Coroporate Hell: CVS Requiring Employees To Disclose How Fat They Are To Insurance Provider

From Huff Po: One of the country's largest pharmacy chains is asking its workers to find out how fat they are and then disclose it to their insurance provider.

Not only is that company, CVS Caremark, telling workers who use its health insurance plan to have a doctor determine their height, weight, body fat, blood pressure and other health indicators. It is also asking workers to give permission to the insurer to turn over that information to a firm that provides benefits support to CVS, the Boston Herald reports.

Workers who don’t take part in the voluntary “wellness review,” paid for by CVS, will have to pay an annual $600 penalty.

Obamacare could make such practices more common. The health care reform law allows employers to levy a higher penalty against workers who don’t participate in company wellness programs. In some cases, workers could also have to pay more if they don’t meet certain health targets like appropriate body mass index.

Michael DeAngelis, a CVS spokesman, wrote in an e-mail statement to The Huffington Post that, compliant with privacy laws, the company won’t have access to the health information. Instead, it will only be reviewed by the firm administering CVS’ benefits.

“Our benefits program is evolving to help our colleagues engage more actively to improve their health and manage health-associated costs,” DeAngelis wrote. “An initial step to accomplish this goal is a health screening and wellness review so that colleagues know their key health metrics in order to take action to improve their overall health, if necessary.”

DeAngelis also argued that the company’s policy is “a common practice.” He cited a survey from the National Business Group on Health -- which describes itself as “the nation's only non-profit organization devoted exclusively to representing large employers' perspective on national health policy issues” -- that found that nearly 80 percent of employers offered a health assessment in 2011. Three-fourths of employers who offered the assessment also provided incentives for completion.

A smaller share of companies pressured workers into actually taking part in a health review. A 2012 Kaiser survey found that 18 percent of employers asked their workers to take part in a health risk assessment, with only a share of those companies levying a financial penalty on employees who didn't complete it.

CVS is rolling out the program as companies across the country are expecting health care costs to rise. More than 60 percent of employers said in an August survey that they expect to pay more for their workers health insurance when President Obama’s health care reform law takes effect in 2014. Fewer unhealthy employees could mean a cost savings for companies.

via www.huffingtonpost.com

Comments

[Hellraiser]

I know this sounds terrible, but the company I work for actually does something very similar. I think it's all in how you phrase things. This company "requires" employees to take part in a "wellness review" or "pay a penalty." My employer "asks" us all to take part in a "free health screening" and in turn we can have "discounts on our monthly health care premiums" (and my company, being a health insurance company, has been doing this since long before Obama was even in office). The end result is the same. These programs want employees to get in shape because of the high health care costs that come along with obesity and related illnesses and drive premiums up. I won't say it's fair, but what in this world really is? I can say that I've never felt even slightly invaded or insulted by my company's program, and I'm not skinny by a long shot.

[Michael]

Aramark does this as well. I'm paying an additional $10/month on my health insurance because I didn't submit to their "health screening" crap.

[Damn Yankee]

This is a pretty common practice. It's similar to disclosing if you're a smoker or not to insurance companies.

[Nursing slave]

I don't really see where this is a problem, especially if the company is paying for the screening and everything that they want. How many people don't get properly screened because they don't have a doctor/cant afford the appointments/just don't think about it/etc? I can tell you from experience that it happens a lot. I had a woman who got her foot amputated recently and was utterly flabbergasted because "I'm not a diabetic!". Judging by the diabetic ulcer on your foot that turned gangrenous and was too far gone to save by the time you came in, and the fact that your blood sugars are testing consistently around 20 (about 360 in American units), yeah you are, and have been for a long time. I felt bad for her, but at the same time it's like, what the hell? How did nothing send you to see a doctor sooner? You don't just get diabetes and your foot falls off the next day. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, things like that happen all the time.

From an insurance point of view, it's all pretty important to know. It'll help them gauge whether they're going to have to shell out for something serious over the long haul or if it really will just be unforeseen little misshaps (The person in the next bed to my diabetic woman lost his foot when "chainsaw met foot and foot lost" in a work accident. . . that was actually a really bad couple weeks for feet on that unit)

Yes, maybe undergoing a little screening and wellness testing seems invasive to some people, but wouldn't you sooner catch something early if you need to? Especially if all that screening is free? And if you're not willing then yes, you absolutely should pay more, because who knows what the hell you have that isn't being treated? Who knows how bad it's going to get before you finally get it checked out, and then what the hell is it going to cost, or who else might it hurt? If you have something chronic and communicable you should know for the benefit of the people around you. Besides, it's not like their going to post your results in the breakroom.

I guess my beef is just for people to go get friggin screened, and then I won't have to see you in my own little public-centered corner of hell, or if I do it'll just be for something minor.

[The Last Archimedean]

This doesn't bother me... actually, it'd be kind of nice to have a free screening. I had to pay to schedule a checkup at the doctor's office.

[Nomnom]

I'd like to point out that no where does it say the health screening is free. Also the penalty works out to $50/month. At just $10/month I think I would tolerate the penalty. But $50/month? You're right, the problem is all in the way they are wording this. If it were framed as an incentive instead of a punishment, there wouldn't be this outcry.

Personally I would be concerned that if I went for the screening in order to get the discount or to avoid the fines, and my numbers didn't come back exactly right, or if I had some illness that was not at all in any way my fault, that I would then end up paying MORE than I would have without submitting to the health screening because now they KNOW I'm a problem. I would hope such a situation is illegal already.

[Quartz]

So what's new about this? This is standard practice for most companies.

And frankly I'm going to argue that they should know it. If you have risk factors, you pay in more. If you don't disclose them, and you fall ill, you raise the premium for everyone. Never forget that the whole insurance system whether private or government is paid into by a collective of people.

In other words, I pay my insurance bills whether I get sick or not. If I never get sick, and you do, I'm paying YOUR bills, not mine.

I do have preexisting conditions, I do pay a higher premium, even though I haven't been to the doctor for said conditions in years. You know what, I think though it is absolutely correct and the right thing to do for me to do so.

Preexisting conditions suck, but if you don't disclose them to the insurance company, and don't pay your fair share, you're not just a leech on the company, you're a leech on all of us, including others like myself who likewise have preexisting conditions.

[Hellbound Alleee]

Tch. It's a way to screw the employees over to pay for employers' hysteria over Obamacare. And an incentive to subtly not hire people who might appear to have health problems. But if the employer is so generous to do so, they have to pay extra for their healthcare.

Over the next few years, I'd be curious to know if companies are not hiring fat people because of this. They sure as shit are hiring smokers. Most of you know that.

[CatWrangler]

I have no problem with people getting the help they need, getting healthy etc. I have a problem with the idea that this can be used to discriminate and possibly shame people into eating disorders. Trust me treating an eating disorder is not going to be any cheaper than obesity/diabetes in fact probably more. Also the BMI is a flawed measure of health. It does not take into account muscle. Doctors are wonderful but they don't know much about nutrition and/or eating disorders (it is a small segment in their training). Isn't giving your information to the "third party" hired by the main company nearly the same as giving the information to the company? Who do you think they are going to be loyal to, the patient/employee or the people paying them?

[frozenterror]

I agree with CatWrangler on matters of diet and nutrition. The amount of training that most doctors have in that area would be absolutely laughable if so many people weren't basically forced to take it seriously.

[Herdis]

My boss made an offhand comment today, regarding weights...we had a damaged chair returned, and the comment was debating if we could mark it down and sell it or not. "Would you sell this to a 200 lb man or woman to sit on?"

I let him know I'm 5'7" of skinny, lean, furniture-lifting and fighting 200 lbs.

This is just another privacy invasion, in leiu of "helping" us. This should be none of the company's business, insurance company or employer-company.

[Headset Hellion]

I have a policy with the same insurance company used by CVS Caremark employees and this article is some propaganda bullshit.

I don't know why CVS is being singled out like this is some kind of evil "Big Brother is watching you" kind of deal. This is not a CVS policy. Everyone who has insurance with this company was offered this deal. Employees who completed the wellness assessment received a $500 CREDIT on their premiums for the year. The $600 "penalty" is only for tobacco users. Yeah, you're going to pay more for your health insurance if you smoke.

It wasn't just a BMI check, either. It's a standard physical exam. They also use the information to provide you with self-care advice. For example, my blood pressure was high, placing me at risk for hypertension and stroke. They sent me an email with a lot of helpful tips to lower my risk factors.

As far as it being an invasion of privacy, no one was forced to complete the assessment. I didn't feel pressured in the least. It was presented as an opportunity to save some money on your insurance. I know co-workers who opted not to do it because they were afraid that the information would be used to raise their premiums next year. They would rather just pay full price and not take that chance, and that's fine.

Also, I compared the plans from 2012 to 2013. The prices were pretty much the same, with the exception that they added an additional plan option for 2013 and averaged the price out. So yes, it really was a wellness CREDIT. After I completed the health assessment, I'm saving over $40 per month.

[SammyKat]

Thank you, Headset. CVS is being singled out because they're the latest one to start doing this. As others have pointed out, other companies have been doing similar things like this with their insurance for years now. If you do screenings for your employees, and it encourages them to be healthier, over all health insurance costs go down, so it's better for everyone. This has been going on for years, and it's the new way it's going to be. CVS isn't simple going to look at someone in an interview and think "You're qualified, but you're overweight, so we're not hiring you." That's not how it works. The company is in the health care business, and has been encouraging their employees to be healthy for *years* now, well before any of the "Obamacare" crap started. Hell, the majority of the companies out there ding smokers. Plus, the screening is coming from a doctor, and if you go to *your* doctor, who knows you, they're not going to send off just a black and white number to the company. If you're overweight but working on it? Or how about if your thyroid medication is having you put on a few pounds? They'll mention that and it will be put in to consideration. People crying that they'll never shop at CVS again make me happy...you're already *that* kind of crustie and we don't need you. Walgreen's and Rite Aid aren't far behind, if they haven't already been doing this.

[Retro]

We have something similar to this at my work, called the "Wellness Plan" Every year (and usually right after the holiday season too) we have to go take a physical. If we have more than 3 indicators of a metabolic syndrome off a list they provide then we have failed the physical. All who fail are given a chance to take a free online wellness course (that would normally cost over $400) and successful completion of the course followed by a second physical will result in staying on what they call "Wellness Plan 1"

If you opt not to take the physical, miss a week of the online course, or miss the second physical, you are put on "Wellness Plan 2"

The difference between plan 1 and plan 2 is staggering. They both cover the same amount but the premiums are just about doubled. And if you are a smoker, you are automatically put into plan 2 until you can take the physical in Jan/Feb. At one of our last meetings we were told that next year (2014) anyone who fails the physical and opts to take the online course must "Show Improvement" to stay on plan 1.

[blaqueKatt]

I believe everyone was all for making smokers pay higher premiums for insurance, and the rational people said "if you allow the camel one foot in the tent....", well now it's putting the second foot in. I get a rebate on my premiums for going to the gym at least 2x a week,however I don't have a "traditional" insurance company, they're a not for profit cooperative.

[Skittles]

The biggest issue I see here is the BMI crap. BMI is not an accurate measure for obesity. It was created by a Norwegian Scientist to see if their was a correlation between wealth and mass in the early 1900s, if memory serves. For instance a healthy weight for me would be 220 at 6 foot. For me to reach 180 I would have to cut off a limb, due to muscle mass. It's not like I even lift bro it's just genetics that cause me to put on lots of muscle really easily.