Employers Target Obesity-Linked Health Costs

Forums: Health
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It has become quite apparent that people, over the years, are becoming heavier. Where we used to walk, we now ride. Computers and television have taken over the playtime for children once spent on athletic activities.
In addition, fast foods have become a staple in many of our families, causing an epidemic of obesity, especially in kids.

Coporations are beginning to look at the cost of health care for obese persons. They are working together to determine the extra costs that obesity brings to health care, and attempt to discover fixes.

Quote:

Employers Target Obesity-Linked Health Costs
Tue Jun 17, 5:50 PM ET
By Kim Dixon

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Fortune 500 companies from carmaker Ford Motor Co. to cereal producer General Mills Inc. said on Tuesday they will work together to fight an obesity epidemic in America that is hiking their costs.

Obesity shaves $12 billion from companies' budgets each year because of health-care costs, according to one estimate by the Washington Business Group on Health, an employer group that lobbies on health policy.

"There are a lot of interventions that work but we haven't focused on it," said Helen Darling, president of the lobbying group. "This is like smoking 30 years ago."

In response, Darling's group is setting up an institute to coordinate efforts across companies to identify costs and potential fixes. Health professionals, including officials from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites), will also take part.

The group aims to coordinate companies' fat-fighting efforts, holding joint weight-management meetings for workers, setting up a Web site to disseminate best practices about what works and what doesn't and holding a "corporate summit" to address the issue.

The employers said they had been negligent about obesity and its impact for too long.

Detroit-based Ford is the second-biggest private buyer of health care in the country, having paid about $3 billion for nearly 650,000 current and former employees' care last year, an official said.

"We're in it one way or another," said Vincent Kerr, a Ford company physician involved with the new institute.

OBESE COST MORE

From prescription drug spending to hospital costs, obese individuals account for a bigger slice of a company's health-care dollar.

For example, employers spend 77 percent more on prescription drugs for the seriously overweight, Darling said.

"I think obesity is the tsunami of the future and if we don't deal with this problem, we will all be swamped by its impact," Darling said.

Obesity is a risk factor for chronic diseases like diabetes. Employers face lost productivity, higher prescription drug costs to treat chronic ailments and more hospital stays.

Excess weight is also linked to heart disease, stroke and high blood pressure.

A high-profile lawsuit against hamburger maker McDonald's Corp., blaming the company for childhood obesity, was dismissed in January, though the restaurant industry is bracing for more lawsuits.

Employers, meanwhile, are seeing health-care costs consume a greater share of employees' benefit costs.

Total U.S. health-care spending hit $1.5 trillion for 2002, comprising roughly 15 percent of the U.S. gross national product, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The amount is expected to nearly double in the next decade.

The U.S. spends as much on these obesity-related illnesses as on conditions related to smoking, yet has neglected efforts to stem the tide, a separate report published in the journal Health Affairs, said in May.

What do you think of this? Do you think that in some point in time, a person's weight will be factored in when determining the cost of medical insurance?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,353 • Replies: 21

No top replies

I absolutely do think so. It is already in progress, and in a declining economy, corporations are looking to cut costs anywhere, and damn the consequences. I think the insurance people are on that same wavelength as well.

0 Replies

I haven't heard this, but wouldn't it be fair if health insurance was charged like auto insurance................the more claims that you make, the more it costs.

I know that health insurance increases by age, but it is really unfair to charge two people of the same age similar premiums, when one person uses very little service, and another of the same age, a lot.

My mom has an interesting HMO. She pays NO premiums, but her deductables and copayments are higher than other, similar HMOs that charge premiums. Therefore, if you don't use much service, you don't pay much, and vice versa.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Do you think that in some point in time, a person's weight will be factored in when determining the cost of medical insurance?

It already is. You can be turned down for coverage for "health reasons", a term that is so vague that it would be hard to see that weight isn't included (at least sometimes) in the calculations.

0 Replies

Well, we don't have HMOs in Canada, and on the surface, national health care looks like a good idea, but try getting into a hospital or emergency right now in Toronto if you need to. Mike Harris, in all his wisdom, closed several hospitals during his tenure as premier to cut expenses, and then boom....SARS, and look how that has turned out for us. It seems you do indeed get what you pay for.

0 Replies

When i recently took out a term life insurance policy, i went for a medical, during which the lady incorrectly measured my weight on the scale, dropping nearly 50 lbs. from my true weight. Boy did i keep my big mouth shut. I honestly told them that i smoke, because i don't want the policy in danger of cancellation. Given the fact that both my parents are living, and that the medical exam lady reported my weight incorrectly, i got a good rate on the policy.

I am reminded in all of this of the time in 1970 when the Army decided that it had too many overweight, out-of-shape soldiers, and imposed a physical training test schedule. The training nco at our hospital would likely have been hard-pressed to have passed it himself. The senior Command Sergeant Major of the Army, however, was no dummy. He had slipped in a requirement that officers take the same test--as a result, no commanding officer of whom i ever heard, pressed the requirement in his unit.

I have no problem with this, if the corporate bosses are required to take a physical performance test, and meet their own standards.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I haven't heard this, but wouldn't it be fair if health insurance was charged like auto insurance................the more claims that you make, the more it costs.

I can think of some major drawbacks to this. Parents wouldn't take their children to the doctor because they couldn't afford to and will be punished with higher premiums when they have to take them for shots that are required for school admission. I think that their are already too many people who can't afford healthcare and the overall health of the poor would decrease and disease would increase.

I do think that we need to examine who gets free healthcare. I know someone in her mid-20's who does not want to work, so she doesn't. She gets a federal grant for college and MassHealth. The only reason she doesn't have a job is because she'd rather watch TV all day. It burns me that I work all day and pay for insurance, etc. when she just sits their and basically rips me off by using tax money that could be rolled back into the system. That money should be used for healthcare for the TRULY impoverished. I'd bet that there are so many people in my state like her that if people only got free healthcare if they needed it, there would be plenty left over to subsidize healthcare for the rest of us.

Don't even get me started on her federal grant money.........gggggggggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrr............

0 Replies

Sounds like my cousin Sugar....she has received a grant to write a children's book which she never finished because she got bored. She dabbled in teaching for a while, and still fancies herself a great teacher and a great writer, but she has seen neither through to any profitable end. My wife writes, and says that she just won't get a grant next time unless she finishes something. Now my cousin does a little tutoring, sings in a "way cool" band ("you know, kinda punk, but with a cool feminist slant....I so love the Ramones")...AND she feels the need to brag about her pseudo-achievements every time the family gets together. Her mom was so proud when she got that grant, and now it is all going to waste. We don't like her very much at the moment. Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

Sugar- I am not talking about "normal & reasonable" costs. I am referring to people who have say, chronic illnessess that entail expensive testing, treatments, and hospitalizations.

If people knew that if they became very ill, it would cost them a bundle, it would open up a whole new kind of insurance that is not widely used now, catastrophic, with a very high deductable. Years ago my mother had a major major medical policy with a $15,000 deductable, over and above her regular health insurance. The premium was cheap, but it gave her peace of mind if there were any really out of the way expenses.

I am into this whole health insurance issue now, because of my personal situation. This year, my health insurance will cost over $10,000. My husband and I were kicking around an idea that we might want to get a cheaper policy with a high deductable, say $3,000-. If everything were ok, we WOULD save money that way!

0 Replies

Almost sounds like another way for some people to keep lining there pockets with gold! Another way for Corporate greed to run amuck at the expense of others. Sounds like a way to discriminate on employment and benefits. Sounds like also a way to reinforce the already image \ glamour problem we have in this society. Everything is so twisted and cock-eyed all ready!!!

Example! I went the first 22 years of my life as a strapping super jock (Pro football and Olympics bound) with never a weight problem.
Was able to run 4 miles a day (everyday), up and down stadium stairs, voted best all-around athlete, and a whole bunch of other happy crap
until one day it came to a screaming halt, 18 months of physical therapy and loads of pain that brought it all to an end and the gaining of 100 lbs.
I'm at war with the Talaban over these 100 pounds - every day is a war, only they have the play book and no how to foil my every strategy.
I feel like the heroin addict sitting in the prison of poppy fields awaiting my next fix.

I really think we're not looking at the next major discrimination vector! (this one will not care if you are black, yellow, red, or white, or even male or female, or whether you smoke or not.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

.

This year, my health insurance will cost over $10,000.

Healthcare for my family is $9,000 a year.

0 Replies

Husker- I can certainly appreciate your situation. What I was talking about are people who overload the health system with out of the norm expenses. This has nothing to do with glamour or corporate greed.

I worked for a large non-profit agency. One year an employee of mine (sadly) gave birth to a very damaged infant. The child lived a couple of months, in the hospital, before he died. The bill was over a million bucks, and this was at least 15 years ago. I understand that there were a number of catastrophes amongst employees and their families that year.

The following year, the organization had to change companies, because the insurance rates were prohibitive. We ended up with getting a more expensive plan, from another company, with less benefits!

0 Replies

Phoenix - can you explain to me how this obesity thing is different than the smoking thing?

0 Replies

Husker- The 10 grand is just for ME!

littlek- Probably not too much difference, except that there could be a much higher correlation between morbid obesity and many illnesses. I know that when a person goes for life insurance, whether they smoke is considered a factor in determining the premuim.

0 Replies

What about raising the rates for those women of child bearing years in case they smoke, drink, take drugs or have unprotected sex? Many chronic illnesses in children have been linked to prenatal damages inflicted on the fetus by the mother's life style.

Doesn't matter that they don't yet have children or don't plan to. All it takes is one wayward sperm to have a spontaneous blind date and a little whoopee with an intoxicated egg.

It makes just as much sense to me as singling out people for their body size and has just as much logic supporting it.

~Tongue not so firmly planted in cheek.

0 Replies

butrflynet - i worked for a long-term disability carrier for some years in the early 1990's. Even at that time, the actuaries could show the relationship between obesity and increased risk of a number of illnesses. I'm amazed it has taken this long to be upfront about the effect this could/will have on premiums.

I've worked at/for a number of insurance companies over the past 20+ years. Only one did not subsidize fitness programs/smoking cessation/weight loss programs. They knew what the cost of an unhealthy employee/policyholder was. The only exception was a company whose president was morbidly obese (in excess of 400 lbs.)

Women, and men, who smoke, drink and/or take drugs do have higher premiums. Being of child-bearing age isn't the factor. It's the risk-taking/illness causing factors that are rated.

0 Replies

Quote:

Women, and men, who smoke, drink and/or take drugs do have higher premiums. Being of child-bearing age isn't the factor. It's the risk-taking/illness causing factors that are rated.

Yes, but the insurance companies are missing out on an additional ding for the cash register by just limiting the penalty of higher premiums to the risk takers. They could rake in millions by also inflating premiums for the future chronic illnesses of the dependents born to those risk-takers. That risk taker is a causing factor in many of the illnesses of their children and should be included in the formula when calculating rates for coverage of dependents.

0 Replies

Instead of all of these rules and regulations by the insurance companies, why not have low rates for those who are never sick and never cost the insurance companies a penny?

Those, who are ill, should pay higher premiums, because of their histories and the possibility that they will once again cost the insurance companies money.

As each incident of illness hits a patient, let the rate increase accordingly. It makes no sense to charge the well the same premiums as the ill.

0 Replies

That is pretty much how it works, New Haven.

I was going to post a long explanation, but I think the above sentence covers it. At least to the degree I'm willing to explain it.

0 Replies

Yah well, lots of us can't afford any of it. I have hardly ever been sick all these years and now have giant insurance payments sucking away my few dollars.

Do I need to mention we are going to war and space and making space weapons in the meanwhile? I suppose I don't.

Yes, people who eat too much and do not do their exercise are at fault for not maintaining their general health, let's just whap them with unpayable costs. It is no easy thing to lose a lot of weight.

While I read about multimillion dollar boondoggles, more and more people can't afford insurance. We om the US could absorb the expense as a country if we wanted to. But people have to choose between heat in winter and insurance, in many cases.

0 Replies

Employers Target Obesity-Linked Health Costs

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know