Another rant on CVS, healthcare, ObamaCare and more

Invading your privacy or promoting good health?  That is the question on which the argument over the new policy of CVS/Caremark involving employee health insurance turns.  The policy is that starting in May, employees who refuse to take part in a voluntary “wellness screening” program will pay a $50 per month surcharge to participate in the company’s health insurance plan.

A few facts first.  The information will not be given to the company itself.  A third party vendor will manage the data. 

The program is voluntary.  Employees can choose to get the screenings or they can choose to pay the surcharge.

Starting May 1, 2014, the CVS/Caremark program will require employees to be either tobacco-free or to be taking part in the company’s tobacco-cessation program.  But smokers who refuse to try to quit can avoid penalties if they meet other health benchmarks.

A survey by the National Business Group on Health showed that in 2011, 79% of employers offered health assessments at that time, and 76% of those employers offered incentives for completion.

“ObamaCare” made the “surcharge” legal.

So is this fair?  Absolutely.  Studies show that high blood pressure, obesity, smoking, and other “controllable” conditions add to the cost of providing health insurance.  Now there are some people who are overweight through no fault of their own.  But they are the exception, rather than the rule.  As someone who has struggled with weight for more than two decades now, I know it is something I have a lot of control over. 

Is it invasive?  Maybe.  But if an employee is going to use cocaine in their off-hours, as long as it doesn’t influence their performance on the job, is it their employer’s business?  Yes.  Because it involves raising the cost to provide healthcare for that employee.  Cocaine use involves higher rates of heart disease, lung damage and more health risks.  Why should an employer be forced to subsidize that behavior’s negative effects?  The same can be said of smoking and most cases of obesity.

Like it or not, the cost of health care in this nation is rising faster than our ability to foot the bill.  Unless we find ways to try to control these costs, eventually they will bankrupt us.  Individually and then as a nation.  Wellness programs are a step in the right direction.

It comes back to my tirades about pre-existing conditions and the difference between providing insurance against known risks and unknown risks.  An automobile insurer doesn’t know that you will or won’t have an accident during a specific policy year.  A health insurer knows that if you have certain pre-existing conditions, you will have expenses for them every single year.  Is it truly fair to force them to provide coverage for those expenses without factoring in the known risk into the premium equation?  Who is supposed to bear this cost, if the answer to that question is that it is fair?

The answer is, shared risk.  If everyone is in the risk pool, the risk is spread over a wider population and the costs go down.  I have an idea.  We’ll change Obamacare.  People who don’t want to purchase insurance for themselves by January 1^st of next year don’t have to.  There will be no financial penalty.  But they give up their right to purchase insurance in the future without pre-existing conditions being factored into the premium equation.  Further, they agree they will pay a higher level of Medicare premiums when they finally qualify for the program.  So opt-in now, or opt-out permanently.