Early January this year, two huge health systems will go beyond refusing to hire smokers, by their employees from tobacco smoke did not to smell at work.
Although refuse, smoking is nothing new for rent and a many years growing practice since, is this is one of the first companies, the staff even smell of tobacco smoke, saying man, the modern non-smoking civil rights movement by the first ever smoking restricted and then banned in airplanes and then in many workplaces and public facilities started to ban.
Henry Ford health system and Beaumont health system in Detroit are Oakwood Healthcare System in Dearborn, Crittenton Hospital Medical Center in Rochester and the Lansing-based Sparrow health system in a prohibition of smoking and those from tobacco smoke smells.
Previously, Baylor health care system in Texas, the Hollywood Casino in Toledo, Ohio, and Geisinger health system in Pennsylvania joined many other companies in following FORBES proposal - "don't hire smokers" - and thus save perhaps $11,000 per worker.
Public interest law professor John Banzhaf, helped start the trend says still more employers of this escalating trend would follow, if they know how easy it was to avoid so-called smokers rights laws and defend them in court.
Although estimates of the cost savings vary by thousands of dollars per year per employee, and upwards, closed a judge, testimony about the matter under oath to get that a typical smoker of his employer can cost over $11,000 per year (in 2012 dollars) says Prof. Banzhaf, the George Washington University law school, the legal proceedings took part.
In addition to slashing costs - spent, which otherwise be borne by non-smoking employees in the form of reduced health care coverage or lower salaries would have to - deal have employees who smoke can present many companies about the negative image.
This is why the trend most health companies, says Banzhaf, which suggests that patients are often disabled if treated by a doctor, a nurse or other professional smelling of tobacco smoke, or simply employees see on hospital premises, smoking. The same reaction can occur, the encounter with smoking employees or insurance smell of smoke, in gyms, wellness, advice centres, etc..
But especially with rising costs and ensure that costs under health reform, companies as diverse as Alaska Airlines, the Union Pacific railroad company, will go still higher-based advantages and Scotts Miracle-Gro have Kalamazoo Community College in Michigan, Walters, a management company Michigan - including the World Health Organization - simply no longer hire smokers. In fact celebrated facing the future of CBS-TV of Scott's policy as a "national model" and a "new reality".
Many employers are reluctant to reset setting smokers, wrong to believe that it constitutes unlawful discrimination. But notes law professor Banzhaf, is it except in those States that have so-called non-smokers rights laws, completely legal because as a smoker - in contrast to black, female, etc.-is not an immutable characteristic, and many courts have confirmed such policies, whether by private companies or even government agencies, which are the State and federal constitutions.
Chris Kuzynski says federal laws that allow the practice because they recognize non-smoking as a protected class, with the U.S. equal employment opportunity Commission.
Even in States with non-smokers rights laws of the statutes are rarely if ever enforced, and also loopholes, Babe, and the American Medical Association (AMA) have pointed out.
There are also many opportunities to achieve a Smokerfree staff - staff - similar medication without violating any of these rules, says Banzhaf.
The AMA American Medical News pointed out, even if outright reject employer State laws prohibit, to stop smoking, breaks no law requires, for example, companies offer smoking or smoke anywhere allow companies ownership outdoors on your own premises or campus in cars in company parking lots, etc.. So, when permitted in practice not smoking breaks and prohibition of smoking anywhere on the premises (in the car), is all put off probably but most definitely smoking by the use or remaining employees.
There is another approach, which has been successfully used for many years in New Hampshire (which has a human rights law's smoker), someone comes on the property that has detectable smell of tobacco smoke residue on him, to prohibit. A smoker is ready, bathing, shampoo, clothes, change, brush his teeth and use mouthwash after every cigarette not he can probably fulfil these strict workplace and don't have hired or employed, even though the law notes Banzhaf.
Also many smokers have rights laws only very limited protection. Some, for example, only prohibit companies "no smoking" a condition of employment, and prohibit smoking less, with fewer benefits, pay etc.
Also apply some smokers rights statute only for government workers to leave by private companies no smoking set. Other statutes apply for and protect only current employees, allows companies to a "non-smoking" policy for future employees to adopt an option with so very qualified unemployed workers, many in the competition for a limited number of positions could be particularly attractive.
Furthermore, Babe, takes some smokers rights laws specifically companies allow to charge smokers more for health insurance. Under federal law can smokers charged more for their health insurance without having a significant advantage for small businesses which may not the many loads are valid would meet a company of the many requirements of "Wellness programs", the increased generally for other health problems such as obesity - the qualification. This is because, in a legal decision obtained by Prof. Banzhaf, the Federal Government determined that while obesity as a "Health" or "Disease" was classified, smoking is simply a "behavior" with the title no legal protection.
In fact at least 40% of large and medium-sized companies - until by 19% in 2011 and only 8% in the year 2009-smoking so much free more than non-smokers expected to to rise like $2000 annually in 2012 for their health insurance with the percentage to almost 50% by 2016.
JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E, J.D.., SC.d.
Professor of public interest law
George Washington University law school,
FAMRI Dr. William c distinguished Professor,.
Fellow, world technology network,
Founder, action on smoking and health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052, United States
(202) 994-7229 / / (703) 527-8418
http://Banzhaf.NET/ @profbanzhaf
View the original article here
Showing posts with label Smokers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Smokers. Show all posts
Smokers Charged 14% More – Soon 50% More – For Health Insurance
Smokers are already being charged 14%-22% more for their health insurance than comparable nonsmokers, a figure likely to rise to 50% as provided for under Obamacare as companies try to avoid unhealthy clients, suggests the Associated Press.
An ehealth survey shows that smokers pay an average monthly premium of $213, which is 14% higher than nonsmokers, and that female smokers pay a monthly premium of $247, which is fully 22% higher than a comparable premium for nonsmoking women, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf.
Under the Obamacare statute, smokers may be charged a premium which is 50% higher – over $5,000 a year more in some cases – than a comparable one for nonsmokers; a provision many point out will help companies to avoid insuring – and then being forced to pay for – those most likely to have very high health care costs. As an Associated Press [AP] article explains:
"Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation. Although the law prohibits insurance companies from turning away the sick, the penalties for smokers could have the same effect in many cases, keeping out potentially costly patients.
‘If you are an insurer and there is a group of smokers you don't want in your pool, the ones you really don't want are the ones who have been smoking for 20 or 30 years,' said Karen Pollitz, an expert on individual health insurance markets with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. 'You would have the flexibility to discourage them.'"
Clearly and quite properly, smoking has being singled out over other health concerns, says Banzhaf, who lobbied for the “little-noted provision in the massive legislation.”As the AP reports: "Insurers won't be allowed to charge more under the overhaul for people who are overweight, or have a health condition like a bad back or a heart that skips beats, but they can charge [up to 50%] more if a person smokes."
That's because, says Banzhaf, according to a major federal ruling he obtained in 2004, obesity is a "health status" which is protected by law, whereas being a smoking is only a “behavior” entitled to no legal protection. Interestingly, there will be strong economic pressure for companies to impose the full 50% smoker surcharge: "Robert Laszewski, a consultant who previously worked in the insurance industry, says there's a good reason to charge the maximum. 'If you don't charge the 50 percent, your competitor is going to do it, and you are going to get a disproportionate share of the less-healthy older smokers,' said Laszewski. "They [the insurance companies] are going to have to play defense.'"
In lobbying for the smoker surcharge, Banzhaf argued to Congress that it is only fair to charge smokers more than nonsmokers for health insurance because they and their smoking create huge and totally unnecessary costs for our health care system and our economy – over $300 billion a year. So, he says, it's simply a matter of imposing personal responsibility on adults for their own health, something both President Obama and opponents of his reforms argued was necessary to begin bringing down the huge and unnecessary costs of medical care in this country.
Indeed, failing to charge different rates forces the overwhelming majority of the insured to subsidize the bad choices made by the small minority who exercise their personal responsibility by remaining smokers, Banzhaf argues. If, under the Obamacare legislation, insurers can charge older people more for a condition (their age) which they can neither change nor avoid, it's certainly fair to charge smokers more for a condition (smoking) which they can both change and avoid, he says.
In addition Banzhaf argued to Congress, making smoking more expensive is one of the most effective ways – and certainly the least expensive way – to reduce ballooning health care costs, since it provides a very powerful and immediate incentive to help smokers do what most already want to do: quit, and thereby slash the health care costs they impose on their insurance company,
Public education campaigns, cessation programs, and other interventions may help people to quit but cost lots of money, whereas smoker surcharges – like higher cigarette taxes and smoking bans in workplaces and public places – are both more effective at reducing smoking, and cost taxpayers nothing.
It's also becoming clear, he notes, that trying to reduce health care costs by just tinkering around the margins – e.g., by digitizing medical records, or using novel reimbursement schemes or better protocols for treating diseases, etc. – can bring down medical care costs only marginally, and that the only significant savings come from preventing diseases.
It's always much less expensive to prevent diseases like heart attacks, strokes, cancers, etc. in the first place than to find slightly more efficient ways to treat them once they have occurred, he notes.
In short, if we wish to reduce the largest single preventable and unnecessary expense and drain on our entire entitlement system, we have to start getting serious about smoking and smokers.
JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/ @profbanzhaf
View the original article here
An ehealth survey shows that smokers pay an average monthly premium of $213, which is 14% higher than nonsmokers, and that female smokers pay a monthly premium of $247, which is fully 22% higher than a comparable premium for nonsmoking women, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf.
Under the Obamacare statute, smokers may be charged a premium which is 50% higher – over $5,000 a year more in some cases – than a comparable one for nonsmokers; a provision many point out will help companies to avoid insuring – and then being forced to pay for – those most likely to have very high health care costs. As an Associated Press [AP] article explains:
"Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation. Although the law prohibits insurance companies from turning away the sick, the penalties for smokers could have the same effect in many cases, keeping out potentially costly patients.
‘If you are an insurer and there is a group of smokers you don't want in your pool, the ones you really don't want are the ones who have been smoking for 20 or 30 years,' said Karen Pollitz, an expert on individual health insurance markets with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. 'You would have the flexibility to discourage them.'"
Clearly and quite properly, smoking has being singled out over other health concerns, says Banzhaf, who lobbied for the “little-noted provision in the massive legislation.”As the AP reports: "Insurers won't be allowed to charge more under the overhaul for people who are overweight, or have a health condition like a bad back or a heart that skips beats, but they can charge [up to 50%] more if a person smokes."
That's because, says Banzhaf, according to a major federal ruling he obtained in 2004, obesity is a "health status" which is protected by law, whereas being a smoking is only a “behavior” entitled to no legal protection. Interestingly, there will be strong economic pressure for companies to impose the full 50% smoker surcharge: "Robert Laszewski, a consultant who previously worked in the insurance industry, says there's a good reason to charge the maximum. 'If you don't charge the 50 percent, your competitor is going to do it, and you are going to get a disproportionate share of the less-healthy older smokers,' said Laszewski. "They [the insurance companies] are going to have to play defense.'"
In lobbying for the smoker surcharge, Banzhaf argued to Congress that it is only fair to charge smokers more than nonsmokers for health insurance because they and their smoking create huge and totally unnecessary costs for our health care system and our economy – over $300 billion a year. So, he says, it's simply a matter of imposing personal responsibility on adults for their own health, something both President Obama and opponents of his reforms argued was necessary to begin bringing down the huge and unnecessary costs of medical care in this country.
Indeed, failing to charge different rates forces the overwhelming majority of the insured to subsidize the bad choices made by the small minority who exercise their personal responsibility by remaining smokers, Banzhaf argues. If, under the Obamacare legislation, insurers can charge older people more for a condition (their age) which they can neither change nor avoid, it's certainly fair to charge smokers more for a condition (smoking) which they can both change and avoid, he says.
In addition Banzhaf argued to Congress, making smoking more expensive is one of the most effective ways – and certainly the least expensive way – to reduce ballooning health care costs, since it provides a very powerful and immediate incentive to help smokers do what most already want to do: quit, and thereby slash the health care costs they impose on their insurance company,
Public education campaigns, cessation programs, and other interventions may help people to quit but cost lots of money, whereas smoker surcharges – like higher cigarette taxes and smoking bans in workplaces and public places – are both more effective at reducing smoking, and cost taxpayers nothing.
It's also becoming clear, he notes, that trying to reduce health care costs by just tinkering around the margins – e.g., by digitizing medical records, or using novel reimbursement schemes or better protocols for treating diseases, etc. – can bring down medical care costs only marginally, and that the only significant savings come from preventing diseases.
It's always much less expensive to prevent diseases like heart attacks, strokes, cancers, etc. in the first place than to find slightly more efficient ways to treat them once they have occurred, he notes.
In short, if we wish to reduce the largest single preventable and unnecessary expense and drain on our entire entitlement system, we have to start getting serious about smoking and smokers.
JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/ @profbanzhaf
View the original article here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)