As our state struggles with how to fix the State Health Plan's potential $1+ billion funding shortfall, our neighbors in South Carolina are looking at a measure that would charge obese state employees more for their health coverage.
The bill says that any person with a Body Mass Index (BMI) greater than 30 would be charged $25 per month extra for their health coverage. Although the bill sponsor now says he is going to rework the bill to reward healthy employees rather than punish overweight workers. Still an idea that has merit.
This follows another bill South Carolina passed last year that charges state employees who smoke more for their health insurance.
Certainly interesting ideas to consider as our state grapples with how to fix the State Health Plan. With state employees not paying any premiums for their health coverage, there is no financial incentive for them to live healthy lifestyles. They can be overweight, smoke or do whatever and the taxpayers are going to pick up the tab for their health care.
Shouldn't North Carolina lawmakers look at some similar proposals here to try and not only save money, but maybe save a few lives while their at it?
Instead of just pouring more money into a broken system in the State Health Plan lawmakers should take this opportunity to fundamentally change the program and give state employees a greater financial interest in their health — whether that is through Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) or cash incentives for certain healthy benchmarks. What we do know however, is continuing a system where the person being covered has no financial interest in the solvency of the system is doomed for failure.
I know you’re up in arms about the fact that NC state employees don’t pay insurance premiums, but let’s take a step back and address it as two different issues.
I think that if you were going to look at obesity as a factor for an increased premium, you’d also need to look at other health risk factors…smoking, alcohol consumption, dangerous recreational sports, illegal drug use…the list goes on and on.
If you want to start looking at one health risk factor, it seems that you should be looking at all of them. It seems to be a slippery slope to me.
Then there’s the argument about whether BMI is a useful measurement of one’s health.
If someone is using illegal drugs they don’t need to be a taxpayer-paid employee.
Yes, we should look at multiple factors, but the two most expensive voluntary activities that contribute to increased health care costs are smoking and obesity.
So why not incentivize those employees (either through carrots or sticks) to not only live healthier lifestyles for themselves but also save the taxpayers some money too.
I’m 6’4″ and to have a BMI under 30 I’d have to weigh 247 pounds. I was 6’4″ and 240 when I was 12. My bones are dense and my muscles are big. I see this as discrimination based on something I have no control over.
I also have low blood pressure and cholestorol so if I get a mark down for that to off set the BMI penalty, I’m fine with that.
I’d rather see state employees have to buy insurance on the open market like the rest of us. They should privatize state retirement while they are at it. I’m sure we’d save a lot of tax money that way.
I deal with the State Health Plan everyday. I fully understand setting limits for a healthier lifestyle. As for employees buying insurance on the open market life everyone else, when you pay me like everyone else on the “open market” I will be glad to pay for my insurance. My open market salary is $110,000 instead of the current $60,000 that I make. As for state retirement it is a mandatory 6% deduction from my payroll check.
I see a very slippery slope here. I don’t like the state being involved in anything that examines so intimately the personal choices and lifestyles of citizens. Plus, the very purpose of insurance is to spread the risk around so that those who are at higher risk—for whatever reason—are not faced with exorbitant costs. There is something else to consider, as morbid as it may sound, those who are obese or who smoke have shorter life spans than others. Therefore there is much less expense having to do with often very expensive healthcare related to old age. I wonder how that figures into the cost of living an unhealthy lifestyle.
To cuts costs, I would much rather return to a time when insurance did not cover every little ailment, every trip to the Dr.’s office, and every single prescription. Insurance is—or at least was—intended for more catastrophic expenses. Cutting the extravagance of health insurance should be looked at first.