Pre-Employment Nicotine Test

[Ohdang]

The Cleveland Clinic has already laid out a plan to not hire anyone with a BMI over 30. I do not know if that has gone into effect yet, but I do know they were the first, at least regionally, to ban nicotine in employees. Considering we have followed them in every health related hiring policy, I see a time soon where we will also discriminate with BMI's where I work. Then I see type 2 diabetes or perhaps metabolic disorder being next. These are things related to health that people have control over that greatly increase the cost of providing health coverage for employees, so with the bottom line in mind I fully expect that to happen sometime in the distant future. I think they would have to draw the line, maybe by the decision of a court, to not hire based on genetics. Not hiring someone due to type 2 diabetes and its extreme cost to treat is entirely different than not hiring someone because of type 1 diabetes and its extreme cost to treat - because type 1 is genetic and type 2 is entirely the fault of the person for not taking care of themselves. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it from the employers point of view.

The OP didn't say if he worked in health care or not, I am interested to know if health care hiring policies are migrating to other industries? I wouldn't be surprised, considering the financial ramifications of health insurance on companies, since the Affordable Care Act went into effect and crippled a lot of businesses.

 

[Adam]

Wow this is fascinating, the power health insurance has in the US is staggering. Over the long term maybe these policies will apply a social pressure that reduces obesity and smoking, i mean common sense and huge amounts of scientific data haven't convinced people to stop smoking, maybe money is the only motivator to get past the 'james dean' effect

 

[Ohdang]

Wow this is fascinating, the power health insurance has in the US is staggering. Over the long term maybe these policies will apply a social pressure that reduces obesity and smoking, i mean common sense and huge amounts of scientific data haven't convinced people to stop smoking, maybe money is the only motivator to get past the 'james dean' effect

Motivating with money is working at my job. It has even worked on me. They gave me a $300 incentive to upload the results of my yearly physical into a health risk assessment online, get one age critical screening if applicable or one "non-essential" screening if not (I am young still so I just got a vision exam, no cost out of pocket), and attend one health talk given by the hospital. So I made $300 for barely doing anything, but the hospital is probably saving more than that in insurance costs by just guiding me and everyone else to be more health conscious through incentives.

Also, since I am in very good health and have no labs out of range or any preventable chronic diseases, and am a non-smoker, I only pay about $9 per pay for health insurance (roughly $216 per year). So yeah, I'll definitely pay more attention - I'm basically being paid $84 per year after I get my $300 bonus to have health insurance just by getting a yearly physical, one yearly "non-essential" screening until I reach the age of the prostate exams and the like, and sitting in a classroom for an hour listening to a lady talk about how to eat better without spending a fortune.

This approach to monitoring employee health and rewarding them for taking care of themselves is working great for me. I love it, personally. I don't know how much an obese smoker with a drinking problem has to pay though, since I am none of the above.

 

[Soda]

The Cleveland Clinic has already laid out a plan to not hire anyone with a BMI over 30. I do not know if that has gone into effect yet, but I do know they were the first, at least regionally, to ban nicotine in employees. Considering we have followed them in every health related hiring policy, I see a time soon where we will also discriminate with BMI's where I work. Then I see type 2 diabetes or perhaps metabolic disorder being next. These are things related to health that people have control over that greatly increase the cost of providing health coverage for employees, so with the bottom line in mind I fully expect that to happen sometime in the distant future. I think they would have to draw the line, maybe by the decision of a court, to not hire based on genetics. Not hiring someone due to type 2 diabetes and its extreme cost to treat is entirely different than not hiring someone because of type 1 diabetes and its extreme cost to treat - because type 1 is genetic and type 2 is entirely the fault of the person for not taking care of themselves. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it from the employers point of view.

The OP didn't say if he worked in health care or not, I am interested to know if health care hiring policies are migrating to other industries? I wouldn't be surprised, considering the financial ramifications of health insurance on companies, since the Affordable Care Act went into effect and crippled a lot of businesses.

 

[Pick6]

I am very jealous of you OHdang. I pay 225/month for health insurance. That is counting the total after getting 25 knocked off per pay for filling out a health assessment. So I save 600 on that, but still ridiculous, IMO. My firm uses BCBS by the way.

 

[Ohdang]

I am very jealous of you OHdang. I pay 225/month for health insurance. That is counting the total after getting 25 knocked off per pay for filling out a health assessment. So I save 600 on that, but still ridiculous, IMO. My firm uses BCBS by the way.

Don't be too jealous, I didn't tell you how high my deductible was