2006 SPS Health Care Benefits Survey

Respondent Comments:

Obesity may be caused by genetic disorders. I think this is a health issue and not a voluntary choice like smoking.

The bottom line is that healthier individuals are more productive individuals. They are not spending time undergoing medical treatment, nor are they spending energy worrying about medical issues. Unless health care benefits are more affordable for individuals I think employers should help with some of the costs. If individuals make poor lifestyle choices, though, I think they should bear the brunt of that cost. Many employers sponsor weight loss or smoking cessation classes. Perhaps they could act as an incentive to employees and a basis for health benefits.

These are difficult times, and, I understand the plight of employers. However, a great deal of the reason for higher health care costs has little to do with smoking or obesity - it has to do with managed care (I work for managed care), how it is handled and the pharmaceutical companies. Insurance would rather pay for a very expensive inpatient procedure than pay for an outpatient, less expensive treatment. It happens regularly that insurance refuses certain treatments that do work, but aren't on the list, and then pay for a more expensive treatment and inpatient care that often times could have been avoided. Companies also do stupid things when it comes to policies. They will grant detox benefits but no chemical dependency treatment aftercare. The result, infinite amounts of inpatient, costly detox and no treatment. It isn't that our healthcare costs couldn't be cut, it's that the system is antiquated and ineffective, as well as costly.

Organizations benefit from healthy employees, unfortunately healthcare in this country has always been employer-based so I think this is the best way to fix it. Too many employers have been allowed to cut benefits without consequences and this is not good corporate citizenship. A government solution usually means rationing healthcare. This means that health care would become a luxury instead of a basic neccessity. Middle class people are already being priced out of homes and education. Heathcare providers are beginning to face their responsibility in helping to contain costs, they are very serious about improving quality and promoting equity. I don't think it's fair to require that individuals cover themselves because this creates a whole new class of "criminals" out of ordinary citizens who are unemployed or in some cases uninsurable. I do agree that individual should pay some portion of their coverage because this encourages them to live more responsibly. Obese citizens or smokers do raise costs, but to penalize them now is unfair, maybe this can be instituted in the next ten years to give younger workers a chance to adjust and to encourage those entering hte workforce to not smoke and to live a healthier lifestyle. The entity that should really step up and take more responsibility are the insurance providers themselves and this won't happen unless there is greater competition, requiring employers to provide healthcare benefits will do that. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the coming years.

When some employees sabotage their own health,they may see it as their perogative, but in the end the remaining employees (and employers) pay the price in the form of higher premiums. When there are options available and people make harmful choices, they give up their right to be part of a protected class.

Instead of punitive remedies, what about incentives? egTaking part in keep fit and weight loss programs. Also for taking no sick days off.

There is too much government regulation as it is. The (job) market should influence employers to offer health insurance to attract good workers. Wellness programs where employees are rewarded for losing weight or smoking cessation would be a more positive approach than charging more for coverage. In addition, the cost of monitoring employees and family members to be sure they maintain the healthy habits that are required to keep their premiums low would be prohibitive. (Monitoring health care recipients should be a part of any penalty system to eliminate abuse of the program.)

This country needs more mandatory wellness programs to assist with weight control, diabetes management,stress management, nutrition, etc. Also, those employees who have chronic health problems and do not atek advantage of the assistance should pay much more for health care. Also, there should be incentives for those employees who do not smoke, are not obese, etc.

I too am more than 30 pounds overweight. Even though I am in pretty good shape and have no health risks currently, requiring employees to pay more is a good way of getting us off our collective arses to take better care of ourselves. It is similar to New York's raising the price of cigarettes to cover the state's medicare costs for smoke-related illness.

If smokers and obese people would be denied insurance, the majority of people (in the USA) would be uninsured. That would cause chaos.

Employees within a Company should have equal access to health care. Those who use the system to a greater degree should pay more through increased co-pays, deductibles, etc. Smokers and overweight employees should be encouraged through incentives to improve thier life style rather than penalized through higher premiums. Because these types of employees are easily identified, there's a temptation to single them out when, in fact, an employee with a history of heart disease or an employee with a family history of cancer is just as likely to be a burden on the health care system.

Need to be careful with overweigth people, could be a medical or other condition beyond the person's control.

The questions were hard to answer without qualifying. Employers should be able to charge higher premiums if ees do not make an effort to improve their health (i.e. try to lose weight). Employers should have to provide benefits to certain classes of emloyees - not for example for part time works.

One issue that I see is that the more that businesses are expected / or required to pay for health care benefits the more pressure it takes off of our government to pursue some type of nationalized health care program for all citizens. We have so much medical technology, but thousands and thousands of Americans do not have access to it because they don't have or have inadequate medical coverage for themselves and their family.

Massachusetts just enacted a law imposing a $295 per employee fee on every employer if they didn't provide employee benefits. A $295 fee is a lot cheaper than the cost to provide insurance. How effective is that? The decision to cover the cost of insurance has to be based on the employment market and the definition of the types of benefits employers want to provide.

There are other "vices" that people have that contribute to health problems. Alcoholism and drug use, lack of exercise, dangerous hobbies, gambling, having children etc., also increase insurance costs and time away from work. These are all things that people choose to do. How do you verify smoking before you hire someone? If you ask if they smoke...do you ask if they drink? Do you think they are going to tell the truth if it means they won't get the job. Do we ask them if they participate in any dangerous hobbies or are active in sports? If a woman is in her reproductive years, do we charge her more because she might have a baby or there might be complications? I understand the focus on what's visible but I think it could be challenged.

Getter' done!

I agree with the issues of smoking - unfortunately, second hand smoke effects innocent people. On the other hand, I am not sure I agree with 30 lbs. being obese for some individuals. If individuals are extremely overweight, it is only effecting themselves and additional premiums could be charged - however those extremely obese are generally bedridden and not working anyway - We all end up paying for their healthcare when they need it. In addition, obeseity is also linked to genetics, it is not necessarily a choice for individuals but actually a daily struggle. Smoking IS a choice. The company I am working for has in the last two years had 4 individuals who have had heart attacks - each of these individuals were thin, young (30 - 41 years old) and seemingly in good health. We do have quite a few individuals who are overweight and have a wellness program that many of them are participating in.

The premise of insurance is to spread the risk. Surcharges for smoking and/or obesity and/or sexual promiscuity (you can see where this is going) rather negate the notion of insurance.

Todays workplace is mandated to be safe yet workers can come to the job unfit to perform the job functions required and act like a victim if asked to perform.All responsibility is on the employer and very little on the employee. Socaized medicine is not the answer and there are very few states that could do what is being done in Massachusetts because they have a unique workforce unlike most states. Gov't is simply trying to pass the burden of our health care sysem off on to business because they do not have the backbone to do their job and do not want to put the public against them in the voting booth.

Every product that is consumed, there is a hidden health care cost. Personally, I do not tolerate paying higher costs for lifestyle diseases. I eat correctly, do not smoke, moderate drinker and exercise. I do not exercise to the point of sports injuries and I do not advocate the payout for aids for those in a lifestyle that can contract the disease. I want to be rewarded for being proactive and preventive!