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

Goebbels orgasmed, again.

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 2:33 PM

If the government can’t tell me whether or not I can put a man’s junk in my mouth, they certainly can’t tell me whether or not I can put a donut in my mouth.

(h/t: alexthechic over at Ace’s, in her trademarked “D*cks and Donuts” rant)

Washington Nearsider on March 21, 2013 at 2:34 PM

I saw this story earlier and I’m still not clear. Is this in compliance with Obamacare or something concocted by CVS on their own?

Doughboy on March 21, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Let’s refer to the women’s movement, shall we?

Keep your hands out of my vagina.

But, you can dictate every scintilla of my healthcare to me.

Deal?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2013 at 2:36 PM

They pass it, now we find out what is in it.
I can just see the unintended consequence of this one.
Unemployment numbers divided by weight classes. The federal government’s stupidity is boundless.

ORconservative on March 21, 2013 at 2:36 PM

It’s for your own good! And WE will determine what is “good”!

GarandFan on March 21, 2013 at 2:37 PM

But will these workers blame the government or their employer? Obama isn’t forcing them to admit how fat they are, CVS is. Government gets a pass on this no matter how many fingerprints they have on the policy.

Happy Nomad on March 21, 2013 at 2:39 PM

But don’t dare drug test welfare recipients because that violates their civil liberties.

locomotivebreath1901 on March 21, 2013 at 2:39 PM

The federal government has made it in companies’ specific interests to both hire and engineer healthier employees

People subjected to this treatment will for the most part become unhappier employees. Many times health is a state of mind as well. Just because someone doesn’t meet “ideal” measurements doesn’t mean they’re not healthy.

They do this where I work. I filled out a survey one year and was pestered by phone calls to join various “wellness groups”. I now pay extra every year just so these little Nazi’s will leave me alone.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 2:39 PM

You gotta know that the employees will blame cvs, not bhocare mandates?

Gotta pass it to find out what’s in it now don’t we? Wonder how many hundreds of pages of new mandates will be coming out on this?
L

letget on March 21, 2013 at 2:40 PM

It’s for your own good! And WE will determine what is “good”!

GarandFan on March 21, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Where you are getting that from?

It’s not for the employee’s own good. It’s for CVS’s good.

segasagez on March 21, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Are they doing this as a condition of employment or only for current employees? What happens when employers start hiring based on how healthy you look? Will overweight people become the next victim group?

hopeful on March 21, 2013 at 2:41 PM

SCREW privacy !

Lucano on March 21, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Get drinking status and IQ while you’re at it.

I want a job there so I can say, “Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son. You’re fired.”

NoDonkey on March 21, 2013 at 2:42 PM

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.

It is CVS that wants this information or their insurance provider? And how exactly does Obamacare fit into this? What’s the relationship?

segasagez on March 21, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Other companies are holding out incentives like a $300 “bonus” just in time for Christmas so long as you agree to discuss your health with your insurance company, get a check up, etc etc etc…most of which amounts to data mining for the Federal government and insurers.

That HIPAA law? Forget about it.

DRayRaven on March 21, 2013 at 2:43 PM

I’m OLD; I’m FAT; I’m SCREWED!

obsessedinga on March 21, 2013 at 2:43 PM

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

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

I’m OLD; I’m FAT; I’m SCREWED!

obsessedinga on March 21, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Don’t worry, everyone is screwed. Once everyone who isn’t “ideal” is either dead or unemployed they start working on the requirements for the so-called “healthy” people to perfect them even more.

The left never stops, and since the left now controls the government, they won’t stop until they control everything you do or you’re dead.

I imagine in the not too distant future death might become an appealing alternative to being a miserable drone.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM

So, I guess all of us that said they would use ObamaCare to impact, change, and rule EVERY ASPECT of your life…were absolutely SPOT ON.

Bend over folks, the bureaucracy that IS ObamaCare, has something for YOU, hope you have your pistol-grip socks handy.

Meople on March 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Propagate this

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 2:50 PM

This has very little to do with the ACA – there are enough reasons to hate it without this.

Employers were moving this way regardless – they offer plans, if you want the best price for the plan, you need to do certain things – you don’t want to do those things – then you get to pay more.

Your choice. I imagine some employers until next year can force you to do this or not enroll you. That all changes.

HIPAA is not an issue – for the proper administration of the plan, plan administrators and their duly appointed representatives were never bound by HIPAA restrictions, just on what they could divulge to non-need to know parties. Because these wellness provisions are part of the plan, people like me who are repsonsible for the plans can get just about any data on you they want – and always have been.

Zomcon JEM on March 21, 2013 at 2:52 PM

segasagez on March 21, 2013 at 2:42 PM

It doesn’t matter who wants the info. It’s none of their business.

You proved again to be the same as always, obtuse.

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I saw this story earlier and I’m still not clear. Is this in compliance with Obamacare or something concocted by CVS on their own?
Doughboy on March 21, 2013 at 2:35 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

Drone #48829 … your body fat is .01% above ideal. Your pay will be reduced by 20%.

Drone #77132 … your cholesterol is slightly elevated. Grocery stores have been notified and only specific foods will be allowed for your consumption for a period of six months.

Drone #33009 … trace alcohol levels were detected in your last screening. Your permit to purchase alcohol has been revoked until you complete an alcohol education class.

Drone #55100 … Your last fitness test was a failure. You are hereby enrolled in mandatory morning fitness class for a period of one year.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM

CVS’s decision actually makes sense. CVS pay parts of the employee’s health insurance costs. Why shouldn’t they try to convince employee’s to keep a healthier life style in order to help reduce health insurance costs.

Also, CVS’s program is pretty tame. Employers can give variable discounts based on the score the employee receives on wellness exams. CVS isn’t doing that – they are simply saying you will get a discount if you go an take a wellness exam. It doesn’t matter how healthy/unhealthy you are in the CVS case.

Publius24 on March 21, 2013 at 2:57 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’s exactly what my employer did a few years back.

They said our portion of premiums were going up $15 the following year. The following year we were told we would receive a $10 discount for completing the health assessment. I’m ok with that. If an employer is paying health care costs, they should at least have the right to the consolidated information on their workforce’s health. My employer does not receive reports on any individual and only receives the data in bulk for each facility/operation in aggregate. I think CVS is similar.

This allows employers to tailor wellness programs to things that are the biggest issue for each worksite or area of the country.

This is less “big brother” and more about controlling costs. It receives a big “meh” from me as I have been subject to “optional” health assessments for years at work.

I actually think they should go further and self-insured employers should be able to not only require health assessments but also see the individual results of those whom they provide healthcare coverage for.

weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 2:58 PM

If health insurance was purchased by individuals, this would be completed standard. Your health insurance premiums shold be base don your health and your risk you have for making future claims. Try getting a new major life insurance policy without having your health examined.

WashJeff on March 21, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Wow, didn’t see THIS coming. When the state will eventually pay for your healthcare, you must obey. Nothing’s for free.

RovesChins on March 21, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Companies in every sector of the economy are looking to shrink their number of employees. By requiring this type of information, and eliminating those who either won’t provide it, or that provide it and are deemed “not meeting requirements”, they can accomplish that AND cover their a$$es legally.

Welcome to your new Obamaville utopia!

Meople on March 21, 2013 at 2:59 PM

This is to make it easier to deny your claim down the line, of course.

Eventually when all plans have to comply with Obamacare mandates they will all be doing this x10.

Missy on March 21, 2013 at 2:59 PM

I wonder if you have to report how many abortions you’ve had?

ctmom on March 21, 2013 at 3:00 PM

This has very little to do with the ACA

Zomcon JEM on March 21, 2013 at 2:52 PM

No, it has everything to do with Obamacare and government meddling in health care.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM

I see this as businesses playing middle-man to insurance companies. Insurance apps routinely ask for physical descriptors, med conditions, current presc meds, etc, and rate accordingly. Rates are based upon risk, they are just trying to lower their risk rate, all be it in a coercive way. The employee has choices–comply, choose healthier lifesytle, pay more or choose another employer. File: Nothing Burger.

hillsoftx on March 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Oversight. Overweight.

Fixed.

Ward Cleaver on March 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM

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.

It is CVS that wants this information or their insurance provider? And how exactly does Obamacare fit into this? What’s the relationship?

segasagez on March 21, 2013 at 2:42 PM

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.

From Erika’s post. Reading is your friend, but from your posts, it seems you are all ready to bend over and obey.

RovesChins on March 21, 2013 at 3:02 PM

ctmom on March 21, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Abortions will be exempt from the information requirements, guaranteed.

Meople on March 21, 2013 at 3:02 PM

This is a result of employer provided health care. We need to decouple employment from health care and let people shop for insurance just like everything else.

Imrahil on March 21, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Hey dipsh!ts who voted for Obama, did you think that since you volunteered for OFA that you’d be on the inside and that this invasiveness wouldn’t apply to you? Don’t come crying to me.

Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Welcome to your new Obamaville utopia!

Meople on March 21, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Now you understand why the left wants to ban all guns. It’s for their safety … not ours.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 3:03 PM

To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

– Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM

No, it has everything to do with Obamacare and government meddling in health care.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM

To an extent.

I say this is only true due to rising costs.

My employer has been doing this since pre-Obamacare. My employer is also wholly insured. They saw the potential cost savings even before Obamacare. Now with premiums skyrocketing even faster, the decision appears even smarter.

My portion of premiums however are increasing more this year and next due to additional insurance requirements from Obamacare that weren’t previously required by my employer’s insurance.

We get to pay for more coverage that we didn’t even realize we didn’t have before.

weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 3:05 PM

This is also happening at my company. We are all getting tested for “wellness” levels, with those not complying not being eligible for various “discounts” — i.e., you are punished for not complying. Just another day in progressive paradise.

JeremiahJohnson on March 21, 2013 at 3:06 PM

My employer is also wholly self-insured.
weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 3:05 PM

weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 3:06 PM

:O) <—– listening to Pablo Cruise, so he won't explode.

This shit is getting so depressing.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM

This is also happening at my company. We are all getting tested for “wellness” levels, with those not complying not being eligible for various “discounts” — i.e., you are punished for not complying. Just another day in progressive paradise.

JeremiahJohnson on March 21, 2013 at 3:06 PM

That sounds like a free-market approach. The unhealthy are required to pay more. That is the way insurance/healthcare should be.

However, if government were not as involved with mandating things the overall costs for everyone would be lower.

weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM

You don’t say.

Hey Nanzi, I guess we’re all finding out what’s “in it”, huh?

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on March 21, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Thank a Democrat, every time you see one!! It is THEIR FAULT

Khun Joe on March 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 3:03 PM

I’ve always said, any libtard that personally wants to come and try to take my guns can give it a try anytime they feel up to it.

Meople on March 21, 2013 at 3:11 PM

You don’t say.

Hey Nanzi, I guess we’re all finding out what’s “in it”, huh?

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on March 21, 2013 at 3:08 PM

How do you take the blood pressure, body fat, etc., of the undead?

Oh yeah, this living corpse won’t have to comply with CommieCare. So it’s moot.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2013 at 3:11 PM

This is a result of employer provided health care. We need to decouple employment from health care and let people shop for insurance just like everything else.

Imrahil on March 21, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Precisely this. And get government mandates out of the equation.

GWB on March 21, 2013 at 3:11 PM

However, if government were not as involved with mandating things the overall costs for everyone would be lower.

weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM

It’s the government that’s driven up the cost of health care to begin with … almost like it was planned so they could come out and say “OMG! We need to do something about the cost of health care!”

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Since homosexuality can have profound effects on ‘wellness’, will those who are forced to reveal that they are homosexual be pushed into some kind of treatment to ameliorate that condition?

slickwillie2001 on March 21, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Will the liberal progtards get outraged, and boycot CVS to take a stand for this discrimination of the “not so little” people ?

A test for their Nanny Welfare State, I should think.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2013 at 3:15 PM

It’s the government that’s driven up the cost of health care to begin with … almost like it was planned so they could come out and say “OMG! We need to do something about the cost of health care!”

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM

100% agreed.

I am simply sticking up for employers who now have to deal with the increased costs/burdens by passing them onto their employees in a truly fair manner. It just so happens that healthier employees are also more productive, so increasing costs on the unhealthy ones has a two-fold benefit. Prior to this, I would say it was more difficult to get rid of these employees. Now employers can attempt to get them to “self-deport”, so to speak.

weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 3:16 PM

From Erika’s post. Reading is your friend, but from your posts, it seems you are all ready to bend over and obey.

RovesChins on March 21, 2013 at 3:02 PM

I quoted a very specific piece of the article. Erika’s point was that this is occurring because of Obamacare. You are directly pointing out that it isn’t. I think we’re in agreement.

And obey what? What the hell are you talking about?

segasagez on March 21, 2013 at 3:17 PM

It’s the government that’s driven up the cost of health care to begin with … almost like it was planned so they could come out and say “OMG! We need to do something about the cost of health care!”

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM

You mean The Chicago Thuggery would create a crisis out of nothing, just to have an excuse to implement sweeping “change”? Gee, now where have we seen that before? I’m getting a strange feeling of dejavu here. Hmmmm.

Meople on March 21, 2013 at 3:17 PM

It just so happens that healthier employees are also more productive,

weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Yes, healthy employees are generally more productive. However, unhappy employees are not … regardless of health. The Soviet Union had plenty of healthy people who for some reason weren’t very productive at all.

Forcing people to be healthy is not very healthy.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Employers can give variable discounts based on the score the employee receives on wellness exams. CVS isn’t doing that – they are simply saying you will get a discount if you go an take a wellness exam. It doesn’t matter how healthy/unhealthy you are in the CVS case.

Publius24 on March 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Please see

forest on March 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:19 PM

You mean The Chicago Thuggery would create a crisis out of nothing, just to have an excuse to implement sweeping “change”? Gee, now where have we seen that before? I’m getting a strange feeling of dejavu here. Hmmmm.

Meople on March 21, 2013 at 3:17 PM

I think it’s been going on for decades. medicare, medicaid, not securing the borders ect.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM

segasagez on March 21, 2013 at 2:42 PM

It doesn’t matter who wants the info. It’s none of their business.

You proved again to be the same as always, obtuse.

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 2:52 PM

But what does any of this have to do with universal health care or Obama care, as the first line of Erika’s post states:

“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”

Listen, you’ve given out plenty of private information to plenty of people before Obama ever took office. But now it’s Obama’s fault. You’re unhinged.

segasagez on March 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM

From Erika’s post. Reading is your friend, but from your posts, it seems you are all ready to bend over and obey.

RovesChins on March 21, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Resistance is futile. We’re all already BONED.

And anyone that thinks “We the people” still have ANY say whatsoever, in what’s being done to America today, hasn’t been paying attention.

Meople on March 21, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Is RNC Chair Reince Priebus moonlighting in the CVS HR Department?

bw222 on March 21, 2013 at 3:23 PM

That sounds like a free-market approach. The unhealthy are required to pay more. That is the way insurance/healthcare should be.

weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM

.
Where’s the cutoff ?
At what weight is Fat no longer where its at ?

Are ALL fat people unhealthy?

And what about the “full figured” or “big boned” gals out there? Should they have to pay more? Thyroid anyone?

I have this dream where people are judged not by their BMI, but by the content of their character.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2013 at 3:23 PM

But don’t dare drug test welfare recipients because that violates their civil liberties.

locomotivebreath1901 on March 21, 2013 at 2:39 PM

The irony is rich, isn’t it?

Welfare recipients and illegal aliens have more rights, and get more benefits, in this country than the taxpaying citizens who fund the government.

What’s wrong with this picture (and why are we tolerating this)?

AZCoyote on March 21, 2013 at 3:23 PM

segasagez on March 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Wrong. Obama has taken it levels never before imagined. Nice try though.

Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Goebbels orgasmed, again.

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 2:33 PM

He is having it real good for 4+ years.

antisocial on March 21, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Welfare recipients and illegal aliens have more rights, and get more benefits, in this country than the taxpaying citizens who fund the government.

What’s wrong with this picture (and why are we tolerating this)?

AZCoyote on March 21, 2013 at 3:23 PM

And more privacy

Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Welfare recipients and illegal aliens have more rights, and get more benefits, in this country than the taxpaying citizens who fund the government.

AZCoyote on March 21, 2013 at 3:23 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

And more privacy

Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Welfare recipients have MORE PRIVACY? Have you ever in your life been on welfare? Yes or no.

segasagez on March 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Wrong. Obama has taken it levels never before imagined. Nice try though.

Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:23 PM

What level is that? Specifically.

segasagez on March 21, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Yes, healthy employees are generally more productive. However, unhappy employees are not … regardless of health. The Soviet Union had plenty of healthy people who for some reason weren’t very productive at all.

Forcing people to be healthy is not very healthy.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 3:19 PM

This isn’t even forcing anyone to be healthy. This is simply requiring people to find out for themselves if they are healthy or not. This doesn’t change individual health care costs. All this does is gives the employer aggregate information on the health of their workforce. The employer does not have individual health information on any worker. They can identify trends and spend money on wellness to counteract those trends. This is a perfect example to a free-market response to a problem. Not saying that the entire health care system is a free-market mind you. Just saying that the response by companies like CVS is to decrease their healthcare costs in the most efficient manner possible.

weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 3:27 PM

This is a perfect example to a free-market response to a problem. Not saying that the entire health care system is a free-market mind you. Just saying that the response by companies like CVS is to decrease their healthcare costs in the most efficient manner possible.

weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 3:27 PM

This is not a free market response because if it really was a free market consuners would have actual choices and alternatives. We don’t. Comply or pay more.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Wonder if they’ll discuss this on The Five? I’d like to hear Bob Beckel’s take on the subject.

lonestar1 on March 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM

My employer “incentivizes” checkups, biometric screenings, etc. by offsetting yearly premium increases by offering discounts to participating employees. Again, it’s on a voluntary basis…..if you choose not to jump through hoops, you pay more for coverage. Like the saying goes, “he who pays the fiddler, calls the tune.”….unless you pay 100% of your health coverage premium, the employer can dictate their terms….

Gustavus on March 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM

And more privacy

Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Welfare recipients have MORE PRIVACY? Have you ever in your life been on welfare? Yes or no.

segasagez on March 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Nope. But, I bet you have and that’s why you: a. Can’t read and b. Have no problem with this intrusion. When the state pays your way, makes the rules, you obey. Right chump!?

RovesChins on March 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM

.
Where’s the cutoff ?
At what weight is Fat no longer where its at ?

Are ALL fat people unhealthy?

And what about the “full figured” or “big boned” gals out there? Should they have to pay more? Thyroid anyone?

I have this dream where people are judged not by their BMI, but by the content of their character.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Don’t blame employers for having Obamacare thrust upon them. Employers are going to attempt to offset the costs the best way they know how to. CVS isn’t penalizing unhealthy workers, only workers who refuse to complete a health assessment. At least this way they have info on where their workforce is unhealthy and can spend money where they have the largest health issues.

Obamacare only further forces employers to address health care costs because they now are forced to provide coverage or pay a fine. Employers who still continue to provide coverage have to find ways to reduce their healthcare costs as much as possible. If employers had a choice on whether or not they provided coverage it would be a different story entirely. We need to stop demonizing employers for being prudent with their bottom line. Their hand has been forced and they are dealing with it as efficiently as possible.

We should be standing up for employers and helping them figure out how to minimize the costs as much as possible because the next step isn’t allowing them to not provide coverage, it is for the government to completely take it over. THAT is the point where things like this become frightening.

weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 3:34 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

It doesn’t matter if you’re willing to or not. The Ministry of Redistribution is seeing to it, through ObamaCare and a craptastic economy, that many of us will have no choice in the matter. Those of us that still have our jobs, will eventually lose them, and when we do, since there will be no new jobs out there, we’ll also be on welfare, food stamps and for a time, unemployment (which is of course, economic stimulus to the dimocrats…err socialists).

Meople on March 21, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Welfare recipients have MORE PRIVACY? Have you ever in your life been on welfare? Yes or no.

segasagez on March 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Illegal aliens have WAY more privacy, obviously. If you don’t understand that I’m not explaining it to you.

Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:34 PM

What level is that? Specifically.

segasagez on March 21, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Specifically, you dope, the questions doctors are asking their patients now are incredibly more invasive and have nothing to do with delivering care; they are being asked you that your personal life can be tracked by the government. You’re pathetic.

Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Welfare recipients and illegal aliens have more rights, and get more benefits, in this country than the taxpaying citizens who fund the government.

AZCoyote on March 21, 2013 at 3:23 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

Nope, because that would mean I broke another country’s sovereignty and am on the wrong side of the law and if I was a welfare recipient, I would question my choices in life and change my ways so that I don’t remain a failure.
See how tat works? Self responsibility, but the don’t teach that at your socialist rallies, do they?

RovesChins on March 21, 2013 at 3:37 PM

This is not a free market response because if it really was a free market consuners would have actual choices and alternatives. We don’t. Comply or pay more.

darwin on March 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM

If you look at it through the narrow prism of how companies respond to having to pay increased health cost for their employees, it absolutely is a free market response.

There are numerous options for companies to attempt to reduce those costs. CVS is electing to have employees complete health assessments and address the most pressing health issues of their workforce. Other companies are installing onsite gyms and providing wellness coaching. Other companies fund tobacco cessation programs.

The response of employers is to address the costs the best way they can. The free-market applies to how they best address those costs. CVS’s example is just one approach. I stand by my previous comment.

CVS had no say over the increased healthcare costs brought onto it by the government. To attempt to limit their choices in how they respond to it only further exacerbates the problem.

weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM

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

The quotes are around the wrong term. If they are going to penalize for non-participation then it isn’t voluntary.

chemman on March 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM

I have this dream where people are judged not by their BMI, but by the content of their character.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2013 at 3:23 PM

This is health insurance. Key word: insurance. Should a Ferrari have the same insurance rate as a Honda Civic? Should a red Ferrari driven by a 16 year old boy be rated the same as a grey minivan driven by a soccer mom? No.

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

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM

I hate to break this to you, but people that have no jobs and live off the government, aren’t going to be paying jack squat for their healthcare. You and I and the rest of us few that might still have a job will be paying for those folks, anyway.

Meople on March 21, 2013 at 3:46 PM

If CVS wants to bend over and kiss the government’s butt to show them how much a bunch of good little Obamacare drones they are, they have that right.

Just like I have the right never to shop or do business in any of their stores ever again.

And now seems like the ideal time for me to exercise that right.

pilamaye on March 21, 2013 at 3:49 PM

I hate to break this to you, but people that have no jobs and live off the government, aren’t going to be paying jack squat for their healthcare. You and I and the rest of us few that might still have a job will be paying for those folks, anyway.

Meople on March 21, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Yes – they shouldn’t get anything. But they do. If I decided to use my sizeable capital to start a bidness, I for one would make sure my employees aren’t basket cases or FMLA types waiting to explode.

The best way to reduce medical costs is to…. be healthy! Wow, what a novel idea Captain!

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Drone #48829 … your body fat is .01% above ideal. Your pay will be reduced by 20%.

Drone #77132 … your cholesterol is slightly elevated. Grocery stores have been notified and only specific foods will be allowed for your consumption for a period of six months.

Drone #33009 … trace alcohol levels were detected in your last screening. Your permit to purchase alcohol has been revoked until you complete an alcohol education class.

Drone #55100 … Your last fitness test was a failure. You are hereby enrolled in mandatory morning fitness class for a period of one year.

This will apply only to ‘workers’. Those on the government teat will continue to remain free from any standards or testing.

maryo on March 21, 2013 at 3:56 PM

If you look at it through the narrow prism of how companies respond to having to pay increased health cost for their employees, it absolutely is a free market response.

weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 3:38 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 CVS wants to bend over and kiss the government’s butt to show them how much a bunch of good little Obamacare drones they are, they have that right.

Just like I have the right never to shop or do business in any of their stores ever again.

And now seems like the ideal time for me to exercise that right.

pilamaye on March 21, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Not a great idea. You are saying you will only support businesses who fail to respond to fiscal pressures placed on them by the government.

I don’t have to boycott businesses who refuse to address the rising healtcare costs of their workforce. They will price themselves out of business or go under due to the weight of increased costs incurred by the business.

If a company chooses not to address higher costs, they will not get my business in the long run. They won’t be around.

weaselyone on March 21, 2013 at 3:58 PM

CVS isn’t penalizing unhealthy workers yet. But they will.

There’s nothing new here. My hubby (very recently retired) worked for a large retail grocery chain. Four years ago, we had to get tests for BMI, BP, blood sugar, and cholesterol. At that time, we got a “bonus” to apply to our premiums if 3 of 4 items were within the recommended ranges. The next year, we had to get the tests to get a smaller “bonus”. The third year, the tests were mandatory to have coverage at all (no “bonus”). This coming year (we have COBRA coverage for a couple more years) we will be penalized if we don’t meet the requirements, which have mysteriously become more stringent.

Let me add that the BMI test is meaningless as a predictor of health. My BMI is great, but my percent body fat is way too high. And don’t get me started on the pathetic finger stick blood test for cholesterol – it could not be more inaccurate. To get an accurate test done, I have to go to my physician and pay for a venous blood draw (instead of the stick at the company-run “free” clinic). Also the digital BP machine there is too big for my arm, so that value is worthless as well. My last reading taken that way was 195/50 or some such impossible value (actually is 120/72).

To add insult to injury, the company likes to provide cheap rewards for the mainly overweight and unhealthy workforce by buying them, you guessed it, food! Donuts, pizza, sugary sodas, the junkier the better – and then tell them eventually that they won’t be able to get health insurance at all through the company policy.

This company used to provide actual wellness coaching and workout facilities in the 1980′s, but now they won’t even provide a basketball hoop, since someone might get hurt and sue them.

I guess soon none of this will matter, since we are headed to a government run single-payer system. I wish companies would have gotten out of health care provisions for employees and encouraged a free market system, but it’s probably too late for that to ever happen.

tnxplant on March 21, 2013 at 3:58 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

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM

So tell me how BMI is calculated?
You do know they use a mathematical formula based on height and weight but not on actual body content. I always come up marginal in BMI even though I am a runner. The problem is that muscle weighs more than fat and I maintain good muscle tone and balance in my legs and arms. That always pushes my weight up and gives a higher BMI for me even though it isn’t a problem. So while using various markers to determine health may in general be accurate they aren’t always so.

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

If the government can’t tell me whether or not I can put a man’s junk in my mouth, they certainly can’t tell me whether or not I can put a donut in my mouth.

(h/t: alexthechic over at Ace’s, in her trademarked “D*cks and Donuts” rant)

Washington Nearsider on March 21, 2013 at 2:34 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

slickwillie2001 on March 21, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Great question . I’m sure the answer will be ” we
don’t discriminate ” .
That means we pay .

Lucano on March 21, 2013 at 4:01 PM

+10000………antisense, you make sense!

antisense on March 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Gustavus on March 21, 2013 at 4:01 PM

I saw this story earlier and I’m still not clear. Is this in compliance with Obamacare or something concocted by CVS on their own?
Doughboy on March 21, 2013 at 2:35 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

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

Maybe Roberts and SCOTUS will determine that it isn’t a penalty, it’s a tax and thus just fine

txdoc on March 21, 2013 at 4:06 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

Obama’s Two Americas

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2