My employer announced their 2011 health care plan which is substantially worse than our current plan in a variety of ways, but the one thing that I can’t get past is that employees are required to fill out a questionnaire AND undergo a fasting “biometrics assessment” blood test in order to qualify for the standard rates.
Presumably if you refuse the test, you pay a higher premium and/or deductible.
I guess I’m being naive, but how is this even legal? Would this piss you off? I’ve been furious about this all day and I’m not sure why. I want to raise a fuss but I don’t know how.
If you don’t have a contract, then insurance is just a perquisite offered by the employer as an enticement to you to get you to want to work there.
Health screenings are shown to catch problems, help you deal with them, and keep the cost of treatments down for everyone. That will be reflected in a lower co-pay or deductible for you.
Are you sure that you only need a blood test? My plan (and I have choices; this is the plan I chose) requires a full physical every year (including blood work), and if you have certain types of problems you have to commit to treatment for them (i.e., tobacco use, drinking problems, weight).
I’ll note that you get the “good” co-pay if you participate; you don’t actually have to pass the tests.
Your company is subsidizing your health insurance. If you want to take advantage of the subsidy, you have to jump through their hoops. You do have the right to object to the requirements, including declining to participate in their health care plan.
No, it wouldn’t piss me off, because you’re receiving a privilege, so naturally they make you jump through hoops.
Are you upset because you are overweight and don’t want to be lectured about what you’re already aware of? Or are you healthy, normal weight, have a great diet and exercise, and don’t like the perceived intrusion?
I’d put money on the former. Me, I’m working off my last 15 pounds but exercise rigorously and eat a great diet, I’m always up for any health care assessment or screening I can get, especially if it’s free.
We do this at my employer. (I’m a benefits manager, but I’m not directly responsible for the health and wellness plans).
The reason the company does this is to 1) identify people with health risks so 2) they can require you (if necessary) to participate in company-sponsored programs that encourage healthier lifestyles. For example, as an employer, I want our health care insurer to identify people who have untreated diabetes or high blood pressure so they can be treated before those employees end up with catastrophic health costs from untreated disease.
This results in lower benefit costs for the company, but also for the employees, because it enables the company to keep premiums lower if they have a healthier population.
Note that your employer never sees the results of your screening, except in aggregate with all other employees. Only your health insurance provider gets your specific information, so they can determine if treatment or health coaching is appropriate.
Take me, personally. I’m overweight. In order to qualify for our better tier of coinsurance, I had to complete an HRA (Health Risk Assessment). Because of my weight, I was required to participate in a weight loss coaching program which basically consisted of a coach calling me once every two weeks to check up on my weight, diet and exercise. It was kind of annoying but worth it to me to get the better insurance, and worth it to my employer if I do actually lose weight resulting in fewer health claims.
It seems to me the original poster is saying that if you don’t meet conditions you pay a higher rate, which defeats the purpose of a group plan.
When I handled insurance, we indeed got dinged by things like smoking and especially HIV. Yes, you never saw the individual results, but it wasn’t hard to figure out the group results.
This would lower the cost of the plan or raise it for the GROUP. But I never saw an individual paying more than the rest.
I suppose it’s possible, especially with the new laws, I don’t know what has come into force since 2006 when I last handled this type of thing.
I also think the OP didn’t make it clear if you took the tests and failed, would you HAVE to pay more? Until you know for sure I wouldn’t get that upset.
I know it’s standard to list conditions you’ve had or your family has history of on the form when you first join a company. Some companies also make you take a physical, but those stats, in my experience, just alter the cost of the group plan as a whole.
For instance, when two of my staff had HIV the group rate for the whole hotel went up. But not just for those two. EVERYONE on that plan had to pay more. That was the idea, the healthy subsidize everyone else. Which is how all insurance works.
Wilbo523 is right. The goal is not that you pass the test, but that you’ve been identified as a health risk so that they can enroll you in pre-emptive treatment.
So if you take the test (it’s really more of a health assessment) and have no health conditions, you get preferable rates/benefits.
If you take the assessment and have a health issue, you get preferable rates/benefits but must participate in some kind of follow-up to address your weight or blood pressure or diabetes or whatever. Failure to participate may cause you to forfeit the better rates/benefits. This is in your own interest (for better health) as well as in the financial interest of the employer and other plan participants.
If you refuse to complete the assessment, you will be assigned higher rates or lower benefits (lower coinsurance, higher deductibles and/or larger OOP max).
Let me add some personal experience:
My company has 80,000 employees. The majority are lower income, lower educated people below age 30 or above age 50 who live in rural or suburban areas the south or midwest part of the country. Compared to the general population, they are more likely to smoke, more likely to be overweight, more likely to have untreated medical conditions like hypertension or diabetes. We anticipate that adopting a plan like the one the OP describes (2010 was our first year to do it) is the only way we can continue to provide a comprehensive health care plan that the majority of our employees can actually afford. Even then, a large percentage of our employees choose to go without health insurance because they cannot afford it even with the company paying 70% of the cost.
skammer - They can’t pay for it, or they choose not to? If they smoke, the cost of the cigarettes would probably pay for their insurance. People make choices, and not always the right ones.
I work for a company with 25K employees all over the world. My company pays about 80% of the insurance cost. My part (just for health, not dental and vision, etc) costs about $62/month. There is a discount for not being a tobacco user, and everyone who takes a Health Risk Assessment qualifies for about $10/month off their insurance cost. You aren’t required to do more than take the test, and you can opt out of extra contact once you do. I don’t think we’re allowed to opt out of insurance with my company unless you can prove that you’re insured elsewhere, such as a spouse’s family coverage.
Okay, let me clarify. A lot of our employees (more than 50% of our full-time employees) elect not to have health insurance through us. Many of them probably have coverage elsewhere. However, when last we surveyed non-covered employees to ask why they did not enroll in our plan, most of them claimed it was too expensive for them. Whether they were unable to afford it or choose to spend their money elsewhere was not stated, but we’re talking about folks who do not make much above minimum wage for the most part.
So, as a company, we try to be as innovative as we can in keeping our premiums lower to encourage larger participation (which, in turn, helps keep premiums lower).
My company forces us to pick a plan, unless we can be covered by a spouse’s or domestic partner’s plan in another company.
Can’t you just do that? Then you have 100% participation, and maybe the contributory portion can go down. I’m assuming that it’s either not been studied, or it’s been studied and my assumptions are wrong.
By the way, I’m really curious what company (or line of business) has 80,000 employees that are mostly rural, under 30 or over 50, and uneducated? I’m thinking phone sex operators, but they’re generally independent contractors.
My previous employer did that also. I’m sure that’s been looked at, but I don’t know the reason we allow peole to decline coverage if they have no coverage elsewhere. That’s not the part of the employee benefits I manage :).
Ha! No, we’re a very large discount retail chain (i.e. “dollar store”) with about 9,000 small stores. Most of our employees are either store associates (and half of those are part-time) or warehouse workers and our stores are usually in lower to middle income neighborhoods and small towns.
I am of normal weight, I have a gym membership (that I actually use, 5x per week). I just think it is an unnecessary intrusion into my personal life. If I work my butt off for this company 8-10 hours per day, what I do at home --legally, mind you-- should be none of their business.
For the record, I’ve been to the doctor exactly 0.00 times so far in 2010. I don’t know that this change would impact me at all.
But as much as I used to get annoyed when my dad used to say, “IT’S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE MATTER, DAMMIT!” I sort of feel that, yes, it is the principle. I am disgusted by the fact that this company makes so much damn money and finds every possible excuse to rake their employees over the coals. Welcome to corporate America, 21st century capitalism, if you don’t like it go work somewhere else, blah blah blah. I know. I still have a right to be annoyed, yes?
I appreciate your frustration in the OP. I will say this as the person who runs Benefits Management for my company: the Health Plans will negotiate deeper discounts with us - meaning both my company and our employees both end up paying less - when we get a high rate of return on completed Health Risk Assessments (HRAs). The simple act of completing them is a big deal. Further, if we establish Wellness Programs and can demonstrate a decent usage rate of smoking-cessation, blood pressure, well Diabetes and other programs - again, everybody benefits because the Health Plan will negotiate lower rates.
There is no easy answer and it can be frustrating for individuals, but as companies approach these requests from the Health Plans, there is a clear carrot held out that means lower costs for employees, too.
But it’s not, at least not here. Our rates are going up, our deductible is going WAY up, and if we decline to take the “biometrics assessment” then everything goes up even more.
I suppose you could argue that without these assessments, the increase would be even more drastic… who knows?
Well, WordMan and I know: yes, the increases would be more drastic.
But in addition to the cost, look at it from a wellness perspective: people are getting treatment for chronic conditions they might not even had known they had. Maybe not you; but for some employees there is the added health benefit in addition to the cost benefit for everyone.
So you are what I mentioned - healthy, of normal weight, and don’t like the intrusion. I just hate it when a privilege is construed as a right.
The corporate America thing is boring, tired, and off base. Go elsewhere if you think it’s better, where the retirement age is being yanked up and the streets are burning.
