Hospital....Smokers need not apply!

[Sunshine]

(CNN) -- A Pennsylvania hospital is expected to begin screening job applicants for signs of nicotine early next year, claiming it will not hire smokers, a hospital spokeswoman said Friday.

Geisinger Health System -- a facility located in the eastern town of Danville -- will institute its no-nicotine policy on February 1, 2012, said Marcy Marshall.

Applicants that test positive will be offered help to quit and are encouraged to re-apply after six months, she said.

Smoking has been banned on Geisinger hospital grounds since 2007, added Marshall, who said the new program is part of a plan to make the hospital staff smoke free.

Secondhand smoke, she noted, will not result in a positive test.

Hospital: Smokers need not apply - CNN.com

I remember being a nursing student thinking I would die of suffocation from the staff smoking in the tiny report room. In those days staff smoked on the units. I wasn't sure how I would make it. But I moved to Nashville where Vanderbilt had just become a 'non smoking' facility. Smoking was permitted outside only. Soon other facilities followed.

Not surprised about this bit of news. The smoker is not particularly appealing to employers on various levels. This, no doubt, has more to do with the cost of employee health care than anything else.

Smokers actually cost less and burden the health care system less.

Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows - The New York Times

snips,

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and nonsmoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.

Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.

The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.

I already posted the link to the Vanderbilt information on this. Yes, they do cost 'the system' less. It still does not follow that an employer should be required to pick up the million dollar tab on a person who has lung cancer before he croaks.

This employer is doing it the hard way, though. I would do it the way one of my former employers did and just give a health care allowance of a certain dollar figure. My SIL's employer has instituted a $5,000 deductible for their employees and their dependentsw. At the beginning of the year they give each employee a $2,000 debit card to cover their minor expenses. If they decline insurace altogether at that company the amount is considerably larger. He declined this year as my daughter found a job and her employer has the standard $350 deductible. They win:win on this one.

Employers are getting creative with their benefits or lack thereof.

 

[alan1]

I already posted the link to the Vanderbilt information on this. Yes, they do cost 'the system' less. It still does not follow that an employer should be required to pick up the million dollar tab on a person who has lung cancer before he croaks.

This employer is doing it the hard way, though. I would do it the way one of my former employers did and just give a health care allowance of a certain dollar figure. My SIL's employer has instituted a $5,000 deductible for their employees and their dependentsw. At the beginning of the year they give each employee a $2,000 debit card to cover their minor expenses. If they decline insurace altogether at that company the amount is considerably larger. He declined this year as my daughter found a job and her employer has the standard $350 deductible. They win:win on this one.

Employers are getting creative with their benefits or lack thereof.

I'm pretty sure the employer doesn't "pick up the tab". The employer may offer health insurance as a benefit, and in doing so, the insurance company picks up the tab, not the employer. If no health insurance is offered, the employer still doesn't "pick up the tab".

Employers are definitely getting creative (more so since the passing of the health care bill that actually had nothing to do with health care and everything to do with health insurance), they are trying to keep costs under control, just as you and I try to keep our personal costs under control.

 

[Sunshine]

I already posted the link to the Vanderbilt information on this. Yes, they do cost 'the system' less. It still does not follow that an employer should be required to pick up the million dollar tab on a person who has lung cancer before he croaks.

This employer is doing it the hard way, though. I would do it the way one of my former employers did and just give a health care allowance of a certain dollar figure. My SIL's employer has instituted a $5,000 deductible for their employees and their dependentsw. At the beginning of the year they give each employee a $2,000 debit card to cover their minor expenses. If they decline insurace altogether at that company the amount is considerably larger. He declined this year as my daughter found a job and her employer has the standard $350 deductible. They win:win on this one.

Employers are getting creative with their benefits or lack thereof.

I'm pretty sure the employer doesn't "pick up the tab". The employer may offer health insurance as a benefit, and in doing so, the insurance company picks up the tab, not the employer. If no health insurance is offered, the employer still doesn't "pick up the tab".

Employers are definitely getting creative (more so since the passing of the health care bill that actually had nothing to do with health care and everything to do with health insurance), they are trying to keep costs under control, just as you and I try to keep our personal costs under control.

You don't understand insurance underwriting. Employers, large ones, DO pick up the tab. They self fund, or underwrite the claims of their employees. That means they pay the whole bill and the 'insurance company' just administers the benefits and keeps it all within the rules. Every company I have worked for except one has underwritten their own policies. That means, THEY PAY THE TAB. Yes, your card says BCBS, but BCBS only administers the program and writes the checks. The capital for the checks they write comes from the employer.

This article explains it.

Self-funded health care is a self insurance arrangement whereby an employer provides health or disability benefits to employees with its own funds.[1] This is different from fully insured plans where the employer contracts an insurance company to cover the employees and dependents.[1] In self-funded health care, the employer assumes the direct risk for payment of the claims for benefits. The terms of eligibility and coverage are set forth in a plan document which includes provisions similar to those found in a typical group health insurance policy. Unless exempted, such plans create rights and obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

Self-funded health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is really hard to get it through really thick heads that large employers like the Bells, the governemnt, and many health care facilities pay their own claims and merely use BCBS to write the checks and negotiate the prices.

Anyone, even an individual, can do this if you have plenty of money. I know an MD who has had cancer and can't buy insurance. He has a lot of money, and he pays an insurance company to negotiate his fees and write the checks. But the money comes from his own pocket.

 

[Sunshine]

And here is another link which shows the reason employers underwrite their own claims:

In the face of rising health-insurance premiums, employers are often forced to shop for better deals and look for more affordable options to sustain employee-health benefits. One option gaining interest and popularity is the self-funded health plan. The employer takes on the full liability for the costs of its employees' health benefits and, in effect, becomes the health insurance program's underwriter. The employer then pays a health insurance company -- usually a preferred provider organization -- to administrate the benefits for them. The result is that employers self-funding their health plans have significant latitude to customize their benefits coverage.


Read more: How Do I Separate Health Underwriting and Benefits Administration? | eHow.com How Do I Separate Health Underwriting and Benefits Administration? | eHow.com

How Do I Separate Health Underwriting and Benefits Administration? | eHow.com

You can actually find out if your employer self funds or underwrites their employees claims. People in HR usually know and will tell you if you ask.

 

[syrenn]

(CNN) -- A Pennsylvania hospital is expected to begin screening job applicants for signs of nicotine early next year, claiming it will not hire smokers, a hospital spokeswoman said Friday.

Geisinger Health System -- a facility located in the eastern town of Danville -- will institute its no-nicotine policy on February 1, 2012, said Marcy Marshall.

Applicants that test positive will be offered help to quit and are encouraged to re-apply after six months, she said.

Smoking has been banned on Geisinger hospital grounds since 2007, added Marshall, who said the new program is part of a plan to make the hospital staff smoke free.

Secondhand smoke, she noted, will not result in a positive test.

Hospital: Smokers need not apply - CNN.com

I remember being a nursing student thinking I would die of suffocation from the staff smoking in the tiny report room. In those days staff smoked on the units. I wasn't sure how I would make it. But I moved to Nashville where Vanderbilt had just become a 'non smoking' facility. Smoking was permitted outside only. Soon other facilities followed.

Not surprised about this bit of news. The smoker is not particularly appealing to employers on various levels. This, no doubt, has more to do with the cost of employee health care than anything else.

Sad to say this is a slippery slope. It opens the door to not hire people for personal choices that do not effect work performance or private practices.


However on a different note about smokers and work. At one of my jobs everyone would go out for "smoking breaks" ...at 15-20 minutes at a time it was more then an hour per person. The non smokers were left holding the bag and doing more then their fair share of the work taking up the slack of the smokers. It was effecting productivity. I put an end to "smoking breaks". If they wanted to smoke they had to do it at lunch or on their regular breaks.

 

[saveliberty]

That would be wonderful if true, but it isn't. Thin people are a vast minority is this country, so far more money is spent on smokers and the obese. If thin people were such a risk and scientifically proven to be so, insurance companies would charge them more for health and life insurance. They don't. Fail.

I provided a link for proof.
Your choice to ignore facts says more about you than it does about me.

If you don't live the normal life expectancy, then of course you cost less. Note this study:

The Lifetime Distribution of Health Care Costs

Your inability to understand the research you are looking at is not my fault nor a reflection on me in any way.

 

[alan1]

I already posted the link to the Vanderbilt information on this. Yes, they do cost 'the system' less. It still does not follow that an employer should be required to pick up the million dollar tab on a person who has lung cancer before he croaks.

This employer is doing it the hard way, though. I would do it the way one of my former employers did and just give a health care allowance of a certain dollar figure. My SIL's employer has instituted a $5,000 deductible for their employees and their dependentsw. At the beginning of the year they give each employee a $2,000 debit card to cover their minor expenses. If they decline insurace altogether at that company the amount is considerably larger. He declined this year as my daughter found a job and her employer has the standard $350 deductible. They win:win on this one.

Employers are getting creative with their benefits or lack thereof.

I'm pretty sure the employer doesn't "pick up the tab". The employer may offer health insurance as a benefit, and in doing so, the insurance company picks up the tab, not the employer. If no health insurance is offered, the employer still doesn't "pick up the tab".

Employers are definitely getting creative (more so since the passing of the health care bill that actually had nothing to do with health care and everything to do with health insurance), they are trying to keep costs under control, just as you and I try to keep our personal costs under control.

You don't understand insurance underwriting. Employers, large ones, DO pick up the tab. They self fund, or underwrite the claims of their employees. That means they pay the whole bill and the 'insurance company' just administers the benefits and keeps it all within the rules. Every company I have worked for except one has underwritten their own policies. That means, THEY PAY THE TAB. Yes, your card says BCBS, but BCBS only administers the program and writes the checks. The capital for the checks they write comes from the employer.

This article explains it.

Self-funded health care is a self insurance arrangement whereby an employer provides health or disability benefits to employees with its own funds.[1] This is different from fully insured plans where the employer contracts an insurance company to cover the employees and dependents.[1] In self-funded health care, the employer assumes the direct risk for payment of the claims for benefits. The terms of eligibility and coverage are set forth in a plan document which includes provisions similar to those found in a typical group health insurance policy. Unless exempted, such plans create rights and obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

Self-funded health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is really hard to get it through really thick heads that large employers like the Bells, the governemnt, and many health care facilities pay their own claims and merely use BCBS to write the checks and negotiate the prices.

Anyone, even an individual, can do this if you have plenty of money. I know an MD who has had cancer and can't buy insurance. He has a lot of money, and he pays an insurance company to negotiate his fees and write the checks. But the money comes from his own pocket.

I understand self-funded and stop-loss insurance. The insurance company picks up for the stop-loss (extremely large claims) that you speak of when you talk about million dollar claims for things like lung cancer.
I work for a Fortune 500 company with self-funded insurance, my friend in the benefits department told me the company stop-loss insurance kicks in at $400k, at that point, the insurance company takes over paying the bills.

 

[alan1]

That would be wonderful if true, but it isn't. Thin people are a vast minority is this country, so far more money is spent on smokers and the obese. If thin people were such a risk and scientifically proven to be so, insurance companies would charge them more for health and life insurance. They don't. Fail.

I provided a link for proof.
Your choice to ignore facts says more about you than it does about me.

If you don't live the normal life expectancy, then of course you cost less. Note this study:

The Lifetime Distribution of Health Care Costs

Your inability to understand the research you are looking at is not my fault nor a reflection on me in any way.

See above in red. That is the point, smokers and the obese die earlier.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Lots of good comments and observations.
I fully agree that what a person does on their own time is up to them, regardless of how harmful it may be, as long as the damage is restricted to the individual. Smoking, drinking, pot...whathaveyou, but common sense should prevail. Things like driving under the influence do not limit the danger to just the individual participating, so there should be some way to discourage such activities.

Not many years ago, the town I was living in went "smoke free". That means that no smoking is allowed in any establishment, whether the owner/operator or patrons desired otherwise. I view this as an abominable government overreach. Let the market determine whether a business goes smoke-free. If a bar, restaurant, or other establishment serving the public allows smoking, no one is forced to enter or stay there. Of course, the anti's argument was, how about the people working there? They would be forced to inhale smoke. As far as I know, no one is enslaved or serving an indenture in any establishment in this town, so workers no desiring to "smoke" would be welcome to seek out and find work at a non-smoking establishment.

Not only should government be constrained from dictating what we do in our own homes, our businesses should be left alone to decided whether to cater to "smoking" or "non-smoking" patrons. We all have the ability to vote with our feet and our pocketbooks. I do see where exceptions should be made for public places where people do not have the choice of moving away from something harmful, i.e. hospitals, office buildings, etc. If accomodation is made for smokers in the workplace, such as a smoking area, non-smokers should be permitted an equal accomodation that allows them "breaks" away from their work stations, too.

 

[saveliberty]

Funny thing about work breaks, the only people I see taking them are smokers. Further, you are not grasping my comment about smokers. Most cannot choose to smoke at home, but not at work. It is an addiction and as such, not easy to turn on and off. You either are a smoker or not.

 

[old navy]

Fire and police departments have had a no smoking policy for years now. Health care is doing it for insurance purposes but also to keep patients from being exposed to the off-gassing nurse, doc, x-ray tech, etc. who just came in from burning one. The industry wants to lead the way and promote healthy living.

And what does that have to do if one smokes at home when off work?

Smoking related illnesses cost the employer more in health care costs, days missed work, etc. Even though there has been some success in court with these kind of employment issues, the employment-at-will doctrine still rules and the employer has the upper hand.

 

[old navy]

Fire and police departments have had a no smoking policy for years now. Health care is doing it for insurance purposes but also to keep patients from being exposed to the off-gassing nurse, doc, x-ray tech, etc. who just came in from burning one. The industry wants to lead the way and promote healthy living.

When hospitals went smoke free, I recall the near 'nicotine fits' I saw some of my coworkers having. That can't be safe or make for good patient care.

Scary isn't it.

My principal had to remind a couple of my fellow teachers a few days ago that they could not sneak out to their cars for a quick smoke. The entire campus is tobacco free.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Fire and police departments have had a no smoking policy for years now. Health care is doing it for insurance purposes but also to keep patients from being exposed to the off-gassing nurse, doc, x-ray tech, etc. who just came in from burning one. The industry wants to lead the way and promote healthy living.

And what does that have to do if one smokes at home when off work?

Drug free work place laws have been upheld. Many an employee has been fired for testing positive for cannabis even though he/she never took a joint near their workplace. So much for being free to do anything you want in your own home!

But pot is not legal.

Would you support an employer firing someone for drinking at home. Smoking and drinking are both legal.

How about firing someone because they eat too much sugar?

 

[Sunshine]

And what does that have to do if one smokes at home when off work?

Drug free work place laws have been upheld. Many an employee has been fired for testing positive for cannabis even though he/she never took a joint near their workplace. So much for being free to do anything you want in your own home!

But pot is not legal.

Would you support an employer firing someone for drinking at home. Smoking and drinking are both legal.

How about firing someone because they eat too much sugar?

People HAVE been fired for drinking at home - when their drinking becomes an addiction and they miss countless days of work, or their judgment is impaired. Most have never touched a drop at work. I used to follow a nurse who drank like a fish in her off time. Her work was scattered. Her charting made no sense, and I wondered every day what she had done to hurt the patients just before I came on. Nurse manager told her to get help or she was going to be out of there - fired. Yes, absolutely, I support firing someone whose after hours drinking affects their work. And many times it does, even though drinking is legal.

 

[Sunshine]

I'm pretty sure the employer doesn't "pick up the tab". The employer may offer health insurance as a benefit, and in doing so, the insurance company picks up the tab, not the employer. If no health insurance is offered, the employer still doesn't "pick up the tab".

Employers are definitely getting creative (more so since the passing of the health care bill that actually had nothing to do with health care and everything to do with health insurance), they are trying to keep costs under control, just as you and I try to keep our personal costs under control.

You don't understand insurance underwriting. Employers, large ones, DO pick up the tab. They self fund, or underwrite the claims of their employees. That means they pay the whole bill and the 'insurance company' just administers the benefits and keeps it all within the rules. Every company I have worked for except one has underwritten their own policies. That means, THEY PAY THE TAB. Yes, your card says BCBS, but BCBS only administers the program and writes the checks. The capital for the checks they write comes from the employer.

This article explains it.

Self-funded health care is a self insurance arrangement whereby an employer provides health or disability benefits to employees with its own funds.[1] This is different from fully insured plans where the employer contracts an insurance company to cover the employees and dependents.[1] In self-funded health care, the employer assumes the direct risk for payment of the claims for benefits. The terms of eligibility and coverage are set forth in a plan document which includes provisions similar to those found in a typical group health insurance policy. Unless exempted, such plans create rights and obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

Self-funded health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is really hard to get it through really thick heads that large employers like the Bells, the governemnt, and many health care facilities pay their own claims and merely use BCBS to write the checks and negotiate the prices.

Anyone, even an individual, can do this if you have plenty of money. I know an MD who has had cancer and can't buy insurance. He has a lot of money, and he pays an insurance company to negotiate his fees and write the checks. But the money comes from his own pocket.

I understand self-funded and stop-loss insurance. The insurance company picks up for the stop-loss (extremely large claims) that you speak of when you talk about million dollar claims for things like lung cancer.
I work for a Fortune 500 company with self-funded insurance, my friend in the benefits department told me the company stop-loss insurance kicks in at $400k, at that point, the insurance company takes over paying the bills.

So your company recruits people they know will push that cost up to the full $400K. Bravo! Less taxpayers have to cary!

 

[Sunshine]

I provided a link for proof.
Your choice to ignore facts says more about you than it does about me.

If you don't live the normal life expectancy, then of course you cost less. Note this study:

The Lifetime Distribution of Health Care Costs

Your inability to understand the research you are looking at is not my fault nor a reflection on me in any way.

See above in red. That is the point, smokers and the obese die earlier.

That is what the study I posted said. They die earlier. But I have worked in the medical industry long enough to know that doesn't happenb usually before they have a very costly illness like lung cancer or diabetes. The fact that they cost less does not negate the fact that their illnesses are STILL expensive. As an employer I would not want to pay for it.

 

[alan1]

You don't understand insurance underwriting. Employers, large ones, DO pick up the tab. They self fund, or underwrite the claims of their employees. That means they pay the whole bill and the 'insurance company' just administers the benefits and keeps it all within the rules. Every company I have worked for except one has underwritten their own policies. That means, THEY PAY THE TAB. Yes, your card says BCBS, but BCBS only administers the program and writes the checks. The capital for the checks they write comes from the employer.

This article explains it.



Self-funded health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is really hard to get it through really thick heads that large employers like the Bells, the governemnt, and many health care facilities pay their own claims and merely use BCBS to write the checks and negotiate the prices.

Anyone, even an individual, can do this if you have plenty of money. I know an MD who has had cancer and can't buy insurance. He has a lot of money, and he pays an insurance company to negotiate his fees and write the checks. But the money comes from his own pocket.

I understand self-funded and stop-loss insurance. The insurance company picks up for the stop-loss (extremely large claims) that you speak of when you talk about million dollar claims for things like lung cancer.
I work for a Fortune 500 company with self-funded insurance, my friend in the benefits department told me the company stop-loss insurance kicks in at $400k, at that point, the insurance company takes over paying the bills.

So your company recruits people they know will push that cost up to the full $400K. Bravo! Less taxpayers have to cary!

Wow, you just drew a conclusion that was completely unrelated to anything I said.

 

[manifold]

(CNN) -- A Pennsylvania hospital is expected to begin screening job applicants for signs of nicotine early next year, claiming it will not hire smokers, a hospital spokeswoman said Friday.

Geisinger Health System -- a facility located in the eastern town of Danville -- will institute its no-nicotine policy on February 1, 2012, said Marcy Marshall.

Applicants that test positive will be offered help to quit and are encouraged to re-apply after six months, she said.

Smoking has been banned on Geisinger hospital grounds since 2007, added Marshall, who said the new program is part of a plan to make the hospital staff smoke free.

Secondhand smoke, she noted, will not result in a positive test.

Hospital: Smokers need not apply - CNN.com

I remember being a nursing student thinking I would die of suffocation from the staff smoking in the tiny report room. In those days staff smoked on the units. I wasn't sure how I would make it. But I moved to Nashville where Vanderbilt had just become a 'non smoking' facility. Smoking was permitted outside only. Soon other facilities followed.

Not surprised about this bit of news. The smoker is not particularly appealing to employers on various levels. This, no doubt, has more to do with the cost of employee health care than anything else.

If it's about employee healthcare costs they should also not hire fat people, people with diabetes, or a whole host of other maladies. Something tells me they wouldn't get away with that.

 

[Sunshine]

(CNN) -- A Pennsylvania hospital is expected to begin screening job applicants for signs of nicotine early next year, claiming it will not hire smokers, a hospital spokeswoman said Friday.

Geisinger Health System -- a facility located in the eastern town of Danville -- will institute its no-nicotine policy on February 1, 2012, said Marcy Marshall.

Applicants that test positive will be offered help to quit and are encouraged to re-apply after six months, she said.

Smoking has been banned on Geisinger hospital grounds since 2007, added Marshall, who said the new program is part of a plan to make the hospital staff smoke free.

Secondhand smoke, she noted, will not result in a positive test.

Hospital: Smokers need not apply - CNN.com

I remember being a nursing student thinking I would die of suffocation from the staff smoking in the tiny report room. In those days staff smoked on the units. I wasn't sure how I would make it. But I moved to Nashville where Vanderbilt had just become a 'non smoking' facility. Smoking was permitted outside only. Soon other facilities followed.

Not surprised about this bit of news. The smoker is not particularly appealing to employers on various levels. This, no doubt, has more to do with the cost of employee health care than anything else.

If it's about employee healthcare costs then should also not hire fat people, people with diabetes, or a whole host of other maladies. Something tells me they wouldn't get away with that.

If you have an illness that can interfere with your ability to do your job, they CAN get away with it. I have yet to work for a company that didn't require a physical.

There are protected disabilities, though: U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Disability Employment Policy

 

[Sunshine]

I understand self-funded and stop-loss insurance. The insurance company picks up for the stop-loss (extremely large claims) that you speak of when you talk about million dollar claims for things like lung cancer.
I work for a Fortune 500 company with self-funded insurance, my friend in the benefits department told me the company stop-loss insurance kicks in at $400k, at that point, the insurance company takes over paying the bills.

So your company recruits people they know will push that cost up to the full $400K. Bravo! Less taxpayers have to cary!

Wow, you just drew a conclusion that was completely unrelated to anything I said.

That's how you made it sound. Bravo for your company!