health insurance

[Terroreyes]

Originally Posted by SteveJ

First we have made all age appropriate preventative care "free" in both of our plans. This is true from birth to death, no exceptions. We want everyone covered by our plans to get all of their appropriate preventative care. The second part is harder to explain, partly becasue we now market the concept to other employers so I have to be a little careful. It starts with annual Biometric Screenings for 5 risk factors. For those with 3 or more of the risk factors, we have an educational program that does an unbelievable job of helping them reduce their risk factors. For our Class of 2009, 48% of those with 3 or more of the risk factors had less than 3 after 10 weeks. The best part is that the educational program is so easy that it seems like common sense and people are able to adapt. We had our own medical staff evaluate the entire concept before implementing it, and they are 100% behind what we are doing because they believe it will help save lives. We have found that financail incentives work wonders in getting individauls to participate.

I think I know what you're talking about now. I've heard of simliar plans. Excellent idea. If I'm correct, in a nut shell, you pay according to your lifestyle(healthwise). I smoke and have no problem with paying more than someone who doesn't, but on the same note, if I didn't smoke, I wouldn't want to be paying the same as the fat 300# slob eating Burger King every day.

[SteveJ]

Originally Posted by Terroreyes

I think I know what you're talking about now. I've heard of simliar plans. Excellent idea. If I'm correct, in a nut shell, you pay according to your lifestyle(healthwise). I smoke and have no problem with paying more than someone who doesn't, but on the same note, if I didn't smoke, I wouldn't want to be paying the same as the fat 300# slob eating Burger King every day.

We don't charge people by the "lifestyle". There are two ways to approach incentives in a medical plan. The more aggressive is to incent people for reducing their risk...ie to quit smoking. We are taking a different approach. We help identify risk and offer to help them change their behavior. They earn the incentive for participating, not for making changes. However, we are finding that the many individauls only need a slight nudge to make a change and that the knowledge of how to accomplish it is all they need.

I have a significant challenge for 2011, as our Board of Directors and CEO would like to charge smokers more for their medical insurance and the latest from Washington is that nicotine is addictive (we all know that), but also that penalizing or incenting smokers to quit is lot legal according to ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act).

The battle goes on, but we are making a lot of progress with our 5,000 employees and it is paying off financially.

[Terroreyes]

Very similar to what I've heard of. Discounts available for participating in programs to improve your health. Don't know if those are tied to results or not. Definitely a good idea, either way!

[dirty underpants]

We started something similar. Health Risk Assessment. Discounted premium if you took the annual assessment. It's based on the fact that MOST don't go to their dr. for routine exams. Small problems go unchecked until they become large, expensive issues. Blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.

I haven't had to do it yet because it's a rather large project to get going.

I couldn't care less. I see my dr regularly. It can create a pathway for medical confidentiality to be breached between you and your employer, but I'll participate anyways.. whenever it gets running.

[Seedtree]

If you think health care insurance is bad, look into long term care insurance. Only 6% of Americans have LTC insurance. Mine is going up 24% next January with no additional coverages. Many people don't realize that health insurance doesn't cover anything after your immediate medical needs are taken care of. You are out of luck if you need extremely expensive LTC. Better get LTC insurance soon if you can, as your rate will be forever higher the older you are when you enroll. Also, many preexisting conditions prevent many people, especially older people, from qualifying. This is the real financial train wreck looming down the tracks, even if you luck out health and finance wise until then. Without LTC insurance, a condition precedent to a long term care facility admitting you, is that you must sign over to them all your assets. In other words, you will then be infirm, in need of help to take care of basic bodily functions, and a pauper. Isn't unfettered capitalism nice?

[SteveJ]

Originally Posted by dirty underpants

It can create a pathway for medical confidentiality to be breached between you and your employer.

Sad to say, but you are right. We are a healthcare system, and we outsource our Biometric Screenings to make sure there are no questions on the confidentiality of the information. We only get sanitized summary information back. Most of our employees seem OK with this. However, I have had a few funny comments. One came from a 21 year old male that had three or more of our 5 measured risk factors. He indicated that he didn't like our educational program and that he could solve his blood sugar by not having 6 donuts for breakfast and his triglycerides by eating less red meat. I am close to retirement, but I may out live him.

[dirty underpants]

He chose to reveal his doughnut weakness. It's his own fault. That don't constitute a breach in my book.

My concern is that as a responsible adult who routinely sees my personal dr already, any results I get from medical testing done anywhere else, I'm going to bring it into my dr. At that point it becomes part of my general medical record, subject to release to my employer when I'm injured on the job.

It's a snag, but not one that bothers me enough to not participate. In the end, I've got my BP and cholesterol taken care of on my own at a young age. That's where it's really at.

[howler]

Yeah, the poor health insurance company's have it rough, I mean what the heck their profits only went up 400 % the past five years, that is rough, give me a break and quit the spin we do need health insurance reform.

I'm afraid that someday the health assessment tests will be part of the pre-employment tests.

High blood pressure? Not going to hire him.

Is it really any business of your employer what you eat or do outside of your employment?
If you show up every day and do your work?

Another reason to get the costs of health insurance off the back of the employers.

My employer also has these tests but not mandatory, nor are we REQUIRED to take health classes if a "RISK" is found.

I have a significant challenge for 2011, as our Board of Directors and CEO would like to charge smokers more for their medical insurance and the latest from Washington is that nicotine is addictive (we all know that), but also that penalizing or incenting smokers to quit is lot legal according to ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act).


I am very familiar with the ADA law because I currently have filed an ironclad 7 digit winning lawsuit of a discimination disability complaint against 5 deep financial pocket defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act and I have read the entire ADA law of 1990 as amended September 2008 at least 6-8 times and nowhere does it say anything about what you are talking about. Any chemical addiction, nicotine included, does not give you any special rights under ADA.

Any employer paying your healthcare insurance can and often does demand you be nicotine and drug free and can fire you if you aren't clean. He can demand you be tested at any time.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with ADA LAW. You can't claim disability protection under ADA law because of a chemical dependancy.



I don't know when , but as it stands now, I stand to come into some BIG bucks on what started out as a denial against me to partake in an competitive activity where I was required to walk (I can't walk normally or fast because of a peripheral nerve disease) in order to participate, as they denied my "means of reasonable conveyance". I did nearly 95% of the legal preliminaries and the State and U.S Department of Justice does the rest as they are in charge of enforcing ADA Law. IF and Wwen a ruling comes down in the plaintiff's favor, you take the legal ruling and sue in state and federal courts for damages as the ADA law has no penalties other than the defendants are required to pay the legal costs of the plaintiffs. An ADA civil rights violation and damage judgement could be anywhere from 50,000 to millions depending on how willful and how much malice was unvolved. In my case, the discrimanatory act has been willfully going on for at least 22 years.
From all current indications , I am told I will get an offer before it ever gets to court and one thing it won't include is a gag order telling me to shut up on the financial details.

Somebody is feeding you garbage information on the nicotine stuff.

This is the ADA LAw:

http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08mark.htm#12102