The Alabama State Employees' Insurance Board last week approved a plan that will demand state employees who are obese or have health problems to make progress to address those issues or give a monthly charge for health insurance, the AP/Philadelphia Inquirer reports.
Under the plan, state employees must undergo a health screening at no cost by January 2010 or give a $25 monthly consign for health insurance, which all workers currently welcome at no cost. In the event that the screenings find serious problems with blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose or obesity, state employees testament have one year to visit a physician at no price, enroll in a health program or take steps on their own to improve their health. In the event that reexamination screenings do not point progress, united States Department of State employees will have to begin to pay the monthly charge in January 2011. The board will consider state employees with a BMI of at least 35 obese. The board has not determined the quantity of advance that state employees will have to make to avoid the monthly charge.
According to William Ashmore, administrator director of the indemnity board, the plan will cost an estimated $1.6 zillion next year for screenings and health programs just likely will result in significant nest egg over the long term. Ashmore said that individuals with a body pile index of 35 to 39 account for $1,748 more in annual health guardianship costs than those with a normal BMI of less than 25.
Board member Robert Wagstaff said, "We ar trying to get individuals to turn more aware of their health." Mac McArthur -- executive manager of the Alabama State Employees Association, the union that represents state employees -- called the be after "positive," only workers criticized the plan as unfair (Rawls, AP/Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/24).
Editorial
Summaries of deuce editorials around the plan appear below.
Miami Herald: The plan is a "bad approach to an confessedly worrisome problem," a Herald editorial states. "Yes, it is a good estimation to encourage employees to improve their health, grow in condition, be fit," the editorial states, adding, "However, being overweight -- even weighty -- is not necessarily linked to one's diet" and frequently is "more than about genes. The editorial states, "This is a situation where the cultivated carrot is punter than the stick" because a plan that offers rewards for "improvement creates positive incentives and good karma," adding, "Assessing a cash penalty for lack of melioration ... can make for, but at that place may non be wide buy-in of the concept." In addition, "many hoi polloi who ar of 'average' weight ar afflicted with the kind of medical issues ... typically associated with obesity," the editorial states. "If the concern is about poor health, why not focus on wellness issues rather of system of weights?" the editorial states (Miami Herald, 8/25).
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: The plan is "extreme," simply "is anyone really surprised?" a Democrat and Chronicle editorial states. The editorial adds, "With health care costs continuing to volute, it was just a matter of time before employers took out the hammer to achieve nest egg." According to the editorial, "this thomas Nelson Page would rather see incentives that reward healthy behaviors" because some "people are genetically predisposed" to obesity. However, the editorial concludes, "there is no denying that, when Alabama has a population that ranks only second to Mississippi in obesity, exceptional measures are necessary" (Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, 8/26).
Reprinted with tolerant permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You tin can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for electronic mail delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.
