another $50 for following through with any advice given.
Arkansas and Missouri offer monthly discounts on premiums for employees who take risk assessments and participate in wellness programs to reduce obesity, stress and other health conditions.
If all this information about weight has made you curious about what constitutes being overweight or obese, a BMI calculator is available online for free.
What do you think about Alabama’s program? Does your company offer wellness programs? If so, what’s included? Let us know in the Comments section below.
August 29th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Whose BMI chart are they going to use? Years ago when my husband was in the military they did at least 3 different types of measurements. Each arrived at a different number. In fact most of the offensive and defensive lines on the academies’ football teams were considered to have high BMI using 2 of the 3 methods. Why because their weight lifting had increased their neck measurements, and their chest/torso measurements.
August 29th, 2008 at 9:47 am
What’s next? Prohibitions against ‘high risk’ sports? Extra insurance costs if one’s family history contains red flags? Policies against hiring folks with the above? Genetic testing to make sure you won’t be a liability on a company’s health care coverage?
August 29th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Calculated BMI versus measured BMI (with calipers or other devices) yield different results. How invasive are they really going to get to have a “true” measurement. Is everyone subject to the measurement? Or, are they selecting the “high BMIers” by visual evaluation? What is the impact of and underweight person? Should they not also be concerned with that?
August 29th, 2008 at 10:11 am
We have a wellness program that, instead of penalizing those who are overweigth or otherwise unhealthy (according to an annual screening) rewards those who aren’t, by paying the employees $50 insurance contribution for them. Those who fall in the pay your own zone have the opportunity to retest or if they can improve their score by a fixed point count in 6 months, they aalso receive the reward. We’ve seen excellent results from the program. (He says, still panting from having just ridden his bike in to work.) Surprising results actually.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:18 am
More & more, we are creeping toward Socialism. It is scary! Go to your local library & read George Orwell. Any of his books will do. They are all fiction, of course…..or are they?? There are some authors, long dead, like H.G.Wells, Jules Verne & George Orwell, who did seem to have a futuristic view of the human race & government. I don’t happen to be obese or overweight, but do not believe it is the employers’ or the legislators’ business or purpose to make personal decisions. As adults, we make choices every day. Those choices & the consequences are our responsibility. I could do a whole essay on this subject, but will limit it to this thought for now.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I agree with Marie Wichman….
Scary stuff….
Is genetic testing next?
How does this side step discrimination?
August 29th, 2008 at 10:23 am
As with my feelings on smoking, if we are going to require weight loss, I think we should offer programs to help get employees on the right track. For smokers, smoking cessation classes and for overweight employees, weightloss classes. Even if you can’t provide them for free, a discounted rate will probably interest a lot of employees.
Not all overweight employees have health issues, so it’s important not to paint everyone with the same brush.
Most smokers would probably like not craving a cigarette and most overweight employees would probably enjoy a smaller size - so, let’s get on the band wagon of helping them out (it can only benefit us, right?)
August 29th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Folks,
here’s the story, insurance rates will continue to go up. Unless you own a biz, these costs will impact business’ across America.
I am healthy, I eat well, exercise every day. Why, if I do all the work, should I pay-contribute to others that choose to not take care of themselves and their families.
Our - insurance rates are high, because people are overweight and smoke - by the way, smoking causes cancer if you didn’t know that.
Here’s my challenge - get off the couch/stop smoking/drinking - get away from the black box of death (tv) go loose weight and take some steps towards personal change. Go to a gym, get a trainer - improve your life.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Judy, above, doesn’t get it. She believes medical insurance is an entitlement. Where is one’s personal responsibility for one’s health? Companies can regulate their enrollments any way they choose and if by delineating healthy lifestyle, etc. they can control costs, I say more power to them.
The entitlement mentality believes someone else should pay for their healthcare w/o any personal responsibility. Orwell and the others she mentions talk of forced compliance by a governmental agency, somthing we’re heading to with nationalized, socialized healthcare.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:45 am
There is a stipulation in the screening - 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.
Doesn’t this mean that only employees with 35+ BMI AND problems with the above will be required to pay the extra charge?
August 29th, 2008 at 10:48 am
There is a long list of behaviors and activities that drive up health costs, are we going to add a fee for each one? People that lead healthy lifestyles, ie eating properly and exercising do not get a “rebate”. I think it’s more appropriate to give incentives for improving ones lifestyle, like subsidizing gym memberships.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I would agree with the policy if the person deemed “obese” also had significant health problems generally associated with obesity (ie: high blood pressure/cholesterol/diabetes), but if not, I think it would be unfair to penalize someone who isn’t running up insurance costs because of the “potential” risk due to having an associated condition. Will they also make people with a family history of cancer and/or heart disease pay more because of their higher risk potential?
August 29th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Companies should be educating their employees and giving them the tools to maintain a healthy lifestyle. After that, I agree with Judy….adults are responsible for their own choices and consequences. Our company has an on-site gym, offers to subsidize the cost of a personal trainer, has a health fair once a month, subsidizes the cost of an annual on-site health screening and has healthy snacks available to all employees. In addition, we have an intranet site that provides links to articles, information on health, etc. Our health insurance costs actually decreased last year. That having been said, you can’t force people to live a certain lifestyle.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I am healthy, I eat well and exercise every day too, and yet my BMI is increasing rather than decreasing. I have good blood pressure, no cholesterol problems, and have had no health issues since my appendix was removed when I was 10. BMI is just one number and does not indicate anything about my health. Why don’t we charge people extra if they have a high resting heart rate - that is just as unhealthy, but is an equally bad indicatator of the over all picture.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:00 am
You can’t go by just weight and height to arrive at the BMI. Anyone who has developed any kind of muscle mass from lifting weights or working out will most likely be out of the “normal” range. The BMI chart tells me my “normal” weight should be 120 lbs. I haven’t weighed that little since grade school
August 29th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Our company offers a wellness program with credits in 5 areas to offset the deductible which went up to $2500. An employee can have a Wellness Screening and get $500 credits off their deductible based on being a nonsmoker, BMI of 29.9 or less, Cholesterol LDL, blood pressure 120/80 and glucose (auto pass & $500 credit). This puts responsibility on our employees to work on their health to lower their premiums as Wellness screenings are done on a yearly basis.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:11 am
My first thought with this is how might such a policy impact discrimination issues even as it might be perceived to extrapolate over to the hiring process? Could a potential employee who is interviewed and not hired for whatever reason now claim themselves as a “protected class” and therefore claim discrimination due to such a company policy. Years ago I had an obese co-worker who kept her nose to the grindstone greatly motivated by her fear of losing her job. She said, “Look at me. I am hard on the furniture. Who’s going to hire me if I leave here?” I am all for positive company wellness plans and clearly recognize the added expense employees who are health risks add to the cost of insurance coverage, however I believe potential lawsuits may have a higher cost in the end. Just a thought.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Health Benefits an intitlement? Maybe not, but with the baby boomers retiring, it will surely be an incentive. For many of us, it is considered a part of our wage package, and is used as a reason to keep our hourly or salaried wage lower. All part of the package. I am healthy, don’t drink, smoke and do exercise, but even when I did, I had a better attendence record at work than most of my ‘healthy’ counterparts. Why do we, as a society, insist on cubbyholing everyone into just a couple of boxes? And, where does it stop?
August 29th, 2008 at 11:22 am
How about the employees that do not report a history of heart disease in their family? If they are employed until they retire, could cost the company even more.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Once you start down this road, where do you stop? The older you get, the more health problems are likely to occur. So hire the younger worker (oops, that’s against the law, but we’ll find a way to get around that). Tay Sachs disease affects the Jewish population and Sickle Cell Anemia affects African Americans so let’s not hire them (another oops, but we’ll figure something out). Where do you stop?
In 1993, I was on a management team that negotiated a labor contract with the Steelworkers. Health insurance was mentioned briefly the and Union asked us to back national health care, then being promoted by the Clinton Administration. The company rejected that idea immediately and completely. Five years later when we negotiated the next contract, management bemoaned the rising cost of healthcare and the Union responded, “If you had listened to us 5 years ago, you wouldn’t have this problem.” And ten years after that, nothing has been done so now we are going to allow employers access to medical information that should be protected information. Both my parents died agonizing deaths from cancer at an early age. Now I have to tell my employer? It’s none of their damn business.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Kudoes to Alabama, this is an interesting first step that will not only save them money in premiums and expenses but might save some lives in the mean.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
This would be the first step towards genetic testing to make sure that you have the healthiest worker available?! Are we going to start testing to see if people are able to have children? Because then we would know if they are going to take of for school functions. The whole idea is rediculous. If you want a healthier work force offer good health benefits and programs for fitness and/or smoking cessation.
If we continue down this path we will end up with employees who can’t work because they are over weight and noone will hire them. Then they will need goverment assistance. We really need to contribute to the employees health not force it on them.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I would like to address a comment to all of the informed people who keep brining up genetic testing and their fear of that. Have you not heard of GINA, the federal regulation just recently passed that prohibits genetic testing for both health insurance and employment decisions? I can understand being paranoid about certain aspects of this new trend, but that is not one of them that I am worried about.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
It is definitely discrimation! Some people do not choose to gain weight, but do, due to medications, health problems such as hypothyroidism and others.
Smoking is purely a choice individuals choose to engage in, regardless of the consequences.
This is also a morale killer that will put people into more stress in an office than is really necessary.
How about the skinny people who have cancer or some other disease that hikes up the insurance premiums! Why don’t we put them on the list with the smokers and the obese?
I think this is just wrong! And Judy you are right - it is socialism or worse.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Not all people who are overweight is due to bad eating and or bad life choices. There are medical ways to help someone lose weight but most insurance companies will not or do not cover them saying they are cosmetic not medically needed. So don’t blame all who are overwieght on there poor choices or lazines as alot of times that is not the case
August 29th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
The education has always been out there about the causes of obesity and America is still getting fatter. For years the benefits of healthy eating and exercise have been espoused by the media, but to no avail. We are becoming more unhealthy as a society and it is no surprise that consequences are now being put into place in the workforce. As a 60 year old working female, I am not overweight. However, my husband has battled with being overweight for 30 years and has paid the price with cardiac stents, blood thinners and many different types of blood pressure medications that have had numerous side effects. His being overweight has effected his quality of life and it’s a shame. The medical cost to our family has been heavy and monthly prescriptions eat into our budget. I hate to see him on days when he’s not feeling well. He didn’t feel it when he was younger, but as he entered his 50’s and 60’s, illness began to slowly take over and he could not stop it. It’s been heartbreaking and the physical consequences of his lifestyle were permanently damaging. What happened to our presence of mind? Something has to be done to stop the tide. We need a wake up call. Kudoes to Alabama for putting something in place, it’s a start. It’s a shame that it has come to this, but it’s no surprise.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I cannot understand how so many do not see this as another form of discrimination? Because it doesn’t affect you yet? When do we stop blaming certain groups of people for all the problems of the world? All these do-gooders passing judgment on the lives of others. What will you think when you become one of those groups who are penalized because somebody thinks the way you live your life is not perfect by their standards. What about none smokers and fit people who live in cities with air pollution, who commute to work in excessive traffic breathing in truck, car & bus fumes or at greater risk of injury from car accidents or pump their own gas in their cars breathing in those toxic fumes. Have you ever seen the smog over Los Angeles and other big cities? How about all those who live near all the wildfires that happen every year breathing in all that smoke? They choose to live there how healthy is that? Shouldn’t they pay more for health insurance as well? How about all of us who drive cars, we have a greater risk of being in a car accident than those who walk. Oh and the bikers who think they own the road and don’t need to obey traffic laws like motor vehicles. Or the motorcyclist where there is no helmet laws and don’t wear leather clothing. How about women who have breast cancer in their family histories. Or a family history of diabetes or cardiac, don’t otherwise healthy fit individuals get diseases. How about the ones with year round tans, higher risk of skin cancer? How about anyone who drinks alcohol in any amount, aren’t they higher risk for disease or accidents.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
We are instituting one of these programs. While I get the cost savings side of it, I personallyfeel this is an intrusion and discriminatory. A few of our key leaders are concerned about the morale problem that will result - I think it will be bigger than they expect. We were told that participation would be anonymous and used in aggregate for setting costs only, but it turns out the information about our individual health will indeed be passed along to the insurance provider. There will be individual follow-up calls for discussions. This is a frightening trend.
What I have not seen in this thread is a discussion about the reality of the workforce - many of us work in environments that are stressful and where the expectation is that we put in long hours. A bad work environment makes it difficult to adhere to healthier choices. Work schedules, long commutes, employers who expect 12 hour days (in spite of paying for 8 hours of work), and difficult work environments can lead to choices that pack on the pounds over the years. My employer provides a great workout facility and cafeteria with very healty food choices (no charge to employees). But the reality of our work enviroment is that you dare not go to the gym during work hours. And after working for 12-14 hours and facing an hour commute to get home, who really has the energy to go to the gym (or desire)? It is great to provide the perks to make better life style choices - what about the flexibility to actually make use of the great services the employer provides? What about providing work flexibility so that people can be healthier rather than penalities for the result of years of dedication to demanding work life?
Shouldn’t companies look at ways to make it easier for people to participate in these programs? I see a downward spiral with this trend in health benefits - demand that people go to classes, but don’t give them the time or flexibiolity to meed the new demand. This pretty much locks people into having to pay more or, even worse, be excluded from opportunities.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Does it really matter what test they administer if you are looking at a BMI over 35? That person is going to be huge on any scale. I am sure they are going to be able to take a look at someone and say “wow you are just a work out warrior, you are not FAT.”
To answer one of Marie’s questions, they already look at your family history as well as personal history for insurance. If you have a family histroy of heart disease you will probably be declined for life insurance, why not make you pay more for health insurance if you don’t take care of yourself. You are what you eat, right?
August 29th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Ernie, SM, and MB (along with some others) said it best. They have hit the heart of matter on the head. It’s a slippery slope leading directly to potential discrimination and policy abuse of all types.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:18 am
Our company will not cover anything to do with weight problems. It has been brough up for several years asking that the company find insurance that will cover things like weight-loss medication and weight-loss surgery. The company is paying more for an over weight employee than it does for a healthy employee. Why doesn’t the company focus on helping an over weight employee get healthy?
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
Well all very interesting comments so far. Where do I weigh in on this issue? Well, I am overweight, have been overweight for much of my adult life. I also have a low resting heartrate, low/normal BP, my Cholesterol is 169 and at my last check up I was told that my chance of developing heart disease was less than 1% given all of my figures. I have NEVER been “sick” because of my weight. I have to say that I have almost never felt any discrimination because of my weight - at least so far!! Do I wish I weighed less? Heck yes and to that end I have joined WW and have shed 10 pounds so far. Why - so I will look better and so that I will move better. I’m cruising into (dare I say it?) middle age and I want to continue to be as healthy as I have been. Personally, I see this as fraught with problems and filled with subjective judgments. And a little more of our individuality is removed from us.
Some have mentioned wellness programs that offer assistance with achieving better health - to me that seems to be the least offensive way to go. I’m all for helping employees with info, discounts etc to improve themselves - in all spheres not just health.
Oh and Larry, since my husband and I pay $516 a month for our health insurance I surely don’t feel “entitled” in any way!
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Good for you Judy. The entitlements I referred to were brought up early on when someone complained about the employer’s right to take away things from the medical plans. These plans belong to the employer, and are provided BY the employer - they are not an absolute, but the commenter made it seem as if they were “entitled” to them.
There are many problems to the healthcare solution everyone is looking for. Employees, employers, insurance companies, doctors, lawyers, and government all have a share of the blame. The thing to remember is that it’s inevitable that the feds are going to legislate some form of nationalized medicine and we’re all going to be in a world of hurt. (See England, Canada, for example.)
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Statements of Fact.
I have worked in the same job for 16 years.
I have had Zero sick days in 16 years.
I have shot competitively in Archery for 14 year nationally and internationally.
I am handicapped with many birth defects.
I use a chair and crutches to get around.
I have not cost my company anything, I am actually more productive than most.
My cholesterol is at 165
My heart at rest is 58
My age is 42
my BP is 117 over 68
Oh and I am FAT.
Some one tries to make me sign something like that, they will have a law suite in the making!!!!
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
KVK - what’s your point?
October 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Helping someone with these programs in the interest of helping them is one thing. “Helping” them out of self-righteous indignation is another thing completely. I am not overweight or a smoker, but I am not all that healthy either. I am not sickly, but I would appreciate wellness plans that will help me with a gym membership and to eat right. If someone were to shove it down my throat, however, I would probably refuse. It is my choice to try to be healthy. I am tired of people being so self-righteous. If I wanted to smoke, which I don’t, that is my choice. It is your choice to drive a car and pollute my air, right? Everybody needs to stop pointing the finger at everyone else and take responsibility as a whole. Our health is decreasing. That is not due to just smokers or obese people. It is due to individual choices that everyone has the right to make. Quit worrying about whose premiums you are paying because we will never be able to pinpoint it to one group. Life is full of risks. Everyone is a risk.