More

Corporations Tell Smoking Employees To Pay More For Health Insurance

First Posted: 07/06/11 04:48 PM ET Updated: 09/05/11 06:12 AM ET

Smoking

If you smoke, you'll pay more. That's the message and policy coming out of some of the country's largest corporations.

As of July 1, employees at Macy's who admit to using tobacco will be charged an extra $420 a year for health coverage, reports Bloomberg Businessweek.

Macy's is joining the ranks of companies like PepsiCo, which requires its smoking employees pay an extra $600 year, and publisher Gannett, which charges an additional $720. Some companies like Humana, Union Pacific and Scotts Miracle-Gro flat out refuse to hire smokers.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking costs the U.S. more than $193 billion a year, and a smoking employee is 18 percent more expensive for employers than a nonsmoker, reports the magazine.

Companies can either cut benefits or do what they can to reduce lifestyle choices that lead to higher medical costs:

Businesses also are looking at how they can get workers to keep closer tabs on their health. Scotts Miracle-Gro cuts insurance rates up to $60 monthly for workers and spouses who get their weight, cholesterol and blood pressure checked regularly. Union Pacific offers free fitness club access.

And more companies are taking note of those choices. The Society for Human Resource Management estimates that about 59 percent of companies offered wellness programs last year, and 28 percent paid bonuses for employees who quit smoking or achieve health goals.

In 2010, Whole Foods launched their "Team Member Healthy Discount Incentive" program, aimed at controlling health care costs. The voluntary program allowed workers to increase their in-store discounts if they met specific health criteria like nicotine use, blood pressure, cholesterol level and body mass index.

Whole Food's program was met with criticism, and so are policies that refuse employment to smokers or levy extra insurance charges against them. Health advocacy group, the American Legacy Foundation told Businessweek that the polices discriminate against low-income and less educated workers.

While it might make sense to charge smokers more or refuse employment, but is it legal?

"Being a smoker is not a category that is protected under the law," according to attorney Lisa Coulter. She told USA Today that more employers are seeking to regulare their workers' conduct both in and outside the workplace on everything from smoking to what they can post on their Facebook page.


Quick Poll

Should Employers Charge Smokers More For Benefits?

Yes, their choices cost employers more money.

No, it's not fair to charge smokers more.



FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
If you smoke, you'll pay more. That's the message and policy coming out of some of the country's largest corporations. As of July 1, employees at Macy's who admit to using tobacco will be charged ...
If you smoke, you'll pay more. That's the message and policy coming out of some of the country's largest corporations. As of July 1, employees at Macy's who admit to using tobacco will be charged ...
Filed by Stephanie Marcus  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 702
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (14 total)
01:24 PM on 07/10/2011
I have to say, the conservative in me is ok with this. This is one of those shoulder shrugging "oh well" issues. Just like folks who haul 4 jetski's or a mega-camper with their 3 story tall Ford/Dodge/GMC/Chevy F-350,000 Kings Ranch Lariat Extra Super Duty Silverado Ram PowerWagon Cummins Turbo Lift Kit Truck should pay more for gas. I, with my 2007 Honda Accord EX-L 2 door coupe should pay the same as those with all these ridiculous 'man-toys'. And likewise, those on foodstamps or any assistance program, WIC for instance, which I fully support, shouldn't be allowed to make unhealthy food choices like sugary sodas. And me, I'm a slave to fashion. Since I want higher end clothing brands, I gladly pay a higher end price, ergo more in sales tax. If you wanna play, you gotta pay...
01:29 PM on 07/10/2011
CORRECTION: I meant to type I SHOULD NOT pay the same price for gas for my 2007 Honda Accord EX-L as someone who has a 3 story tall Ford/Dodge­/GMC/Chevy F-350,000 Kings Ranch Lariat Extra Super Duty Silverado Ram PowerWagon Cummins Turbo Lift Kit Truck...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Lives
The Venus Project ... look it up
01:24 PM on 07/08/2011
So, not only does the government legislate how you should live, but we are gonna let companies tell us how to live as well? I'm not for smoking tobacco, but this is getting ridiculous.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HarmNone
Censorship: Reaction of the ignorant to freedom
11:28 AM on 07/08/2011
And why not take action on the #1 problem in the country - obesity. about 2/3 of the nation is overweight - don't see anyone charging more for that!
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2011/07/08/report-61-of-californians-overweight.html
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JustinP213
I dislike all political parties.
10:16 AM on 07/08/2011
Good
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ScottyD1982
09:49 AM on 07/08/2011
How is this controversial? Reckless drivers pay higher auto insurance rates...people who are reckless with their bodies should pay higher health insurance premiums to offset the costs they shift to all others.
09:44 AM on 07/08/2011
As a non-smoker, who dislikes second-hand smoke...

Which one is it?

Is cigarette smoking a drug addiction or a willful vice?

I don't see companies health plans / IEPs charging more for drug intervention.
photo
jcolvin325
Personal attack = Concession speech.
07:47 AM on 07/08/2011
I'm all for it, but we should go even further. If someone is smoking or over weight and getting food stamps or other government benefits...they too should have to 'pay' more by way of having those benefits reduced. The government...like corporations should not have to subsidize bad choices.
07:28 AM on 07/08/2011
Good, good, corporations are finally doing something to deal with the issue of socialized health care in this country. I certainly hope all the Teabaggers are jumping up to support this effort to protect individual choice and liberties while fighting against the welfare state.

Let's be clear, smoking (among other choice-based lifestyles) drastically increases the cost of health care. Sure, smokers die a bit earlier, but cost much more in chronic illnesses; the same is true for the obese. I completely support their right to smoke or be obese; but allowing them to pay the same premium is effectively suckling off the welfare of the people who make good health decisions.
02:07 AM on 07/08/2011
I work out regularly and eat well. No one is paying for my gym membership and organic chicken...hmmm Food for thought. Do what you got to do to get by in life, just don't expect me to pick up your tab. btw, why is there no incentives for people who work out? huh
09:45 AM on 07/08/2011
Actually, several health plans will pay for part or all of your gym membership.
02:48 PM on 07/08/2011
My mistake, there are several, but Several is still not enough. Unfortunately the plan I'm on, and plans offered did not cover this. I'm still young and don't make enough to afford the plan that offers that. I guess I'll have to wait until I am older before I can care for my health.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dragonladywaltham
politicians are SUPPOSED to serve Americans
09:51 PM on 07/07/2011
I hope the meat eaters, junk food junkies, and alcoholics are next!!!
photo
MPFIED
Blah,blah,blah and all other white noise.
05:50 PM on 07/07/2011
Smoking is an expensive right to exercise. I see no reason why an employer shouldn't past the additional cost on to those who do it. It's a slippery slope. Make no mistake about it, they won't stop with smokers.
07:18 PM on 07/07/2011
Smoking's not a right, it's a choice. You can choose to smoke and increase your risk of cancer, heart disease, ect and that's fine. What you can't expect is for others to be willing to pay for the increased costs smokers bring to health care. If an employer can minimize their health care costs by refusing to cover smokers, not only do they make themselves more competitive, but non-smokers receive more affordable health care. If you smoke you don't have to work for those empolyers.

Bottom line is people are not born with a cigarette in their mouths. People can't choose their race, gender, or sexuality, which is why employers can't legally discriminate based on those things. Smoking is a bad habit and employers and other employees shouldn't be expected to pay more for their health care because of somebody elses bad habit.
dididangerlove
subverting political perversion
05:20 PM on 07/07/2011
Physicians consider smoking and over eating lifestyle choices. In other words, they're health risks that can be mitigated by modifying behaviors. Those who have modified their behaviors don't want to pay higher premiums because of those who choose not to adopt a healthier lifestyle.
09:47 AM on 07/08/2011
Yes, as a funny observation, there are many doctors, nurses and office staff who tell you not to smoke, but do it themselves because they cannot stop.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
05:05 PM on 07/07/2011
where's the controversy here?
04:56 PM on 07/07/2011
This is discrimination. Period. You can try and justify it all you want, but it's still discrimination. Why should a smoker (which I am not, my mom was though) get the shorter end of a stick? What happened to personal freedom to do what I feel like without people asking why or getting in the way? Why should someone else get to dictate *MY* life and *MY* choices?

If they insist on charging for higher health insurance for cigarette smokers, then they have to do the same for beer drinkers and marijuana smokers as well. It's only fair right? All of those things mess your body up in one way or another.
08:17 AM on 07/08/2011
No, no, and no. They are dictating nothing. They are simply expecting that you pay the appropriate cost for your choices. This is what freedom is about; sure you are free to make your own choices, you are also free to pay for them. Expecting me to is impinging on my freedoms.

Funny how everyone wants freedom of choice and personal responsibility until it actually happens...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HarmNone
Censorship: Reaction of the ignorant to freedom
11:24 AM on 07/08/2011
And the sugar addicts:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2011/07/08/report-61-of-californians-overweight.html
I hope the link works, its results on recent report on obesity, even 61% of the CA population is overweight and CA is better than 39 other states.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
javajava
Pastafarian Liberal Progressive Socialist Hippie
04:40 PM on 07/07/2011
I don't smoke, drink or use unproscribed medication. I excersize regularly and my weight is within range for my height and age. All markers for my health seem good (bp, cholesterol etc.). I say this to say,

Why not penalize the obese? Or the lazy? Or the Hypertense? This opens up a whole new way for insurers to cherrypick how they will assign risk.

It might be good for my rates but I'm not sure it's the best for driving down overall cost. You start specifing more pools to insure and the rate overall will skyrocket. The Insurance Lobby will surely justify it.
02:02 AM on 07/08/2011
How about incentives for those like you who exercise regularly? I also exercise and yet have to pay from someone else's indulgences.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HarmNone
Censorship: Reaction of the ignorant to freedom
11:26 AM on 07/08/2011
Another reason for a single payer health care or medicare for all. It's the only way to reduce the costs in this field.