CVS to weigh workers

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
Closed Thread
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 03-23-2013, 03:07 PM
Bucco Bucco is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,162
Thanks: 154
Thanked 1,431 Times in 483 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JourneyOfLife View Post
These practices have been going on in the private industry for years. Nothing new... unless of course you are talking about government funded programs!

Besides, it is not a penalty, it is called underwriting and rating. Common procedures in the insurance industry... always has been!!!!

Why shouldn't the government adopt practices that are common in private industry? Would you rather they jack up premium across the board for everyone?
I am not passing judgement on anyone or anything. I am simply stating that this companies actions will not stand alone. I might add that the law if you read it makes punishment instead of incentive the action word.

If you read todays NYTimes, I think this law is not getting to law very easily as the health costs are getting higher and higher

For clarification, as I understand it, CVS employees could gain incentives on their health care in the past and those who did not do what was asked just got NO incentives.

NOW....they will pay......

"A new policy by CVS Pharmacy requires every one of its nearly 200,000 employees who use its health plan to submit their weight, body fat, glucose levels and other vitals or pay a monthly fine.

Employees who agree to this testing will see no change in their health insurance rates, but those who refuse will have to pay an extra $50 per month — or $600 per year — for the company’s health insurance program. All employees have until May 1, 2014, to make an appointment with a doctor and record their vitals.


“The approach they’re taking is based on the assumption that somehow these people need a whip, they need to be penalized in order to make themselves healthy,” Patient Privacy Rights founder Dr. Deborah Peel said."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2...ll-pay-a-fine/



Critics are calling the policy coercion, and worrying that CVS or any other company might start firing sick workers."



My only point was that this company is not alone in changing the landscape and quickly as the law will force them to punish instead of reward and that the law, if you read it unlike those who passed it, you will find a number of changes on the horizon for everyone !

NO JUDGEMENT...JUST STATING FACTS that save the surprise on what CVS is doing for maybe the other costly items to come !!!

Again, not passing judgement ...simply calling to attention that lots of tentacles to this act that most have no read and will not until it hits them int he pocket book or some other way
  #62  
Old 03-23-2013, 03:15 PM
rubicon rubicon is offline
Email Reported As Spam
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,699
Thanks: 0
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cisco Kid View Post
Is this what you saw about health insurance

Health Insurers Warn on Premiums - WSJ.com
Cisco Kid: I have subscribed to WSJ for many years and Yes the article is one of many the Journal published.

I am sick and tired of the government interference
  #63  
Old 03-23-2013, 09:16 PM
Bucco Bucco is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,162
Thanks: 154
Thanked 1,431 Times in 483 Posts
Default

I am hoping this is not considered political....it certainly falls under current events as it may be one of the most serious problems facing the country, but with the conversation about CVS, it appears that many have not read about this bill and I implore you to read because you WILL be shocked as these things begin to take affect and it may behove you to understand WHY all is happening.

Keep in mind that TODAY, the Senate voted to not allow an ammendent proposed to keep illegal immigrants who may get a green card from receiving government health benefits. We are not speaking of folks who came legally but those who are here now illegally for whatever length of time and it appears our Senate would like to reward them with federal healthcare immediately upon getting "legal".

While companies like CVS struggle to meet the mandates and costs of the bill, imagine the cost when immigration reform is introduced because this bill had NO cost for them in it thus the already heavy taxes proposed will not be sufficient, and the folks in this class of illegals represent a large portion of the unemployed.

Again, the thread questions CVS, and this is just the beginning of lots of ramifications. CVS is simply doing what they need to do.

This is probably better served on its on thread on this bill, but the questions on CVS raise a very serious point and that is that we, the citizens of this country have no idea of what is ahead as a result and I applaud CVS, perhaps not for the contents of their rules, but their foresight in getting prepared.

"The Senate’s bipartisan immigration working group split along party lines during a contentious budget vote to prevent illegal immigrants who receive legal status from receiving federal health benefits.

The Senate early Saturday morning defeated the amendment to the budget resolution which would have put the Senate on record as opposing access to health care under Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act for undocumented immigrants who get a green card."


Immigration Vote Splits Gang of 8 : Roll Call News

Here is one example of something required by the bill but never funded and someone has to pay...

"WASHINGTON — One of the biggest threats to the success of President Obama’s health care law comes from shortages of doctors, nurses and other health care professionals. But a 15-member commission created to investigate the problem has never met in two and a half years because it has no money from Congress or the administration. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/he...t-waiting.html

This bill has many many redeeming qualities but was very ill conceived for the wrong reasons and I submit that the CVS news is simply the tip of many more surprising things to occur.

The liink from CISCO KID also addresses some of the costs to come......and if you didnt read the link, here is an portion and I hope that all of this makes folks actually find out what else besides CVS is coming.

"Health insurers are privately warning brokers that premiums for many individuals and small businesses could increase sharply next year because of the health-care overhaul law, with the nation's biggest firm projecting that rates could more than double for some consumers buying their own plans."

By the way, my links and CISCO's link are NOT old news...from TODAY !
  #64  
Old 03-23-2013, 10:09 PM
Geewiz's Avatar
Geewiz Geewiz is offline
Eternal Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 449
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Hey, why not extend the concept to Medicare? These are valuable tax dollars - any poor health practices should exclude you from receiving these funds. Smokers, drinkers, and the obese should be put on a program and correct their poor health practices, or their co-pays should be adjusted upward. Moreover, folks who didn't work and pay into the system should be denied benefits even though their spouse paid in as the spouse only paid for himself/herself. Also, the last 12 months of life use a disproportionate amount of Medicare resources. I say - cut'em off.
__________________
________________
R.I.P. Gary...you will be sorely missed

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
  #65  
Old 03-23-2013, 10:16 PM
skyc6 skyc6 is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 517
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovsthosebigdogs View Post
Is this the same CVS that has shelves filled with candy bunnies, jelly beans, sugar cereals, greasy snacks like potato chips and faux healthy ones like popcorn with 13 grams of fat per serving, cases filled with sugared soda, high energy boosting drinks that make people's hearts race to name a few of the other unhealthy things they sell. Yeah, it's ok to sell them, but not ok to actually EAT them if you work at CVS because t hey will make you gain weight or raise your blook pressure. It seems like just working for that company can raise your pressure.
There are so many reasons for things we can't understand that I for one work hard not to judge anyone on how they look or why they do what they do.
Great post! I think the insurers should first have CVS rid their shelves of anything that could in any way contribute to a poor choice.
The empty shelves and loss of revenue would put them out of business!

To all you folks out there who feel you have the right to critique everyone else on their choices, please check your own first.
It may not be smoking or eating choices that are your downfall, but we are all human and we all have our weak points.
All that angst and stress is just as negative for your personal health as some of the other vices mentioned here. What's that about "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Y'all need to relax and smile some! You will feel a lot better for it!
  #66  
Old 03-23-2013, 10:20 PM
dsned dsned is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 125
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I agree with Jebartle
Fit and healthy workers should get the lowest price and costs should be added for every vice and problem a person has. Its genetics that a person has a slow metabolism and their body converts everything to storage (fat) BUT is not genetics that makes a person over eat. All us people in the villages shouldn't worry about the new health care laws as we will be triaged anyway.
  #67  
Old 03-24-2013, 06:08 AM
JourneyOfLife JourneyOfLife is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 705
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucco View Post
I am not passing judgement on anyone or anything. I am simply stating that this companies actions will not stand alone. I might add that the law if you read it makes punishment instead of incentive the action word.

If you read todays NYTimes, I think this law is not getting to law very easily as the health costs are getting higher and higher

For clarification, as I understand it, CVS employees could gain incentives on their health care in the past and those who did not do what was asked just got NO incentives.

NOW....they will pay......

"A new policy by CVS Pharmacy requires every one of its nearly 200,000 employees who use its health plan to submit their weight, body fat, glucose levels and other vitals or pay a monthly fine.

Employees who agree to this testing will see no change in their health insurance rates, but those who refuse will have to pay an extra $50 per month or $600 per year for the companys health insurance program. All employees have until May 1, 2014, to make an appointment with a doctor and record their vitals.


The approach theyre taking is based on the assumption that somehow these people need a whip, they need to be penalized in order to make themselves healthy, Patient Privacy Rights founder Dr. Deborah Peel said."

CVS Pharmacy Wants Workers Health Information, or Theyll Pay a Fine - ABC News



Critics are calling the policy coercion, and worrying that CVS or any other company might start firing sick workers."



My only point was that this company is not alone in changing the landscape and quickly as the law will force them to punish instead of reward and that the law, if you read it unlike those who passed it, you will find a number of changes on the horizon for everyone !

NO JUDGEMENT...JUST STATING FACTS that save the surprise on what CVS is doing for maybe the other costly items to come !!!

Again, not passing judgement ...simply calling to attention that lots of tentacles to this act that most have no read and will not until it hits them int he pocket book or some other way
The "pay a fine" characterization wording is inflammatory and misleading. A headline grab by journalist that have nothing better at this time to write about.

It should read, if you choose to not provide the information for underwriting purposes so the insurance plan can set your premium rate, It will be assumed that you are at higher risk category and will be charged the premium rate from our high risk premium table. Higher risk people will pay $50/month more.

As I said earlier, what CVS is doing has been implemented in different variations for well over 10 years in company benefit plans. BMI, Smoking, etc. Providing Glucose level, some companies wellness programs go about that in different ways. Go to buy a private insurance policy and see what happens... It is not uncommon to require a full physical (depending on the coverage).

If it is illegal, I am sure there will be a court battle. There probably already has been cases in the past. But with the recent changes in the law... maybe the boundaries will be tested again.

This is the American System evolving and trying to control costs. None of us likes change... especially changes to the status quo where it requires something of us that might appear to be negative in someway.

All I can say is you better get used to change... there will be more of it.

One of the big changes is the attempt to proactively shift from disease management to health management for certain well known health problems.

It really is about money and economics. And the limited/strained capacity of our medical system.

Consider saving your outrage for the "potential" of large scale workplace abuses until they surface. We quite a number of laws and regulations for that sort of thing in place today.

Instead, you should be outraged at the cost of health care in the US and the fact that we are less healthy and have shorter lives than the rest of the developed countries. Look at the statistics on health by country and the cost of health care vs GDP per capita of developed nations.

Before we get too ahead of ourselves, let's see if we can preserve the precieved strengths of our American system and lower our costs too.
  #68  
Old 03-24-2013, 06:42 AM
Challenger's Avatar
Challenger Challenger is offline
Soaring Eagle member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,175
Thanks: 48
Thanked 302 Times in 125 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geewiz View Post
Hey, why not extend the concept to Medicare? These are valuable tax dollars - any poor health practices should exclude you from receiving these funds. Smokers, drinkers, and the obese should be put on a program and correct their poor health practices, or their co-pays should be adjusted upward. Moreover, folks who didn't work and pay into the system should be denied benefits even though their spouse paid in as the spouse only paid for himself/herself. Also, the last 12 months of life use a disproportionate amount of Medicare resources. I say - cut'em off.
I think I am supportive of this posters concepts, but I'm also apprehensive about where such a process takes us . Should we not also charge higher premiums for risky behavior ? How about skiing, flying, sky diving, motorcycling, travel to foreign countries or even riding on streets with golf carts. These could also be assumed to carry greater health(accident) risks. Where will this take us?
__________________
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke 1729-1797
  #69  
Old 03-24-2013, 06:53 AM
JourneyOfLife JourneyOfLife is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 705
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geewiz View Post
Hey, why not extend the concept to Medicare? These are valuable tax dollars - any poor health practices should exclude you from receiving these funds. Smokers, drinkers, and the obese should be put on a program and correct their poor health practices, or their co-pays should be adjusted upward. Moreover, folks who didn't work and pay into the system should be denied benefits even though their spouse paid in as the spouse only paid for himself/herself. Also, the last 12 months of life use a disproportionate amount of Medicare resources. I say - cut'em off.

Probably because the current federal statute for Medicare prevents it from happening.

But... anything that is not illegal is probably fair game. Who knows, they may end up changing the law.

For healthcare in general... I expect to see more lifestyle based underwriting for health care coverage. But some situations are not practical to implement or the cost savings do not cover the implementation cost.

Once one gets past the biggest issues of basic affordability and not being denied coverage... the question is who pays?

Since increasing capacity pushes the cost to everyone... ways to reduce the growth of capacity reduces overall cost. Stated a different way, may be the difference between someone getting in to see a doctor in a timely manner.

But for Medicare... the program appears to not be sustainable in terms of current funding. It will be another one of those "who pays battle".

What many do not realize (or refuse to realize) is that without medicare, old people would have no coverage. Insurers would exit the market... like flood insurance. If insurers were forced to stay in the market by law, very few would be able to afford the risk adjusted premium. I suspect most would be forced to settle for catastrophic major medical and go it on their own. The only reason retirees have employer based retirement healthcare coverage at all is because employers know those folks will shift to Medicare. Otherwise most all employers would would abruptly end those benefits... go the way of pensions.

For Medicare, I think a balanced approach should be taken. Every younger person (who lives) will eventually need coverage at an old age so they pay a little more into the system while they are young (however it is implemented). Us oldsters that can pay more for our coverage will have to do that as well. Fair is fair and somebody has to pay for it.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 AM.