Should workers who live healthier get steeper discounts?
October 14, 2009 by Christian SchappelPosted in: Health care, In this week's e-newsletter - benefits, Latest News & Views, Money, Pay and benefits
One senator believes employees who live a healthy lifestyle should be rewarded – and those that don’t should pay.
Republican Sen. John Ensign has introduced amendments to the healthcare reform bill that would allow employers to offer deeper discounts — up to 50% — on insurance if employees stay fit and smoke free.
But many groups, including the American Cancer Society, oppose Ensign’s approach, claiming it’ll make health coverage unaffordable for those who need it most. They also claim the current discounts of 20% are adequate.
Other organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and America’s Health Insurance Plans, the leading lobby for the nation’s insurance companies, have thrown their support behind Ensign’s plan. They see it as one possible way to start reducing healthcare cost increases.
Whose side are you on? Do you think employees who live healthier lifestyles should be entitled to steeper discounts? Tell us why or why not in the comments box below.
Tags: America's Health Insurance Plans, American Cancer Society, chamber of commerce, healthcare reform bill, John Ensign, Republican
October 15th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Yes, I think employees who live healthier lifestyles should be entitled to steeper health insurance discounts. As it currently stands, individuals have financial incentive NOT to stay in shape due to the higher cost for healthy foods and the cost of gym and other fitness memberships, etc. We need to find financial incentives to improve the overall physical health of our country, and it seems that in the U.S., there’s not much that works more effectively than financial incentive. I’m for doing whatever it takes, and this seems to make as much sense to me as anything else I’ve heard. However, I’d rather hear it marketed as surcharges for unhealthy choices, rather than discounts for healthy choices, as I think that would have more psychological impact and individuals would be more likely to make healthy choices.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:57 am
“But many groups, including the American Cancer Society, oppose Ensign’s approach, claiming it’ll make health coverage unaffordable for those who need it most. They also claim the current discounts of 20% are adequate.”
I find it ironic that anyone would argue that those who are in the highest risk pool, by choice, are expecting to be funded by those who make healthy choices. They need it most because they make unhealthy choices and expect the rest of us to pay for it. Personal responsiblity people…
October 15th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I agree with the Senator!
October 15th, 2009 at 11:59 am
healthy lifestye who can actually say what a healthy lifestyle is. I know people who are 100 lbs overweight, in their 70 & 80’s and healthier than some people who are their perfect weight and work out all the time who can say what is actually healthy no one knows for sure not even drs.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I’m all for giving the healthly people a discount. Why should we keep paying the high premiums for so many people who choose fast foods, chips & pop and don’t exercise. Flying is horrible when you’re wedged in next to an obese person and you have to listen to them breathe while they share a quarter of your seat that you paid big bucks for!!
October 15th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Just because a person is overweight does not mean it is an unhealthy choice of foods. Some have problems with weight because of other sicknesses that cause them to be so. And they have no say in the matter. You should be more sympathetic instead of accusing. Hopefully you will never be in that condition and have someone judge you unfairly. I don’t agree with people getting discounts for living healthy. Most people can’t afford to live healthy. It is very expensive to buy the “right” foods and go to gyms, etc…. And who determines what is healthy and how is it proven? You can do all the “right” things and still have a heart attack. What then? Look at Governer Arnold Schwartznegger! This is too much of a grey area.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Who is going to stand in judgement and where will it end. Maybe if you have bad genes and pre disposed to sickness/etc you should pay a higher premium????
October 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I agree 100% with Sherry. Who is going to determine who is healthy and who isn’t. This is just another way of making the low income family suffer more. If they can’t afford to purchase the foods to keep them healthy, whose fault is it? I am sorry that you have to suffer on a plane between obese people, maybe you could be a little more understanding and realize that they aren’t all eating potato chips, when you are low income, you can afford pasta, beans, rice – all the foods that keep you trim! Are you going to be punished if you get cancer because you are no longer healthy? You really need to look to were the money is going, try changing the policies of the insurance companies, the drug companies, do we really need to be paying the high salaries of those controlling the insurance companies? All the benefits and bonuses for those at the top are getting passed on to the consumer, why is that not being addressed? Let’s start at the top instead of the bottom.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I am the HR Manager and Benefits Administrator for a small business with less than ten employees on our health plan. Our plan costs are not driven by healthy vs unhealthy choices. With a small plan, if one employee or dependent has surgery it affects the entire group because of the cost ratio. Likewise, if an employee or dependent has a baby, our plan is also affected for the same reason. We have one overweight employee whose health problems have been controlled for several years by medication which tend to contribute to weight gain but is otherwise fit. This individual in the last two years hasn’t even met our annual deductible. One of our most seemingly healthy employees needed surgery for 80% and 90% blockage on their carotid arteries and two babies were born. I agree with Sherry. Just because someone “looks” like they don’t care about their health doesn’t make it so.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
This is such an incredibly ridiculous idea. How do you prove who is healthy, weigh them? Okay folks I am 44 5′11” and weigh 255 and I am sure I would be penalized by this plan. I also run marathons and bench press my weight easily and can hang with any 20 year old in my office in whatever sport they pick. When I was 20 I was kicked out of the Army for being overweight at 190lbs but was maxing out the physical fitness test standards but they kept skinny guys who would barf on every 5 mile run. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. Now if you want to give everyone a complete physical before deciding on pricing then fine but judging who gets penalized by how they look is nothing more than discrimination. Why is drinking not in that group? How about if you have high stress levels, don’t drink enough water, drive on dangerouse roads? All these things can contribute to your health care costs. This is a slippery slope that we do not want to be on.
You may ask how can someone who runs marathons be 255 pounds, very slow metabolism (yes it really exists and not just something fat people say). I have a standing heart rate of 58 and cannot get it over 90 on a run (80 is normal for standing heart rate).
October 15th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Being in the medical field for many years, I can confirm that there are MANY reasons people are overweight and all of them are not related to over eating or lack of exercise. I agree that eating properly/healthy is a lot more costly than eating the cheaper-calorie & carb laden foods. Those who think heavier people should be penalized by paying higher premiums for health care need to stop and re-think this and do some research. Not all “thinner” people are healthier than their overweight counterparts. Many have cardiovascular and other serious diseases.
Personally, I do not feel health insurance is a “right or should be mandated” to living in the United States at a cost to others. Emergency Departments are required by law not to turn away the uninsured so those without healthcare coverage can and do get it when needed. It is NOT our responsibility to be held accountable for strangers. We all have a responsibility to ourselves and our families first. I have worked a MINIMUM of 8 hrs a day (including working myself through college) since I was 15.5 yrs old and have EARNED my and my families own way & health insurance benefits. I do not think it’s right or fair for the government to decide who pays for who at what income levels.
October 15th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
To Marilyn,
“Personally, I do not feel health insurance is a “right or should be mandated” to living in the United States at a cost to others. Emergency Departments are required by law not to turn away the uninsured so those without healthcare coverage can and do get it when needed. It is NOT our responsibility to be held accountable for strangers. We all have a responsibility to ourselves and our families first.”
There are also many people who are obese/unhealthy through bad choices…. By your very statement those of us who do have insurance and/or pay taxes are subsiding those without insurance. So, we are all already responsible for strangers. We all expect to be seen when we show up in the Emergency Room whether we have insurance or not, but who do we think is paying for it… The rest of us is who… Either through taxes through goverment subsidies or through higher insurance and medical costs. Personally I think that if our goverment quite blowing our tax dollars on stupid sh**, then there shoud be enough to have government provided health care. I think that a public option is necessary. Everyone should be ABLE to get affordable insurance, but shouldn’t wait until they are to expensive to cover… and then expect it. So, mandate it when they are young and healthy.
October 16th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I agree with the Senator, people who make healthy lifestyle choices should pay less.
Once again, I see people writing that this is unfair to low income people who can’t afford to buy healthy foods or make better choices because of their situation. I say that is a bunch of B.S.. They seem to be able to buy cigarettes, junk food, soda pop and other items, so why shouldn’t they be penalized for it from a health care stand point? Quite frankly, eating vegetables, fruits, and grains is actually cheaper by the pound than eating meat. Trust me, I know, I see the difference when I go to the store. I am amazed at how much $20 will buy at my local fruit/vegetable stand vs. the grocery store.
People choose junk food and other unhealthy foods because they are quick, cheap and easy. A large container of oatmeal is cheaper than a big box of sugary cereal and will last longer as well. A large bag of salad mix will provide for several meals and people that do eat more fruits, vegetables and grains tend to lower their risk for cancer, heart disease and etc., so why shouldn’t people that make healthy choices pay less for insurance. Oh yeah, that might actually cause people to make a difference in their situation.
I used to work in a grocery store while I was going to college and it amazed me at how the lower income people on food stamps actually purchased tremendous amounts of candy bars, soda pop, chips and other junk food, because it was covered as a food item under that program. I, at the time, wasn’t making much more than those on welfare while paying for college and when I went to the store I made better choices because it was important to me. It is no different than safe drivers who pay less for car insurance than unsafe drivers. Genetic factors aside, people still need to be responsible for themselves.
October 20th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
LarryH,
The problem is that someone shouldn’t have to wait until their condition gets so bad that they have to go to the ER. People should be able to go to a primary care physician to take care of the molehill before it turns into a mountain. The thing is, a lot of good people, of course along with the bad, have to wait until it gets serious enough before they go to the ER due to the fact they can’t be turned away in the ER but physician practices require payment up front. What to do, what to do?
October 21st, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Hey, I’m all for this as long as we are CONSISTENT in applying who should be charged more andwho should not. It can’t all be about the height/weight chart. What about people with high cholesterol? I think they should pay more. They are obviously making similar bad choices with diet. Let’s check for under weight people as well. They are VERY often sickly and have LOTS of health problems. What about people who choose to live with smokers? All that second hand smoke is going to catch up with them. Living with a smoker is a bad health choice. What about people who have had social diseases? They are CLEARLY making some bad choices. What else should we check for? Let’s get them all – no?
October 21st, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I agree with the Senator.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Here’s something I would like to see pass, it might encourage people to be more active and help reward those that already are:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2105/show
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2105/text
The clever acronym PHIT stands for The Personal Health Investment Today Act of 2009. The PHIT Act was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives last spring, and is intended to amend the IRS code to allow fitness-related tax deductions for up to $1,000 for individuals, or $2,000 for married couples filing jointly or heads of household.
But, only certain sports and fitness expenses qualify. The PHIT Act defines qualified activities as amounts paid for fitness center memberships, physical exercise programs, and exercise equipment.
Here are some of the expenses that are covered:
• Youth camp and physical activity fees
• Membership fees for a health club
• Exercise/fitness classes or personal trainer’s instruction
• Sports league fees (any age)
• Marathon/triathlon registration fees
• Equipment used exclusively for participation in physical exercise/activities
Expenses that are not included are:
• Expenses incurred from member-owned and operated private clubs
• Clubs that offer golf, hunting, sailing and horseback riding
• Apparel and footwear not used exclusively for physical activity
• Travel and accommodation expenses incurred while participating in physical activity
Any incentive to have our citizens get healthier is a fantastic idea. The act is sponsored by Rep.
Ronald Kind (D) of Wisconsin. His co-sponsors in the House of Representatives include:
Tammy Baldwin (D) of Wisconsin
Joe Barton (R) of Texas
Earl Blumenauer (D) of Oregon
Kevin Brady (TX) of Texas
Robert Brady (D) of Pennsylvania
Christopher Carney (D) of Pennsylvania
Jim Gerlach (R) of Pennsylvania
John Gingrey (R) of Georgia
Marcy Kaptur (D) of Ohio
Mike McIntyre (D) of North Carolina
Jerry Moran (R) of Kansas
Donald Payne (D) of New Jersey
Todd Platts (R) of Pennsylvania
Zach Wamp (R) of Tennessee
Robert Wexler (D) of Florida
Contact your congressman to show your support for the Personal Health Investment Today Act of 2009 (PHIT Act or HR 2105)!
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Exceedingly dangerous idea. Think carefully….. Warning, warning!!! Don’t go to this place. You will be very, very sorry.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I wonder if that is how the Senate’s health insurance works … hmmmm? I love how they say this and that about the rest of us but are not willing to take on the same restrictions. BTW! I am very healthy and smoke-free.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Why just smoke free? Why not alcohol free and drug free? Give me a break – lower income people “can’t afford to be healthy”? You don’t need an expensive gym membership to be “healthy”. What’s wrong with just going out for a walk? Doing yoga in your livingroom? That’s free. How about buying a $1.79 bag of frozen vegetables or $1.39 bag of carrots instead of a $3.99 bag of chips or a $5.00 gallon of ice cream? Drink water instead of beer. Yes some of it is about choice, but some are just not blessed with the best health genes. No one is saying a diabetic is disqualified from the discount. We’re talking about lifestyle CHOICES, not genetically healthy versus unhealthy. Of course the insurance companies are behind this bill. If they have to pay less in claims it means larger bonuses. In my opinion insurance should be non-profit. There is no justification for million dollar bonuses and healthcare wouldn’t be so unaffordable if it wasn’t for frivilous lawsuits. You can’t find a cure until you address all the symptoms.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
healthy or unhealthy is not he issue with our medical insurance is based on age groups the older you are the more you have to pay and of course in a company that has employees that have been here from day one you are looking at some high rates. the company started in 1976 only a couple of our employess have been here less than five years and we only have 27 employees how do you figure lower rates for this type situation.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Why are we passing a wellness credit when we are getting ready to pay $1 trillion for national health care (1 trillion we don’t even have in our bank that we are borrowing from who..china)? The Personal Health Investment Today Act of 2009 (comment) above. We are spending something we don’t even have? How is that possible to spend money that is not even in our hands (credit is from other tax payers). The country is so far in debt. If you want any laws, pass laws that protect the insured from paying premiums so high to cover the cost of the billions paid in illegal health care. I know Texas paid $1 billion in illegal health care just last year! If you can cross the border pregant, your child is a citizen and can go to school here. The illegal aliens are coming across by the 1000s a day because of our citizen laws. But now we need to reform the system for a goverment plan? What?? With who’s money are we paying for all this stuff?? Middle class again! The wellness plans were insurance ideas “you don’t have to have results, you just have to participate” Am I the only one that think the Wellness plans are $$$ making deals for insurance companies. They get more claims processed because of all the additional routine testing. Forgive me for my wild ideas or am I somewhat right?
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 am
How about setting national standard for coverage, rather than every state setting its own standards. Here is NJ, mental illness, yearly mammograms, etc are required in all plans, but not in other states. If the coverage was standardized, then companies could buy health insurance plans from wherever they want. That would create a truly competitive industry and lower the prices. Do not penalize people for genetically, environmentally or even self-imposed health issues. Doing so creates a big-brother environment and I don’t want or need the government telling me how to live my life.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:10 am
If I have Cancer which is not my fault, you’re telling me I should have to pay a higher premium?
October 26th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I normally don’t vent on these things, but this one hit home for me. I have two family members that choose to be unhealthy. Mom has chronic bronchitis and emphysema, but continues to smoke 2 packs per day. I can’t tell you how many prescriptions she takes! She was even on a ventillator for 10 days once and was sedated through the physical withdrawal symptoms. The first thing she asked for when she woke up was a cigarrette. My aunt has diabetes and continues to drink Coke by the 2-liter and eat foods high in starch and sugar. She was recently granted SSDI. UGH!
I don’t expect the government to fix these problems… nor am I stating that my family represents the “norm.”
I’m just sick of watching them slowly commit suicide and would love any help in getting them to choose a more healthy lifestyle.
October 26th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Do you really think that offering “healthy fit people” less premiums is going to help those who are so called unfit unhealthy to choose to get that way? most people will cancel their insurance rather than have it since most of us are paying for those that don’t have it and supporting those from other countries who don’t have to pay for anything. maybe instead of going after those that you are refering to be unhealthy and unfit you should start going for those that we are paying for when they are perfectly capable of getting jobs just prefer not to since everything is payed for them without one. health insurance and drs are a big joke anyways they know they can get whatever they want out of people and don’t ever seem to give a correct diagnoises anyway just keep you coming back for more money.
November 20th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
This is such a narrow minded view. I am slim, eat well, exercise, take vitamins, etc. and I’ve had cancer three times because of a strong family history. Am I to be penalized for something that I CANNOT control. Ridiculous!
November 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I truly believe that this would set an extremely dangerous precedent. Just give the insurance a reason and boy will they charge. They already spend a huge amount of money denying claims. What makes you all think this would get their hands rubbing together in gleeful anticipation of more profits????