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
In the middle
March 18th, 2011
12:21 pm
Skinny Vegan, I like your mindset. Since people obviously aren’t smart enough to understand the big picture here, just present it to people as a discount.
Of course, people could always just not get insurance, or get catastrophic insurance if they think they are paying too much.
BettyLou
March 18th, 2011
12:28 pm
If I miss my cigarette, my unborn baby starts to kick like he’s Pele.
jr
March 18th, 2011
12:29 pm
Skinny, expect that the fatties *will* start being charged more. It would be easy enough to require an annual physical to maintain insurance, put % bodyfat on the form, and then charge more for those with too high or too low %.
Me
March 18th, 2011
12:30 pm
I see no difference in a non-smoker paying more to assist with the premiums of smokers any more than me having to pay a higher premium to help offset the costs for those who are overweight, those that have pre-existing health issues, or those who plan on having families. I have yet to see a health insurance plan with “pregnancy coverage” as an option. As a non-smoking male weighing 175 pounds, I have no health issues related to smoking, obesity, nor pregnancy – yet I’m having to pay premiums for such. Why penalize just the smokers? Bring into the mix those who are overweight, have the potential to get pregnant, ride motorcycles, skydive, etc. I agree with @Skinny Vegan.
male w/o gynocolgist, mammograms and not pregnant
March 18th, 2011
12:32 pm
Seems to me females incur more health costs. Let’s charge them a higher rate!
mark318
March 18th, 2011
12:32 pm
Well, blacks have higher incidents of heart disease, HIV, HCV and a myriad of other addictive behaviors. That mean we can charge blacks more?
TheSmartGuy
March 18th, 2011
12:33 pm
And while we’re at it, let’s go ahead and tax people who are overweight.
Shoot why stop there, let’s tax people with type I diabetes too. Or those born with Down syndrome.
Oh to heck with it, instead of listing all these people with HIGHER rates, let’s go ahead and define the perfect person with the normal rate.
If you’re male, you have to be 5′9″ white, 180 lbs, work out 4.5 times a week, with at LEAST 30 minutes of cardio, and 20 minutes of weight training, no genetic defects, never drinks or uses tobacco.
Oh and, he has to walk around in a padded suit all day with a surgeon’s mask. Don’t want him getting hurt or sick now do we!
eastbound and down
March 18th, 2011
12:35 pm
i had a discussion with a coworker once, somewhat in jest, about insurance companies making obesity a pre-existing condition and denying insurance. as far as the motorcycling riding, etc., goes this is sometimes a condition in a employee’s (pro sports) contract. regarding taxes, i still support legalizing weed and taxing that.
Babs
March 18th, 2011
12:39 pm
What about testing for alcohol which alcohol related deaths cause harm and also result in alcohol related traffic deaths. This is Big Brother at work. While they are at it why not check the employee’s weight and if they do not fall within a certain range based on criteria, don’t hire them. How far will this go? It is a slippery slope.
Mark
March 18th, 2011
12:57 pm
I’ve been paying an extra $480/year for years! All teachers have been.