Fired for Lying About Being a Smoker

[Pangloss]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=4712330&page=1

 

Apparently more and more employers are taking a hard line about heathcare. Some companies refuse to hire smokers, for example. But what this story is about is a case in which employees stated on their applications that they were non-smokers (in order to get a healthcare discount), and then we seen smoking outside a building on company premises.

 

To me that seems like a pretty clear-cut case of fraud, but the larger issue of employers screening applicants over healthy practices is one for concern, given the way it's based on medical information that can often be rapidly developing or not fully understood, such as the use of certain medications, or the links between other kinds of behavior (besides smoking) and health effects (like obesity and cancer).

 

We could see, for example, employers firing employees who spent more than the company-permitted (insurance-guided) amount of time on the beach working on their tans, or forgot to use the company-mandated suntan lotion in the correct amount. Or ate at Kentucky Fried Chicken. What's the difference?

[iNow]

Some are clearly articulated in the employers contract to be restricted and/or disallowed activities and behaviors, others are not. When the employee signs that contract upon hire, they agree to follow it's dictates and accept the consequences when they do not.

[Pangloss]

In many cases these rules are changed after the employees are hired, and forced on existing employees based on the requirements of the health insurance provider. Employees can seek employment elsewhere, but if all employers are doing the same thing, for the same reasons, then that produces a situation where you can't get work because of your habits in eating, drinking, vacations, etc.

 

This just underscores, IMO, the need to separate healthcare from employment.

[Phi for All]

What's the difference?

I'm going to go with the Surgeon General's warnings. So far they're just on cigarette packs, but give them time, they may extend to the Colonel.

 

I see your concern but as long as the company's policies are spelled out before an applicant signs on, the company should have the right to enforce them. On the other hand, if we had national healthcare, it might be less nettlesome and intrusive in the personal lives of employee/citizens.

[swansont]

In many cases these rules are changed after the employees are hired, and forced on existing employees based on the requirements of the health insurance provider. Employees can seek employment elsewhere, but if all employers are doing the same thing, for the same reasons, then that produces a situation where you can't get work because of your habits in eating, drinking, vacations, etc.

 

This just underscores, IMO, the need to separate healthcare from employment.

 

Is it that they can't get work, or they can't get work without paying extra, because they have a higher premium?

 

———

There are studies that purport to show that low-risk people don't necessarily have a lower cost for health-care because they live longer. Older people have higher health-care costs, in general, which becomes the dominant term.

 

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050029

[Phi for All]

Do any other countries have healthcare spending that even nears what the US does? I remember reading a report from 2005 that said it was 16% of our GDP.

[ecoli]

I think the legal implications turn into a semantics argument... what the hell is a "smoker" anyway?

 

If I smoke one cigarette per year, that's not likely to affect my health much. Or, if I casually smoke Hookah with friends, every one in a while (which I don't think is nearly as bad for you as cigarettes). Where's the line?

[insane_alien]

i would think it would mean a regular smoker rather than an occasional smoker. but there should definitely be a clarification such as 'a smoker is defined to be some who smokes x cigarettes(or equivalent) per y amount of time'

[ecoli]

i would think it would mean a regular smoker rather than an occasional smoker. but there should definitely be a clarification such as 'a smoker is defined to be some who smokes x cigarettes(or equivalent) per y amount of time'

 

don't you just love the arbitrary-ness.

[ParanoiA]

Excellent observation ecoli, I hadn't really considered what constitutes a "smoker" before.

 

I'm with Pangloss on this, definitely is a good argument for separating our employers from our healthcare. And that does NOT imply an argument for national healthcare.

[Pangloss]

Is it that they can't get work, or they can't get work without paying extra, because they have a higher premium?

 

The former -- according to the ABC News article I linked above, many companies are now refusing to hire smokers, for example, not just opting them out of healthcare. What's not clear to me at the moment is why they can't hire them and just opt them out of healthcare, or charge them more money, but that's what they said. (Actually I'm assuming it was in the article; they said it in the video piece. Maybe they're just wrong? It does seem like a non-sequitur, I admit, or perhaps the reporter didn't realize it was a moral policy rather than an insurance-derived mandate.)

 

 

There are studies that purport to show that low-risk people don't necessarily have a lower cost for health-care because they live longer. Older people have higher health-care costs, in general, which becomes the dominant term.

 

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050029

 

Very interesting.

 

I've always felt that a lot of what happens in the insurance industry is only very loosely tied with actual statistics. Actuarial science may be a perfectly healthy and valid academic study, but the people who run the companies may not adhere to it, understand it, etc. I've met people who work very high up in that business, often working for them as a consultant, and some of them can barely spell MBA, much less read an actuarial table, and yet are responsible for setting policy.

 

 

I think the legal implications turn into a semantics argument... what the hell is a "smoker" anyway?

 

We should get KLB back in here. I tried to make that argument a couple of years ago and it didn't go over real well -- he linked a bunch of studies showing how it almost didn't matter how much you smoked, just that you smoked at all. The thread should still be in here somewhere.

[Daecon]

If they lie about something like being a smoker, what else would they feel it's okay to lie about?

[Pangloss]

I got a letter from my employer's health insurance carrier today saying that I have to prove my marriage is legitimate, and not a "domestic partnership" or common-law arrangement. Failure to do so will result not only in loss of coverage (unprotected by COBRA?!) but loss of employment. (Presumably under the same reasoning as above, which I guess I can understand.) I really hate it when my employer digs into my personal life like this -- it just does not seem like any of their business.

 

I guess I'll have to dig out my marriage license. I'm not even sure I have one, but the wife says we got something from the state of Florida around here somwhere. (She screamed "You're not getting off that easy!" and dashed off to a closet somewhere. <grin>)

[bascule]

If they lie about something like being a smoker, what else would they feel it's okay to lie about?

 

Ostensibly, anything that secures them benefits?

[swansont]

The former -- according to the ABC News article I linked above, many companies are now refusing to hire smokers, for example, not just opting them out of healthcare. What's not clear to me at the moment is why they can't hire them and just opt them out of healthcare, or charge them more money, but that's what they said. (Actually I'm assuming it was in the article; they said it in the video piece. Maybe they're just wrong? It does seem like a non-sequitur, I admit, or perhaps the reporter didn't realize it was a moral policy rather than an insurance-derived mandate.)

 

 

Interesting.

 

Very interesting.

 

I've always felt that a lot of what happens in the insurance industry is only very loosely tied with actual statistics. Actuarial science may be a perfectly healthy and valid academic study, but the people who run the companies may not adhere to it, understand it, etc. I've met people who work very high up in that business, often working for them as a consultant, and some of them can barely spell MBA, much less read an actuarial table, and yet are responsible for setting policy.

 

Of course from a company's perspective, if they aren't on the hook for insurance costs until you die, but only until you retire, it's better to hire nonsmokers and thin people. But if you are contributing all the way through retirement, then it's not. You also have the added "bonus" of less pension payed out, for higher-risk people, if that's the retirement plan they have in place. I can't imagine some cold-hearted what-matters-is-the-bottom-line execs haven't already done the math on this.

[john5746]

Of course from a company's perspective, if they aren't on the hook for insurance costs until you die, but only until you retire, it's better to hire nonsmokers and thin people. But if you are contributing all the way through retirement, then it's not. You also have the added "bonus" of less pension payed out, for higher-risk people, if that's the retirement plan they have in place. I can't imagine some cold-hearted what-matters-is-the-bottom-line execs haven't already done the math on this.

 

CEO's and stockholders are usually looking in the near term. They could take benefits away from retirees in the future anyway. Also, time lost from work and being less productive would be considerations also. It's also politically correct to bash smoking in many places - good marketing and employee incentive(for non-smokers).

 

I have seen several places - especially universities, ban smoking on site and within 500 feet? of campus. This really tells smokers not to apply IMO.