Tired of company butting into our healthcare...

[Clone]

Their interest in employee well being is self serving, not altruistic and they would admit to that. Employee illnesses result in less productivity, higher costs and lower profits.

Yup-It makes for good talking points, good PR, and nice slogans for the posters on the walls. Yet, survey after survey, the largest employee dissatisfaction at MegaCorp dealt with work/family life balance. We could have re-written the manual to say:

'the company is willing to spend $300 extra in incentives if you complete the survey and talk to the the phone nurse (last week selling timeshares, this week promoting exercise and flu shots...). Oh, and by the way, we're going to need you to be in here Saturday. And the flights are scheduled for Sunday to run out to BF Egypt for a couple weeks. I know it's stressful, but we should be over this hump in a couple months...'

For the most part, I had good bosses. But the production date was set, and we did what it took to make the schedule. And we were paid well to make it happen.

I suspect that the corporate support of wellness programs is similar to individuals commitment to living a more healthy lifestyle. Easy to say, not too difficult to pay the membership fee to a fitness center, very difficult to actually go there and exercise on a routine basis.

 

[pb4uski]

Stop wining and welcome to the real world grasshopper. If you don't like it then don't let the door hit you in the a_ _ on your way out.

 

[Tadpole]

What accommodation is made, if any, or what price increase is imposed for people with disabilities that cannot participate in wellness programs and, through no fault of their own, cannot control certain aspects of their health profiles? Don't let the door hit ya? Do children with asthma have to prove worthiness? I think it is nuts. Just like crowding the most needy of healthcare out of the insurance pool doesn't make sense.

 

[Midpack]

What accommodation is made, if any, or what price increase is imposed for people with disabilities that cannot participate in wellness programs and, through no fault of their own, cannot control certain aspects of their health profiles? Don't let the door hit ya? Do children with asthma have to prove worthiness? I think it is nuts. Just like crowding the most needy of healthcare out of the insurance pool doesn't make sense.

Do you have an example of any company that has implemented a wellness program based on health metrics that are clearly beyond the control of employees, you mention disabilities for example? The ones I've seen or read about focused on well known lifestyle choices (smoking, excessive alcohol, illegal drugs, poor diet, inactivity, unprotected sex, etc.) that influence preventable diseases, all thoroughly documented relationships.

It's interesting how debates form using exceptions, extremes and hypotheticals as central factors are given credibility, not only in healthcare but so many other realms.

 

[Tadpole]

Do you have an example of any company that has implemented a wellness program based on health metrics that are clearly beyond the control of employees. The ones I've seen or read about focused on well known lifestyle choices that influenced preventable diseases, all thoroughly documented relationships.

I was asking a question. How could I supply my own answer? Actually two questions - how disabilities are accommodated (think can't exercise, type I diabetes, genetic disorders that affect blood chemistries, or, for family plans try prader willi).

How are disability related health potential costs handled?
How are children monitored to assure compliance in family plans where costs are shifted from one family to another?

If this doesn't happen, then that is the answer to the question.

 

[Midpack]

I was asking a question. How could I supply my own answer? Actually two questions - how disabilities are accommodated (think can't exercise, type I diabetes, genetic disorders that affect blood chemistries, or, for family plans try prader willi).

How are disability related health potential costs handled?
How are children monitored to assure compliance in family plans where costs are shifted from one family to another?

If this doesn't happen, then that is the answer to the question.

And I answered by saying few if any companies would knowingly punish employees for health issues beyond their control. And if any company tried there are laws, beginning with ADA in 1990, that would prevent the practice. So it's not a central issue, relatively speaking, regarding wellness initiatives.

 

[photoguy]

The wellness programs I've been a part of have been mostly self-reported and participatory. E.g. have you exercised for 20min at least 3 times per week. Even walking counts for that. Or meet with a health advisor once a year, go to some nutrition seminar, etc.

 

[Amethyst]

Could this be a negative rephrasing of "employees who accept these health measures are granted a $500 rebate on premiums, a $1500 incentive in Honeywell contributions to an HSA, and a $1000 per spouse "no tobacco use" rebate, or potentially $4000 in annual savings."

After all, it's not as if the company is mandating people's weight, blood pressure levels and so on. I would not even have a problem with that, if it meant an additional rebate on health premiums.

(Frankly, I thought most big companies paid their employees' health premiums 100% or close to it. The defense contractors seem to pay far lower premiums and co-pays than I do).

Amethyst

 

[razztazz]

And I answered by saying few if any companies would knowingly punish employees for health issues beyond their control

.

And what guarantee is there they won't/can't? And besides you've already conceded some will do it. What's to prevent it or punish them after the fact?

And if any company tried there are laws, beginning with ADA in 1990, that would prevent the practice.

New regime can end those protections. What's the invulnerable guarunte it can't happen? Ok, so we know it can happen.

So it's not a central issue,

What's to keep it from becoming one?

relatively speaking

Tussy-covering-speak

 

[razztazz]

After all, it's not as if the company is mandating people's weight, blood pressure levels and so on. I would not even have a problem with that, if it meant an additional rebate on health premiums.

So Marx was right? It's all about economic extortion. Thank you

 

[pb4uski]

Where in the world did all these tin foil hat people come from?

 

[Midpack]

(Frankly, I thought most big companies paid their employees' health premiums 100% or close to it. The defense contractors seem to pay far lower premiums and co-pays than I do).

I'd be surprised if many companies pay 100% of employee healthcare anymore, especially private, but I am sure there are some. Our target was employee total contributions of 20%, but we never achieved more than 17%. We could have levied increases to get to 20%, but we didn't have the heart to (I know exactly how our HC premiums, including increases, were administered each year).

Here's some broad data, and a link to a little more detail from BLS 2014. Looks like 70:30 employer/employee is a representative average, but I suspect the distribution is very, very broad.

Table 4. Medical plans: Share of premiums paid by employer and employee for family coverage

 

[NanoSour]

It's all a catch-22. On one hand the food industry wants up to buy as much meat & processed food as they can stuff into the grocery stores. And of course if we buy it, one would reasonably expect us to eat it leading to all the "chronic" diseases that are rapidly rising in our society. For the big pharma industry this has the benefit of putting millions of people on lifetime drug therapies and to them this is better than great.

I'll stop there or this could be a long rant. I'll end by stating IMHO this is a bad precedent and we're only at the top of the slippery slope.

 

[M Paquette]

Meh. Terms of employment...

You don't have to take their health insurance benefit if you find the terms onerous. Just buy an individual policy from an insurance broker. It will cost you more than the discounted and subsidized plan through an employer, but you won't have to agree to the terms and conditions that go along with the employers discounts and subsidy.

If you find other conditions of employment with a specific employer too onerous, don't be their employee. Find employment elsewhere. Start your own business. Become a consultant if that looks good. It might not be as easy as coasting in the current job, but you can take action to improve your circumstances.

It's a lot like early retirement. Just complaining or wishing won't get you there. You have to be proactive about it.

 

[haha]

Stop wining and welcome to the real world grasshopper. If you don't like it then don't let the door hit you in the a_ _ on your way out.

This is a pretty authoritarian stance. There are other ways to look at this issue.

Ha

 

[pb4uski]

This is a pretty authoritarian stance. There are other ways to look at this issue.

Ha

Perhaps, but if you have a tin foil hat firmly strapped to your head and don't like working for the man, then you have a choice: whine about it or vote with your feet.

 

[rodi]

Everyone: Please keep your comments respectful and on topic.

We can have different opinions and perspectives without resorting to name calling.

 

[Midpack]

.

And what guarantee is there they won't/can't? And besides you've already conceded some will do it. What's to prevent it or punish them after the fact?




New regime can end those protections. What's the invulnerable guarunte it can't happen? Ok, so we know it can happen.



What's to keep it from becoming one?



Tussy-covering-speak

If you want to plan/argue based solely on exceptions and what-ifs, you're right. Better?