Posted on 08/10/2007 7:41:01 PM PDT by Kimmers
Indianapolis - Get healthy, or pay. An Indiana-based health care chain is giving its employees a different kind of incentive to shape up. Clarian hopes the result will be healthier employees and lower health care costs. The plan is sparking a controversy that now getting national attention.
The readings taken from health screening will determine how much Clarian employees pay for health care. A new program to take effect in 2009 penalizes employees who smoke, have high blood pressure or high cholesterol by making them pay more for their premiums.
Clarian's president and CEO Daniel Evans says the idea is not to make money but to manage high health care costs and improve the health of its 26,000 employees.
"If one diabetic improves their health it will save us and the individual thousands of dollars a year," said Daniel Evans, Clarian president and CEO.
Starting this year, Clarian employees are required to go through health screenings checking for things like blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol. Those who need to make changes have about a year and a half to do it. Employees who don't meet Clarian's standards in those areas as well as smoking and weight pay $5 to $10 more per paycheck for their health premiums.
The program is unique in that it penalizes rather than rewards the employee, and it's what garnered national attention when Clarian's chief defended the program to Matt Lauer Friday morning on Today.
Evans referenced an employee, Marsha Vorhis, who utilized Clarian's Weight Watchers at work program and lost more than 30 pounds. She was, however, a little embarrassed at the attention. "Oh, he did not just say my name and my weight!" she said.
Vorhis credits the penalty program for keeping her motivated. "At first I was a little upset. Now I'm happy. Now I will stick to my goal." She also believes the program will get other employees on a healthier track.
But some argue even the best programs can't help those genetically predisposed to certain health issues. "Yes, I do feel punishment because I can't afford to pay," said one Clarian employee.
With Indiana ranking fourth in the nation for obesity and second for smoking, one of its largest employers hopes to manage skyrocketing health care costs with a shape up or pay up philosophy.
Clarian says employees whose doctors certify they cannot meet the requirements because of a medical condition do not have to pay the extra premium.
Guess I would agree for smoking and weight-related problems.
Would seem a bit unfair to punish those who had health issues they weren’t responsible for...
If the behavior causing the health problem is voluntary....I have no problem with it. Sounds like a good idea, in fact.
I'm not going to be some goofball running around with something attached to his belt so I pay 75 a month not to look like a tool while I walk to and from work. I mean slacks, tie, wing tips and a plastic monitor? I don't think so. Hell, I didn't get a cell phone until they were slim enough to fit in the change pocket of my slacks.
One brilliant employee in Receiving slaps his on his dogs collar when he goes to work in the morning.....he's gotten away with it for 4 months now.
lol
And just wait until there's genetic screening. That'll be fun. You might have been the most productive employee in the company's history - making them tens or hundreds of millions of dollars during your employ - but because of a genetic propensity to high cholesterol you failed the screening and weren't hired.
History of heart attacks in your family? You're out!
Depression gene? see ya!
Your employer isn't entitled to your health records from your doctor....so where's the line?
Besides, who wants to work with a bunch of hyped up neurotic health nuts?
I have a few comments about this. My mom was in the neuro ICU at Methodist hospital (Clarion) in Indy. I met an extraordinary amount of nurses and doctors who smoked there. I’m not complaining, though. The staff and everyone else that I met there are the kindest, most dedicated and competent people that I have ever met. Seriously. The nurses were ALWAYS informed of what was going on, I could ask them anything about my mom and they had the answers. When mom passed away her neurosurgeon answered a thank you note that I had sent them. Really, really good people.
I would love to see employers encourage a healthier lifestyle for their employees and reward them for choices made.......the Clarian plan sounds like another nanny state idea.
Will they make very skinny people pay because they may be anorexic? Will blacks have to pay more because they are predisposed to hypertension? Will gays pay more because of possible HIV exposure?
I would love to see employers encourage a healthier lifestyle for their employees and reward them for choices made.......the Clarian plan sounds like another nanny state idea.
Will they make very skinny people pay because they may be anorexic? Will blacks have to pay more because they are predisposed to hypertension? Will gays pay more because of possible HIV exposure?
Why bother... the company should just fire all the unhealthy people and be done with it.
</sarcasm>
OOP’s sorry for the double post.
To be honest they deliver good health care in beautiful hospitals. They have a lot of safety measures in place in an effort to decrease hospital errors. Are they without problems? I do not think so but they are trying to do the right thing in health care.
"Punish" is used in the article, but probably isn't a good fit. "Penalize" would be a better word.
If I go to get auto insurance, I will get penalized if I have a bad driving record. I will also get penalized if my car already has a dent in it (doesn't matter how it got there) and I want them to fix it.
I think it is very helpful to compare health and auto insurance. No expects auto insurance to pay for new tires, a tune-up, or even a new transmission. If it did, it would be outrageously expensive. Yet with health insurance, we have a mindset that the insurance must pay for everything.
If a human being is ten times more valuable than a car, then a $5000 deductible per incident or affliction would not appear out of line. I realize that this would repriotitize many peoples personal spending priorities. I think for the best.
And howsabout homosexual behaviors? Are those tolerated?
If that is NOT part of the plan it should be shot down pronto!
And, not all lung cancer is caused by smoking. And, not all cirrhosis is caused by alcohol. And, crappy diet as defined by whom? I don't like being penalized for others' bad habits, and neither do I like paying higher property insurance because a tornado hit my town 4 years ago. Nowhere close to my house, either. The insurance is based on a perfect scenario and boy, would I be ticked, if I payed higher premiums and Mr. Clean Living comes up with an aardvark disease that used up more benefits than my smoking, drinking, and fat eating self would ever use up.
It all comes down to probabilities. If you voluntarily engage in risky behavior or voluntarily live in a dangerous area, you should expect to pay more in insurance as their is a higher probability that the insurance company will be paying a claim on you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.