Saliva test forces smokers to pay more for health insurance
Want to make your employees smoking mad? Tell them they have to prove they don’t smoke.
Surprisingly, sucking on a burning clump of dried vegetable matter and inhaling the smoke deep into sensitive lung tissue is bad for human health.
In Arizona, some Maricopa County employees have to submit to saliva tests that test for nicotine, according to an article in the Arizona Republic. If they don’t, they pay an extra $480-a-year health insurance premium.
The test is seen as a way to cut health-care costs, which, as you probably know, have skyrocketed in recent years.
Smoking, as anyone who has read the side of a cigarette package, is bad for you. “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy,” says one label, which seems pretty straight-forward. The Centers for Disease Control says smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., and smokers die an average of 13 years sooner.
Some Georgia hospitals, including those in Gwinnett and DeKalb, won’t hire smokers. Job applicants have to pass a blood test for nicotine. With rising healthcare costs, that may become a trend. Georgia, unlike some states, does not have a law prohibiting discrimination against smokers.
According to the Arizona Republic article, the county made the test mandatory because an statistically unbelievable number of employees claimed to be non-smokers. Despite the warning labels, the percentage of smokers has stabilized in recent years at about 20 percent.
In the article, one disgruntled employee says ”it goes against our personal liberties. Whether you smoke or not should be between you and your doctor, not you and your boss.”
She’s wrong. Because she chooses to smoke, her co-workers have been paying more for health insurance.
How much more?
Here’s some facts from the Centers for Disease Control:
* Cigarette smoking costs more than $193 billion (i.e., $97 billion in lost productivity plus $96 billion in health care expenditures) per year.
* Secondhand smoke costs more than $10 billion (i.e., health care expenditures, morbidity, and mortality) per year.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
58 comments Add your comment
eastbound and down
March 18th, 2011
11:54 am
The “disgruntled employee” has a point. all she has to do is “cough up” the extra $480 a year. why should non-smokers subsidize other employees bad habits? and while she’s at it, maybe she should hit the gym.
eastbound and down
March 18th, 2011
11:55 am
oh, and first!
joe in tucker
March 18th, 2011
11:57 am
My company has required us to certify whether we smoke or not for years and if you chose to smoke then you pay a higher premium for health insurance. As a reformed smoker of 30yrs and quit for over 10 now, i say it is a great idea!!!
TML
March 18th, 2011
11:59 am
if cigarette smoking is SO bad – ban it. ban the manufacture of cigarettes just like they’ve banned asbestos from mostly every use.
but no – you can’t do that. guhment loves the tax $ it brings in too much…which tells you all you need to know. follow the money. they attack smokers today, they will attack those that eat too many steaks and cheeseburgers tomorrow because “THEY are making everyone else’s insurance too high”, too.
Skinny Smoker
March 18th, 2011
12:00 pm
Are they surcharging the fatties? Last time I checked they had at least as many preventable health issues as the smokers.
Wayne
March 18th, 2011
12:03 pm
I wish my company would do this. Not only are their healthcare costs higher, they take breaks every half hour to go stand outside for 5 minutes. Even if they’re awesome employees, they could be much better if they’d quit smoking.
If you smoke, please quit killing yourself. I don’t want to pay for your substatially more expensive healthcare through higher taxes and insurance premiums.
In the middle
March 18th, 2011
12:10 pm
As someone who does not smoke, I do not think I should pay the same for insurance as someone who does.
As someone who has a pretty bad diet, I do not think I should have to pay the same for insurance as someone who eats a very healthy diet. And if I knew that making my diet healthier would (on top of health) save me money, then it would give me another reason to try and make it better. This is just common sense and how things should be done.
Mishap
March 18th, 2011
12:12 pm
TML,
The gov’t tax money doesn’t cover the external cost of tobacco on the populace. Sure they may get $1-4/pack but that probably still doesn’t cover the healthcare of too many emphysema ridden chain smokers that either don’t have insurance or by some miracle made it to Medicare.
My company is providing “discounts” to people that submit to physicals/blood tests and preventative corrections. Those that don’t fix their health issues lose their discount and those that don’t submit lose the discount they used to get from submitting a health survey. They started surcharging smokers years ago. So yeah, they’re surcharging fatties and those too inconvenienced by the process. You had to sign up months in advance, sign up on limited times, and fast the night before.
Paxplant
March 18th, 2011
12:13 pm
While we’re at it, why don’t they do it right by tracking each individuals medical services use and surcharge individuals based on how much they cost the insurance! I know quite a few people that don’t smoke but go to the doctor at a drop of the hat and take pockets full of pills!
Skinny Vegan Sober Ex-Smoker
March 18th, 2011
12:14 pm
My blog name says it all – surcharges for everyone who does anything remotely unhealthy; but maybe intead of presenting it as a punishment or surcharge health insurance should be set high for everyone and then give discounts for doing the right things (like the security discount on your homeowners’ insurance). G’day.