A new report by The Conference Board, a business research group, says that obese employees cost U.S. private employers an estimated $45 billion annually in medical expenditures and work loss. Obesity is associated with a 36 percent increase in employer spending on healthcare services, more than smoking or problem drinking. And considering that two-thirds of American adults are either overweight or obese, a lot of your workforce is not ready to put down their lattes to work on their lats.
Are companies strong enough to run the moral marathon of dealing with the obesity epidemic in the workplace? Should businesses and organizations penalize or incentivize to cut back on the super-size lifestyle Americans love? Employees were outraged when Clarian, the Indianapolis health system, proposed charging its workers extra for insurance if they let health risks such as smoking, obesity or high cholesterol go unchecked. That was a pretty aggressive move for an organization Clarian’s size, let alone one in the overweight, tobacco-addicted, sedentary Midwest. For now anyway, the plan seems to be a no-go, because it raised concerns about whether employers can or should penalize someone who has a pre-existing or inherited condition.
To me, the real dilemma is the high percentage of Americans who won’t accept responsibility for their own actions. Those who say, “It’s just so convenient to pick up dinner for me and my kids at McDonald’s.” Why should I pay more for my family’s healthcare because I work alongside people who make bad choices? I shouldn’t. I would welcome a wellness plan that helps cut my healthcare costs and encourages people to make healthier choices.
Would you?
Posts
The operative word is “unchecked.” If employees are unwilling to voluntarily participate in weight lose or smoking cessation programs, I see no reason why they should not be required as a condition of their continued health insurance coverage. It is true that one cannot control an inherited condition such as a propensity to weight gain but it is not too much to require an employee to take up arms against a sea of troubles. Not only does the company stand to control costs but much more importantly the employee stands to improve their life expectancy and quality. Clarian’s unwillingness to follow through is troubling. If the health care industry is unwilling to lead in matters of health care, who will.
There’s potentially a problem that underscores a lot of workplace issues, and they may have underlying emotional/mental health issues, like depression and anxiety disorders. Treating these helps smokers and the obese. But that’s a subject that’s rarely touched upon.
Wellness ought to be holistic, and these underlying problems are much wider than just workplace issues.
Sometimes depression and anxiety are transient, other times they become habits and downward, seemingly permanent spirals. I don’t think it’s ethical to treat one without the other, cognitively and up-front.
Just my 2c.
The problem with making people with risky behaviors pay more for healthcare is defining risky behaviors. Smoking and obesity may seem obvious, but what about reckless drivers? Are you going to charge my co-workers who speed and don’t use turn signals more than I pay? What about my co-workers who own guns? Who don’t have smoke detectors in their homes? Who stay with an abusive boyfriend? Whose spouses are convenience-store clerks or lumberjacks? Trying to make employers legislate personal responsibility to cut healthcare costs is just another example of how screwed-up our healthcare system is.
I’m quite certain I don’t know what the answer is. On the one hand, I’d say it makes sense to try to impact what has become an epidemic of obesity in this country. There was an article in Newsweek just this week about the growing number of toddlers who are being put on diets; when obesity starts at age 2, it could very well be a lifelong struggle.
On the other hand, Liz makes a good point that it’s a slippery slope to invoke consequences for one set of behaviors but not others.
I’ll add another perspective - there’s an argument to be made that it can be more expensive to eat healthy. And while that is my opinion, I coincidentally found a report on that very topic today - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27426596/. If economics play a part in how parents mean-plan for their families, maybe the approach should be education instead of punishment. Maybe some people don’t know how to provide healthy meals for themselves or their families on their budget. Offering nutritional classes at company expense may help expose employees to options that would lead to healthier diets and lifestyles, and by default would impact the healthcare costs for their employers (and themselves).
This reminds me of Justice Stewart’s famous statement about obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” It makes me wonder we are able to remove ourselves from our complacency and acknowledge that obesity is in fact a plague on our societal health. If I am being honest with myself I will admit that when I see a parent smoking in a minivan with the windows rolled up and children passengers I gasp with judgment; however, when I see a clearly obese parent in a minivan not smoking, but rather pulling through a McDonald’s drive through, passing sodas and burgers back to their children I have a much less pointed reaction. From what Ike is saying, maybe it is time for all of us to ‘man up’ and take a stand about our own personal accountability and begin to acknowledge the damage by “knowing it when we see it.” For many, it is easy to remain a non-smoker in front of our children, but not nearly as easy (or simply not as convenient) to do what is right for dinner.