CVS preparing to penalize workers who won’t disclose their health information

posted at 2:31 pm on March 21, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

One of the myriad joys of universal health care: Many of the things that were once your own personal business, are suddenly very much society’s business.

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.

And hey, why shouldn’t they? CVS is well within their rights to impose this type of program. They’re complying with privacy laws, since the information they’re collecting will only be reviewed by the firm administering the benefits, and there are plenty of similar such programs that private-sector companies already use to incentivize workers to complete health assessments. Be ready for this type of thing to become much more common, and much more strict.

I’m with Judge Napolitano: If you don’t like it, don’t blame CVS. The federal government has made it in companies’ specific interests to both hire and engineer healthier employees — which, really, is the entire point of this big-government exercise.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Brings up the question if they will check employee’s HIV status or if that will be a verbotten un-PC question.

whatcat on March 21, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Good question. They honestly should to determine the best rate to charge people.

You know what solves this? No isurance at all and everyone pays for their own services.

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Why is this news. Every large company in the country, including mine, started garnering this data last year. If you don’t hand it over, your insurance will cost 200% more instead of the 130% more Obama already demanded (with, BTW, a huge reduction in benefits. Our deductible went from $300 to $3000) And it wasn’t just our weight, we had to go give them blood and cholesteral and sugar numbers too. Oh, if I belonged to a union? Not a problem. Same benefits as before Obamacare.

I went to Washington twice to try and stop this mess. I contributed to candidates. I spent untold hours trying to get the message out. It’s over. CVS is actually less demanding than my company. So enjoy your health insurance now. You won’t have it in just a few years.

Portia46 on March 21, 2013 at 4:15 PM

You do also know that people who are slightly overweight have better health outcomes than those who meet all these health standards.

chemman on March 21, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Yeah, BMI isn’t fool-proof. That’s why annual checkups are generally free in most insurance plans. The BMI data can be supplemented by physical observation. Clearly, runners are not as prone to diabetes an other health risks as severely obese people and should pay less for their insurance. My employer offers hundreds of dollars a year for us to get flu shots, checkups, and wellness screenings. Why? long-term cost/benefit analysis.

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Sorry folks, if you are a fat slob, smoke, do crack, or bungee jump on a daily basis then you SHOULD be charged more for your health insurance. Why? So that I do not have to subsidize you as much.

Some people operate on an assumption human health is opaque and unknowable. There are definite trends that doctors, acutaries, and insurance companies spend lots of $$$ identifying to offer the best rate and make profit.

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM

.
Because the bungee jumper doesn’t pay more. Nor the steel worker, etc.
They have gotten the smokers- now the move is to get the Fat people.
Just another way to fleece the Insurance customer. Duh- Obviously Obesity has major health risks attached. But replace Opaque and unknowable for quantitatively immeasurable- and those actuaries benefit the Insurer- who have a poor track record. Insurance companies are whores. Their motivation is to pay as little as possible on the claim side- hence their best profit. Its true of all Insurance companies. Necessary evils- but as an industry- have never been destitute. Watch the commercials.

Why don’t bad drivers pay higher healthcare costs ?
Why not beer drinkers pay more ?
Pot smokers pay more ? no we won’t touch them.
How about bicycle riders- thats a risk?
High school sports participants ?- hey they should pay more.
Prescription Pain killer users?- They should pay more.

You may personally qualify for 3 of those on the list right now and be more at risk than a fat person for a health issue. Again -Obesity is major- not denying the seriousness of that -but you probably aren’t working CVS retail at that point anyway. You’re probably not even working. But quantifying a fat (not obese) person’s risks are folly to benefit a higher premium-WHEN YOU CONSIDER ALL RISKS. Again- where’s the cutoff to be deemed fat?

I am not fat (or maybe some stick person progtard may think I am) – but I resist the trend of social engineering, and to pick on the fat guy. Even though I don’t approve of gluttony, and all you can eat buffets- you are getting way too deep into the nanny state with this crap.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2013 at 4:16 PM

If you do not want to honestly fill out health related questions in order to determine how much you are charged for that coverage, (because you want your unhealthy lifestyle to be paid for by your coworkers), quit. Go on disability or welfare.

It is like wanting home insurance but not letting the inspectors to appraise or look at the house to see if it even has a roof.

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 3:59 PM

First, this really isn’t insurance per se.

I’m not against charging higher premiums based on how you live. I’ve filled out these questionaires before. I will guarantee you regardless of how healthy you think you live you will still not meet so-called “heathly guidelines”.

What I think is disturbing is the utter powerlessness that the employee has. There is no alternative. Eventually all companies will do this, eventually all health care will be provided by the government. Eventually the government will make you pay more.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 4:16 PM

It’s not a free market. They have a captive audience. They can essentially do what they please. Employees and consumers have no choices, no alternatives and no recourse.

This will get worse.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 3:56 PM

If you do not want to honestly fill out health related questions in order to determine how much you are charged for that coverage, (because you want your unhealthy lifestyle to be paid for by your coworkers), quit. Go on disability or welfare.

It is like wanting home insurance but not letting the inspectors to appraise or look at the house to see if it even has a roof.

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Ok , I just got diagnosed with a disease that has nothing whatsoever to do with with my
lifestyle . Now what ?

Lucano on March 21, 2013 at 4:22 PM

I am not fat (or maybe some stick person progtard may think I am) – but I resist the trend of social engineering, and to pick on the fat guy. Even though I don’t approve of gluttony, and all you can eat buffets- you are getting way too deep into the nanny state with this crap.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2013 at 4:16 PM

You may not consider yourself to be fat but there are people that consider Kate Upton fat.

RickB on March 21, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Brings up the question if they will check employee’s HIV status or if that will be a verbotten un-PC question.
whatcat on March 21, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Good question. They honestly should to determine the best rate to charge people.

Since the cost of HIV-AIDS treatment is huge, it seems like it should be on their list of things to check.

You know what solves this? No isurance at all and everyone pays for their own services.
antisense on March 21, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Yup. Affordable private insurance is a much better way to go.

whatcat on March 21, 2013 at 4:24 PM

I’m sure it’s the insurance companies that are driving it in order underwrite premiums and incentivize companies to reduce claims.
tommyboy on March 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM

I suspect the companies like it, but it’s Obamacare that gives employers the “civic duty” mandate and authority to do it.

whatcat on March 21, 2013 at 4:04 PM

No. This is in direct compliance with requirements under Obamacare who wants everyone’s data. You thought your health records were sacrosanct? Nope. Big brother wants them and if the company/insurance company doesn’t comply then they are not in compliance with Obamacare directives. CVS employees should be thankful that CVS didn’t decide “to heck with it” and cancel their insurance altogether.

What does the government plan to do with all this data? It ain’t gonna be good for anyone who isn’t a union member or an illegal alien. (and if you’re old or very young, you better be healthy because there will be absolutely no care for you.)

Portia46 on March 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Ok , I just got diagnosed with a disease that has nothing whatsoever to do with with my lifestyle . Now what ?
Lucano on March 21, 2013 at 4:22 PM

CVS “downsizes” you.

whatcat on March 21, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Most companies that do this sort of thing offer a financial incentive in terms of a break in the insurance price based on the level of health. So there is still a financial incentive, but it doesn’t come across as a penalty.

Of course, that may just be a a sleight of hand, since they may be offering a discount off an intentionally inflated insurance price just to make themselves look better.

This is the first time I’ve heard of it being a straight penalty based not on a measured level of health, but on whether or not you’re willing to share the details.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Ah, Utopia. And they said it wasn’t possible.

the_moll on March 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

I’m sure it’s the insurance companies that are driving it in order underwrite premiums and incentivize companies to reduce claims.
tommyboy on March 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM

I suspect the companies like it, but it’s Obamacare that gives employers the “civic duty” mandate and authority to do it.
whatcat on March 21, 2013 at 4:04 PM

No. This is in direct compliance with requirements under Obamacare who wants everyone’s data.
Portia46 on March 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM

That’s what I mean, Obamacare makes the private sector it’s information collector.

whatcat on March 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM

This is the first time I’ve heard of it being a straight penalty based not on a measured level of health, but on whether or not you’re willing to share the details.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Where I work if you decline to fill out the survey and spend countless hours talking to a health nazi trying to get you to take endless “wellness courses” your premium doubles.

The health nazi’s think everyone needs improvement … regardless of your actual health and level of fitness.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Most companies that do this sort of thing offer a financial incentive in terms of a break in the insurance price based on the level of health. So there is still a financial incentive, but it doesn’t come across as a penalty.

This is the first time I’ve heard of it being a straight penalty based not on a measured level of health, but on whether or not you’re willing to share the details.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Good points.

The post is gross oversimplification of reality. Most wellness programs are structured to include an incentive for those who participate, which can easily be rephrased as a penalty for anyone who fails to participate. And yes, if the company can’t share your high blood pressure status with the managed healthcare provider or your doctor, then collecting the information becomes a completely pointless exercise. The idea is to proactively offer support to people with health conditions (something called preventive care) before it becomes more serious, doing a great service to the employee’s welfare while keeping the cost of insurance under control. Believe it or not, some people with chronic health conditions refuse to confront reality or are unaware of the consequences of their deteriorating health and need the healthcare system to come to their aid. This is critical to controlling healthcare costs in the US.

In fact, many wellness programs give the overweight and out of shape ways to earn money for getting in shape that aren’t available to employees already in excellent physical condition. So to say that you’re punished for being overweight is far from the full story.

bayam on March 21, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Yeah, BMI isn’t fool-proof. That’s why annual checkups are generally free in most insurance plans. The BMI data can be supplemented by physical observation.

That’s right, and if you’re a big boy or girl, it’s not exactly private information. Anything that can be deduced by what you call ‘physical observation’ of someone walking down the office hallway isn’t exactly private.

bayam on March 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Most companies that do this sort of thing offer a financial incentive in terms of a break in the insurance price based on the level of health. So there is still a financial incentive, but it doesn’t come across as a penalty.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

The company I work for conducts a health screening every year, entirely voluntary. If you do participate, you get a discount on your health insurance premium contribution. Maybe it’s sleight of hand, but if my contribution can remain stable, I’m okay with that.

cheeflo on March 21, 2013 at 4:40 PM

FlaMurph on March 21, 2013 at 4:16 PM

I’m considered obese. While I got issues from my military time, I am otherwise in pretty darned good condition, and despite perpetual pain, I can outwork many people who are considered healthy. Weight is not the problem, typically the problem causes the weight gain.

astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Believe it or not, some people with chronic health conditions refuse to confront reality or are unaware of the consequences of their deteriorating health and need the healthcare system to come to their aid.
bayam on March 21, 2013 at 4:36 PM

If you post the complete results of your last physical exam, we can pass it along to someone who will force you to comply with their arbitrary demands of “wellness” – or else.

whatcat on March 21, 2013 at 4:43 PM

I forget the exact figures, but something on the order of 5% of people consume 25% of health care dollars… 10% consume 50% of the health care dollars and 50% of the people consume 95% of healthcare dollars. It actually follows very nicely along the same lines of income taxes.

Catastrophic insurance is the real deal and what we should be paying for. Not this prepaid healthcare crap being shoved down our throats.

astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Yeah, BMI isn’t fool-proof. That’s why annual checkups are generally free in most insurance plans. The BMI data can be supplemented by physical observation.

That’s right, and if you’re a big boy or girl, it’s not exactly private information. Anything that can be deduced by what you call ‘physical observation’ of someone walking down the office hallway isn’t exactly private.

bayam on March 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM

I’ll go a step further here. Anyone reading your posts know that your IQ is somewhere around your age, you have mental problems, and probably some abandonment issues.

RovesChins on March 21, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Catastrophic insurance is the real deal and what we should be paying for. Not this prepaid healthcare crap being shoved down our throats.

astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Yes, but it’s too late.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Catastrophic insurance is the real deal and what we should be paying for. Not this prepaid healthcare crap being shoved down our throats.
astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM

You got that right.

whatcat on March 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Yes, but it’s too late.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Eh, i got a few decades to work on it… I’ll educate my daughter and hopefully 5 other children so they will work against it for many more decades.

astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Brings up the question if they will check employee’s HIV status or if that will be a verbotten un-PC question.

whatcat on March 21, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Of course they won’t. The gay lobby has done its homework :D. Not only HIV, but STDs in general. Gay males are disproportionally affected by STDs, the most serious of them is HIV. But if you take into account the amount of money that insurance companies pay each year in HIV drugs and antibiotics to treat other STDs I bet it pales in comparison with the cost of the so called “obese”. But because gay males have the power, that will never be a problem.

p_incorrect on March 21, 2013 at 4:55 PM

The company I work for conducts a health screening every year, entirely voluntary. If you do participate, you get a discount on your health insurance premium contribution. Maybe it’s sleight of hand, but if my contribution can remain stable, I’m okay with that.

cheeflo on March 21, 2013 at 4:40 PM

The question is, did they inflate the price of insurance artificially, then offer you a “discount” that only reduces your premium to what it would normally be? If so, then they’re offering a pretend discount to one group, and everyone who doesn’t get the discount is, in effect, being penalized.

My job does the exact same thing as yours. I think they’re being honest about it because, in spite of my suspicious nature, I actually have a certain amount of trust in the people involved. But it would be easy to manipulate your prices and discounts to make it look like you’re giving a discount when you’re really just finding an excuse to penalize the unhealthy.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 4:57 PM

You know what solves this? No isurance at all and everyone pays for their own services.

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 4:12 PM

What nonesense. How unworkable. What are we supposed to do? Go back to the dark ages of medicine when people we responsible for their own health and had to pay for their own health care? At least 20% of it?

Are we supposed to expect doctors to write off the poor to whom they provided care like they used to do before medicaid? Are we to expect patients to actually know how much their health care costs? Preposterous.

Are we going to settle for cheap, culturally insensitive (and probably racist) catastrophic health care insurance for the young and the healthy?

Please, give me a break. You make me so upset I now need to go out and buy a Big Gulp and a black market cruller made with transfats.

flicker on March 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Catastrophic insurance is the real deal and what we should be paying for. Not this prepaid healthcare crap being shoved down our throats.
astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Obamacare protects the concept of ‘catastrophic insurance’ by supporting HSA accounts.
In other words, give employees a high deductible insurance plan coupled with healthcare credit to apply at their own discretion, making the patient an active participant in the healthcare market.

Big employer insurance plans have traditionally shielded the individual from underlying costs, and that’s created a huge, anti-market pressure point that makes insurance more expensive.

bayam on March 21, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Seriously, we as a country had the opportunity to simply untether health insurance from employers but instead chose to further alienate patients from the costs of their own health care, creating a whole new vast government monitoring and regulation bureaucracy, and raising health care prices in the process. And now the law is so tangled and inequitable that no one knows who’s going to pay what, and what services will be available.

The government has it’s hand in the till and employers now own your health care information, and seem able to dictate how you run your body as well. What a country we’ve developed.

flicker on March 21, 2013 at 5:10 PM

bayam on March 21, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Should have seen some family members that were on the low income state thing, title 9 maybe? Many, they got some good drugs and were ALWAYS at the doctor’s office and demanding to see specialists for everything.

astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Obamacare protects the concept of ‘catastrophic insurance’ by supporting HSA accounts.

bayam on March 21, 2013 at 5:06 PM

I thought I read that maximum HSA savings limits were being further restricted.

flicker on March 21, 2013 at 5:14 PM

I work for a company, not CVS, that also has the $600 penalty, and they way they determine obesity is completely absurd. I wear a size small pant, but am considered obese and get dinged about $240 a year for it. They only count weight and height into their BMI formula, ignoring muscle mass. I work out at the YMCA doing weights 3 times a week, each time for 2.5 hours. Their formula for obesity would have most of those who lift weights categorized as obese. My doctor tells me the formula is so stupid. He says he can’t help me get it changed, he knows I’m not obese. And what is absurd! The company I work for is a health insurance company!

marti124 on March 21, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Penalty? No, no, they’re doing this wrong. You’re supposed to say everyone gets a discount, but if you don’t submit to the “wellness review” you will simply lose that discount. See, no nasty penalty involved at all.

forest on March 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Yep, that’s the way to do it.

cs89 on March 21, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Penalty? No, no, they’re doing this wrong. You’re supposed to say everyone gets a discount, but if you don’t submit to the “wellness review” you will simply lose that discount. See, no nasty penalty involved at all.

forest on March 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM

That is EXACTLY what my employer did. It is not going over well at all. My premiums went up 40%. Thank you Effin’Obama I hate you!

Key West Reader on March 21, 2013 at 5:26 PM

You are now part of the Borg Collective…

PatriotRider on March 21, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Should have seen some family members that were on the low income state thing, title 9 maybe? Many, they got some good drugs and were ALWAYS at the doctor’s office and demanding to see specialists for everything.

astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 5:11 PM

I don’t know if low income earners are more likely to abuse healtcare, but it’s true that the least healthy 15% account for a majority of US healthcare expenses. One prototypical case is someone with no insurance but a very serious, chronic condition which requires frequent trips to the ER but no long-term, preventive care that can address the underlying problem. Another other case is the patient with a severe medication condition who’s constantly ‘shopping around’ for a miraculous healthcare solution that doesn’t exist. The last is the dying 90 year old who’s given medical care designed to help a 20 or 30-something survive a car accident, leading to a few weeks of extremely expensive and extremely painful life.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/22/how-doctors-die.html

My doctor tells me the formula is so stupid. He says he can’t help me get it changed, he knows I’m not obese. And what is absurd! The company I work for is a health insurance company!
marti124 on March 21, 2013 at 5:18 PM

I agree, the BMI index alone doesn’t mean much unless it’s in the extreme.

bayam on March 21, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Catastrophic insurance is all I want. I’d be happy to pay $2,000 a year with $5,000 or $10,000 deductible.

Or for that matter a $500 deductible with an 80/20 split after that.

But instead I have to pay for Sandra Fluke’s BCPs.

flicker on March 21, 2013 at 5:29 PM

I think I’ll have to go ahead and blame CVS…ok, yeah, thanks ::sips casually from coffee cup while wearing middle manager suspenders::

The agency taking the reports – medpage – is going to share info with the employer. There is no real firewall.

SarahW on March 21, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Edit – WebMD, not medpage.

SarahW on March 21, 2013 at 5:45 PM

And, if CVS goes through with this, they are going to get a big boycott from me, I don’t care if they are the closest store, and I don’t care what anyone else in business is doing, I know what THEY are doing, and I don’t approve.

SarahW on March 21, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Good question. They honestly should to determine the best rate to charge people.

You know what solves this? No isurance at all and everyone pays for their own services.

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Can’t have that. It might actually lower the cost of health care.

bgibbs1000 on March 21, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Good question. They honestly should to determine the best rate to charge people.

You know what solves this? No insurance at all and everyone pays for their own services.

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 4:12 PM

There is no good reason to not allow people to buy catastrophic insurance plans. And if they want to pay for a platinum plated gem encrusted prepaid plan that why stop individuals from doing so.

I think getting rid of the tax subsidy for them might go a long ways towards alleviating all of the market twisting.

astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 5:56 PM

The idea is to proactively offer support to people with health conditions (something called preventive care) before it becomes more serious, doing a great service to the employee’s welfare while keeping the cost of insurance under control. Believe it or not, some people with chronic health conditions refuse to confront reality or are unaware of the consequences of their deteriorating health and need the healthcare system to come to their aid. This is critical to controlling healthcare costs in the US.

bayam on March 21, 2013 at 4:36 PM

No that’s a load of BS. I offer my services to my company and that’s it. I don’t need a nanny employer or a nanny state demanding my biometric data to look out for my best interests. Ill do that myself.

What you fail to understand in your naive endeavor for utopia is that this will be used by the company and the state to control me.

Oh, we’re sorry mr. Skywise but your BMI for the last 10 years showed you as overweight so you’ve been denied coverage pursuant to the Giving Everyone Care act of 2016 and your employer will have to pay an additional fine to keep you on board because you’re bringing the rest of society down by not eating rice cakes.

Skywise on March 21, 2013 at 5:57 PM

CVS is headquartered in my back yard. I stopped using them years ago because of their pea-brained policies and poor service. This just affirms it. Hello Wal-Pharmacy.

redmama on March 21, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Good question. They honestly should to determine the best rate to charge people.

You know what solves this? No isurance at all and everyone pays for their own services.

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Can’t have that. It might actually lower the cost of health care.

bgibbs1000 on March 21, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Maybe it will happen.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/02/20/employers-dropping-health-care-coverage-could-benefit-health-care-quality-and-cost/

bayam on March 21, 2013 at 6:03 PM

‘Toons of the Day: The Grim Reider

M2RB: Blue Öyster Cult

Resist We Much on March 21, 2013 at 6:11 PM

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

Thank you Justice Thomas…

Seven Percent Solution on March 21, 2013 at 4:10 PM

How is this Justice Thomas’ fault?

Solaratov on March 21, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Many of the things that were once your own personal business, are suddenly very much society’s business.

What I am already finding very creepy is the information that physicians present during office visits, quoting various Obama-Govt. propaganda instead of discussing individual patient remarks.

I really loathe that prescriptions written by doctors *somehow* result nearly immediately in junk email even marketer twitter spam about similar if not same medication/s.

Lourdes on March 21, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Well looks like we are ALL starting to find out what is in Obiecare..This is not going to turn out good..:(

Dire Straits on March 21, 2013 at 6:24 PM

. And yes, if the company can’t share your high blood pressure status with the managed healthcare provider or your doctor, then collecting the information becomes a completely pointless exercise.
bayam on March 21, 2013 at 4:36 PM

No problem sharing it with one’s doctor or with the managed health care provider…BUT, under obamacare, your health information will be shared with any government agency who says – but needn’t provide proof – that they need to see your information. ANY agency, for ANY (or no) reason.

Why would that have been written into the law, lefty?

Solaratov on March 21, 2013 at 6:25 PM

I loathe that this was necessary, but I have figured out what Nancy Pelosi’s crazed remark was about (“we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it” as to Obamacare):

they passed the bill AND ARE NOW writing grotesque layers of “regulations” only possible because they passed the bill.

Which means it was a shell game, Obamacare, that bill Pelosi wanted to pass and did: had to pass the bill BEFORE THEY COULD CREATE WHAT WAS GOING TO BE IN IT, was what Pelosi was saying.

Such corruption. Such hideous corruption. Such ghastly unethical, crooked people involved in this and that does mean Pelosi, Sebelius, Obama, the whole lot of them.

Lourdes on March 21, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Are you willing to trade what you have now to be a welfare recipient or illegal alien? Seriously, would you give up everything you have right now to trade places with your average welfare recipient or illegal aliens?

segasagez on March 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Right, because it’s just not “fair” that I have more money than the average illegal alien or welfare recipient, is it?

And it’s the federal government’s constitutional duty to make life more “fair” for people who have less than I do, whether those people are U.S. citizens or foreign squatters — right?

Because the government isn’t supposed to ensure that people have equal opportunities; no, the government should also ensure that people get equal results too. Because it’s just not “fair” that some people are smarter than others, or that some are willing to work harder than others, or that some people have talents that others don’t, or that some are willing to save and invest their money and others are not, or that some are better looking, or that some are healthy and others are not, or that some are not addicted to drugs or alcohol or risky sex and others are.

And clearly it’s not “fair” that some people are born in New York City or London or Paris, while others are born in Somalia or the Congo or Guadalajara.

So because of all these “unfair” disparities on our planet, it’s only “fair” that the multi-millionaire “elites” who run the U.S. government get to take my money and re-distribute it to those whom they deem more deserving of the fruits of my labor. This authority is clearly spelled out right there in the U.S. Constitution, next to the Good ‘N Plenty clause.

AZCoyote on March 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Believe it or not, some people with chronic health conditions refuse to confront reality or are unaware of the consequences of their deteriorating health and need the healthcare system to come to their aid.
bayam on March 21, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Well, aren’t you just the most compliant little goose-stepper.

While YOU evidently do, not everyone needs a nanny, bam-bam.

Solaratov on March 21, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Lourdes on March 21, 2013 at 6:26 PM

+ 100..I agree..:)

Dire Straits on March 21, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Good question. They honestly should to determine the best rate to charge people.

You know what solves this? No isurance at all and everyone pays for their own services.

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Good question.

Answer: No

I tried giving blood. 99 questions and I failed one.

Do you or have you lived with someone with Hep B or C in the last 6 months.

Answer: Affirmative.

“Oh sorry, Mr. Johnson, we can’t take your blood.

“WTF? You didn’t ask if I lived with someone with AIDS!”

“Oh, we can’t ask that question”

Lanceman on March 21, 2013 at 7:00 PM

bayam on March 21, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Well, aren’t you just the most compliant little goose-stepper.

While YOU evidently do, not everyone needs a nanny, bam-bam.

Solaratov on March 21, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Brayam to a T. What a p*ssy.

CW on March 21, 2013 at 7:03 PM

What I find interesting is the few that are OK with Socialism seamlessly bonding with Capitalism…and probably still call themselves Conservatives or Libertarians.

As for the CVS employees, if they don’t like it, they can quit and end up on unemployment, but then they’d just be lazy, whining “teat” suckers. If a bunch of them quit at the same time, that would smack of some kind of organized labor-and that’s surely evil.

So indeed, they should comply. They are no different than the vast majority of us who take it up the a$$ year after year as our Liberties evaporate despite much big talk…so, what the hell.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 21, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Believe it or not, some people with chronic health conditions refuse to confront reality or are unaware of the consequences of their deteriorating health and need the healthcare system to come to their aid.
bayam on March 21, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Well, aren’t you just the most compliant little goose-stepper.

While YOU evidently do, not everyone needs a nanny, bam-bam.

Solaratov on March 21, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Sometimes right wing paranoid and feelings of victimization run too deep.

The government knows your address, yet by some miracle you haven’t been rounded up and put in a concentration camp.

And if the government can identify the overweight and those with high blood pressure, black helicopters will track their every move, opening fire whenever an attempt is made to drive into McDonalds?

bayam on March 21, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Not sure what the fuss is about here. Many companies have been doing this for years. It is not a requirement of Obamacare though, as the article says, Obamacare permits it.

And this is totally untrue:

BUT, under obamacare, your health information will be shared with any government agency who says – but needn’t provide proof – that they need to see your information. ANY agency, for ANY (or no) reason.

Solaratov on March 21, 2013 at 6:25 PM

You need to get your info from more reputable sources.

cam2 on March 21, 2013 at 7:21 PM

And if the government can identify the overweight and those with high blood pressure, black helicopters will track their every move, opening fire whenever an attempt is made to drive into McDonalds?

bayam on March 21, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Excellent. We can start with Michael Moore, Bob Beckel and Jerrold Nadler.

Lanceman on March 21, 2013 at 7:26 PM

You need to get your info from more reputable sources.

cam2 on March 21, 2013 at 7:21 PM

You a lawyer and jue read the bill?

I thought not.

Lanceman on March 21, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Excellent. We can start with Michael Moore, Bob Beckel and Jerrold Nadler.

Lanceman on March 21, 2013 at 7:26 PM

rofl..Sounds likea plan..:)

Dire Straits on March 21, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Rush said it today..CVS is only doing what Obamacare is forcing them to do..don’t blame the player, blame the game

sadsushi on March 21, 2013 at 7:31 PM

In fact, I can’t think of any truly obese Rethuglicans.

Christie doesn’t count. Being against teachers’ unions does not a Rethuglican make.

Nor does losing a primary to Carl McCall, Bloomy.

Lanceman on March 21, 2013 at 7:48 PM

You a lawyer and jue read the bill? I thought not.

Lanceman on March 21, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Yes and some of it.

Here’s the info that insurers must provide on individuals:

The agency proposed asking insurers for the following:
■The name, address and Social Security Number or Tax Identification Number of the taxpayer and any dependents.
■Dates the insurer provided coverage.
■Whether the insurance is considered “qualified” under the law, which means it covers a number of broadly defined health benefits, among other requirements.
■Whether the individual bought insurance through an affordable insurance marketplace, known as a health insurance exchange.
■Whether the individual is eligible for tax credits and other assistance to help pay for coverage.

http://factcheck.org/2012/11/groups-obamacare-tax-form-evades-facts/

cam2 on March 21, 2013 at 7:54 PM

http://factcheck.org/2012/11/groups-obamacare-tax-form-evades-facts/

cam2 on March 21, 2013 at 7:54 PM

factcheck.org?

Please tell me you ain’t this stupid.

Perhaps I should wander over to politifact and plan out the rest of my year.

Lanceman on March 21, 2013 at 8:05 PM

You know what solves this? No insurance at all and everyone pays for their own services.

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 4:12 PM

…and the BIGGEST advantage of this alternative is that it is SELF-ADMINISTERING!!! No army of IRS agents would be needed!!!

landlines on March 21, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Perhaps I should wander over to politifact and plan out the rest of my year.

Lanceman on March 21, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Nah, you should probably head over to World Net Daily — much more reliable.

cam2 on March 21, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Nah, you should probably head over to World Net Daily — much more reliable.

cam2 on March 21, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Yeah, well, I give WND as much credence as I give the Enquirer.

But a liberal such as yourself who has no real clue who and what George Soros is and what he’s done to other countries. Got any more Annenberg backed agencies you’d like to link to?

Tell you what: You just live in your obama-lovin’ bliss and do what you people always do to help you sleep at night – convince yourself that it’s the Republicans standing in the way of a free utopia.

Yeah, I know. It doesn’t take a lot of convincing.

Lanceman on March 21, 2013 at 9:11 PM

My BMI is off the charts. And, I am also older than average. I hear the footsteps of the younger employees, who despite due to illness, missing work 3-4x my rate, will become increasingly upset at funding the healthcare of unhealthy appearing, older individuals such as myself, because “it’s not fair, I did it to myself, I’m unpleasant to look at”, etc. I plan on working until I die, have never relied on the charity of others, and could care less about what idiots who have believed in government Ponzi schemes think about me. I will also share as little truthful info with my employer (who is constantly attempting to devise ways to toss me out of our insurance “pool” or up my expenses)as possible. Screw them, screw the government.

trl on March 21, 2013 at 9:26 PM

I am a pharmacist and it will be a cold day in h*ll before I give any employer any medical information. I am insured thru my husband’s military insurance. Yes they can find some of this info from previous claims but I’m not going to help them in any way.

This is being driven by Obummercare although companies have been becoming increasingly nosy about health info for years even if they don’t insure you. Several years back a previous employer wanted to know what prescription medicines I was on. I told them “none” because it was none of their d*mn business unless I flew an airplane or drove a bus. Anyone who looks at any patient’s prescription records for just 2 minutes can figure out every current or past medical problem a patient has or has ever had. It’s not the employer’s business. I probably wouldn’t meet their standards but I have never missed more than 2 days of work in any calendar year.

It’s very dangerous to give out private medical information. This concerns me greatly because both of my children have medical problems. I would advise them never to be truthful with a prospective employer about their medical problems because then they probably would not get hired. As long as they can physically do the job it’s none of the employer’s business what their health status is.

sherrimae on March 21, 2013 at 10:59 PM

My company does this. I choose to pay the extra money so they’ll stay the f*** out of my health information.

It’s none of their g*d d**n business what my health status is and I choose to keep it that way.

mjk on March 22, 2013 at 12:29 AM

cam2 on March 21, 2013 at 7:54 PM

may you and everyone you whole dear(yourself again, natch) suffer immeasurably under obamacare. moron.

tom daschle concerned on March 22, 2013 at 5:04 AM

If there is no Ocare and everyone pays for their doc when they go, we’re still behind the 8ball of the ‘poor’ not being able to go because they can’t afford it. I see a story in the local paper at least once a week about how exploding medicaid will cover so many more children with healthcare. Everyone gets a group hug.

Kissmygrits on March 22, 2013 at 8:46 AM

may you and everyone you whole dear(yourself again, natch) suffer immeasurably under obamacare. moron.

tom daschle concerned on March 22, 2013 at 5:04 AM

Why thank you. I must say, your well thought out arguments make you a very effective advocate for your position.

cam2 on March 22, 2013 at 10:48 AM

This type of “wellness” program isnt anything new. My employer has been doing this the past two years.

Instead of a “penaltiy” for not participating, you simply pay “full price”, while those who participate and meet the requirements recieve a $600 “discount”.

kage on March 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM

I guess Governor Cuomo caught the bug too. We here in NYS will be awarded $500.00 if we call a neighbor in on an illegal gun, probably a potato gun would be considered illegal. Another step closer to communism.

mixplix on March 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM

And this is totally untrue:

BUT, under obamacare, your health information will be shared with any government agency who says – but needn’t provide proof – that they need to see your information. ANY agency, for ANY (or no) reason.

Solaratov on March 21, 2013 at 6:25 PM

You need to get your info from more reputable sources.

cam2 on March 21, 2013 at 7:21 PM

NOT QUITE: Obamacare totally destroys medical privacy, and does NOT REQUIRE PROOF from another agency before sharing information. The mere ALLEGATION that your info is “needed” is enough: so Solaratov is right! The source for this is language in the Orwellian “Affordable Care Act” law itself: no third-party interpretation needed!! And in addition to the general destruction of privacy, sharing with IRS and certain other agencies is specifically spelled out.

landlines on March 22, 2013 at 12:31 PM

The source for this is language in the Orwellian “Affordable Care Act” law itself: no third-party interpretation needed!! And in addition to the general destruction of privacy, sharing with IRS and certain other agencies is specifically spelled out.

landlines on March 22, 2013 at 12:31 PM

What statutory language are you referring to? Do you have a cite?

cam2 on March 22, 2013 at 12:59 PM

What statutory language are you referring to? Do you have a cite?

cam2 on March 22, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Try Snopes or something.

Lanceman on March 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM

This is another step in the ever-advancing conformity juggernaut. You will look the same as everyone else. You will eat the same as everyone else, you will have the same personal habits as everyone else.

I may not be politically popular to throw the outliers in jail, but you can always screw ‘em out of a few more bucks.

Farmer_Joe on March 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM

And hey, I ride a motorcycle. How long till I’m penalized for that?

Farmer_Joe on March 22, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Public schools have been collecting this data on students for YEARS! School system ‘nurses’ then send out letters to families of obese and borderline obese students, many many times using inaccurate data. That data is following your student wherever he or she will go, just like a grades transcript. Especially now that the government is full-blown into health services.

Because of this intrusion on privacy, I began opting my children out of these “services” at school 6 years ago. Now, we have quit public school for good.

I fought Obamacare tooth and nail. Will be sad but interesting to see the anguish of the lemmings and ” don’t care ” crowd as this mess moves forward.

FastTalker on March 23, 2013 at 8:03 AM

I’m with Judge Napolitano: If you don’t like it, don’t blame CVS. The federal government has made it in companies’ specific interests to both hire and engineer healthier employees — which, really, is the entire point of this big-government exercise.

This isn’t a blame one or the other kind of deal. CVS isn’t absolved from their intrusive bad manners just because Obama started it. People are STILL responsible for their own behavior… and that includes corporate decisions.

Personally, I won’t be shopping with them anymore. I’m not going to spend my money with companies who mistreat their employees. There’s a location just a few miles from my home, and I know people who work there, friends whose privacy will be marginalized under this policy. I won’t contribute in any way to creating an atmosphere which tolerates that kind of abuse.

Murf76 on March 23, 2013 at 11:21 AM

I am not directly affected, but if CVS doesn’t relent on this “big brotherism”, I will transfer ALL of my prescription business to Walgreens.

This is UN-AMERICAN, and I will not deal with a druggist whose company does not fully support medical privacy and individual choice.

landlines on March 23, 2013 at 11:24 PM

We have been paying a penalty to Boeing – where my husband works – for 2 years because we refuse to take their “wellness” survey. This one is just getting publicity.

cdtaxlady on March 24, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Years ago when my company started these “Wellness Campaigns” I saw them for what they were. Started out that they would pay $100 or so to employees who participated but I told others that this would end up costing in the long run. Now they fine you if you don’t participate.

wirebitersmith on March 25, 2013 at 2:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2