NPR: Employers Cracking Down on Unhealthy Behaviors

Employers Cracking Down on Unhealthy Behaviors

Earlier this year, Scotts Miracle-Gro announced that smokers could no longer work for the Ohio-based lawn and garden company and that it would test randomly for nicotine. Starting in January, employees of media giant Tribune Co. will have to pay an additional $100 a month in insurance premiums if they or their covered family members smoke.

Welcome to the new world of "tough love" health care, where some companies are trying to limit rising costs by cracking down on potentially unhealthy behaviors, The Washington Post reports.

A survey of 450 major employers this year found that two-thirds were considering more aggressive health care programs for employees. The costs are a big deal for employers. The nonprofit Partnership for Prevention says employers spend an average of $1,685 per employee on absenteeism, low productivity and other indirect costs of individual and family health problems, for a grand total of $226 billion a year.

However, workers in 30 states are protected from penalties for lawful activities, such as smoking, outside work. Union contracts also offer some protection. For instance, the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild has filed a grievance about the smoking penalty at The Baltimore Sun, a Tribune newspaper.

A lawyer representing a former Scotts worker who was fired after testing positive for nicotine argues that if employers can implement these kinds of measures against smokers, it's only a matter of time before they also penalize people "who are overweight or have high cholesterol, or ride motorcycles or sky-dive."

How far should a company be able to go to force employees to adopt healthier lifestyles? What about not hiring people who smoke or who are overweight?

9:57 AM ET | 11-13-2007 | permalink

Comments

Please spare me.How about employers have medical plans where the insurance does what the doctor requests.How about medical plans that pay equally for mental health and dentistry.When the employer fills in those gaps,then and only then is it moral to examine employees private health habits.

Sent by Susan MacDonald | 11:36 AM ET | 11-13-2007

How about a list of the costliest medical interventions that have the lowest efficacy?
We spend more than double what the rest of the developed world spends because we believe that throwing money at hopeless cases is helpful

Sent by Bill N Wichita | 11:47 AM ET | 11-13-2007

How about employers butting out of our lives. When did corporate American have the right to control what we can and can't do?

Sent by Alicia Baxter | 1:27 PM ET | 11-13-2007

Usually people don't make a change unless they have an incentive. I can't think of any greater incentive than for it to cost one's livelyhood. Moreover, why should a company and its employees have to pay for an employee's risky behavor? On the other hand, some of the best leaders smoke. Dr. Martin Luther King smoked. FDR smoked. This list goes on and on. Therefore a potential employer must carefully weight the benefits of an employee verses the liability of that employee smoking unless they lose out on some really great talent.

Sent by Harry Archer | 2:02 PM ET | 11-13-2007

My employer is offering rewards (both monetary and otherwise) for healthy behaviors. It seems like a better idea to give kudos to those who have or develop good habits rather than punish bad habits. Someone in not-so-good health would be more likely to get their vitals checked if doing so will save $110 on premiums next year; to lose weight if programs and nutrition counselors are freely provided, and quit smoking if classes are offered free, and convenient to the workplace, as is the case here. Not all organizations are as large as ours, and able to offer such generous wellness benefits, but those who do may find it results in savings in the long-term.

Sent by Emily Glenn | 2:56 PM ET | 11-13-2007

if we had universal health care this wouldn't be a problem

Sent by bryan | 3:17 PM ET | 11-13-2007

These policies are not new. Alaska Airlines has not hired any employees who smoke since the mid-1980s. Other companies have had similar plans in place for decades.

Sent by Charles Bingham | 3:54 PM ET | 11-13-2007

I used to work for a company that had a similar "no smoking" policy. The savings I saw on MY insurance premiums were A JOKE! ($3 out of $100 per check).
To make matters worse, after not being able to find enough people to fill positions (at fair? market wages),the "Exceptions List" came out. In "certain" positions (management and welding positions, really anything but production assembly) the company could hire "the most qualified person", regardless of being smoker/non-smoker.

Many people who did quit, had "relapses". The company was told (by Legal Dept.) don't fire those people who "relapse", because tobacco usage is STILL LEGAL in this state. "They were good enough when they were hired, their good enough now!
(Then then he, (LEGAL Dept.), went out for a smoke.)

I think companies which offer "voluntary" inducements toward healthy behaviors or "on the right track", but, IF I choose to continue using tobacco, the company can (spit - ding)!!!

Sent by Harold | 2:52 PM ET | 11-14-2007

Considering that most lower level employees have seen their work loads quadrupled in the past few decades (without one penny of increased compensation), and considering how those employees are now suffering health complications from the 'third world' working conditions imposed upon them, I see this as a tactic to avoid paying for the bad management decisions that have led up to this. A huge percentage of workers now have to take multiple prescription medications just to be able to keep working at this pace. If the company offers health insurance it is the prescription co-pay that is breaking the bank! Much of THAT is due to the price gouging that our pharmaceutical corporations seem to be involved with. Universal Healthcare is being used to eliminate employer provided health insurance and when that happens it will suddenly become mandatory health insurance just like car and house insurance. Bet on it!

Sent by Cybershaman | 3:50 PM ET | 11-15-2007

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
Please send me updates from NPR.	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.