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
Gary
March 18th, 2011
12:57 pm
It’s about time! I ‘m thinking about a class action suit charging smokers & emission polluters with attempted murder!!!
Anna
March 18th, 2011
1:00 pm
Why should average weigh people subsidize health insurance for fat/obese people? Fat people have a lot more health issues than smokers. Also, charge more for people who drink alchol.
Not going to save any money here
March 18th, 2011
1:01 pm
Don’t think that by raising the cost of those who smoke is going to lower the cost for non-smokers here. It won’t, I would be all for it if it would. I quite smoke because of a surcharge of $80 a month and it’s the best thing I could have done for my health. And while we are on the subject of surcharges, aren’t state employees in Alabama being charged extra for being overweight? I think I read that some where……..oh yeah it was the AJC.
JJ
March 18th, 2011
1:01 pm
Why anyone would want to smoke is beyond me. It’s nasty, you don’t look cool, and you smell…..
Kate
March 18th, 2011
1:03 pm
Here’s the difference with smoking vs. any other health condition. Nobody has to smoke. Nobody. Not a single individual on earth. Any other health situation may or may not be within any given individual’s control, and sorting that out 365 days a year for 300 million+ people with changing health is unrealistic.
If you choose to make that purely optional, conscious choice to smoke, you should bear the costs that creates.
The taxes are insignificant compared to the health cost burden. Smoking isn’t banned due to both the tobacco industry lobbyists and the very (irrationally) vocal minority of people who still want to smoke.
My company offers a $600 a year discount on benefit costs if you don’t smoke. That’s a pretty good incentive.
Artie
March 18th, 2011
1:03 pm
It’s about time they started sticking it to the smokers!!!
Artie
March 18th, 2011
1:04 pm
Oh, and obese people should pay more too!!!
Old Geezer
March 18th, 2011
1:09 pm
All I know is that a woman who smokes is easier to get in the sack than a non-smoker woman. If she smokes and has one or more tattoos, then the task is made even easier. I don’t know why this is, but it is true, they usually already have a beer in their hand and a cig in their mouth, all I have to do is look for a tat on the ankle, arm or lower back and it’s like winning the lottery. Given all their risky behaviors, like sleeping with me, they should have to pay more in health insurance costs.
where will it end
March 18th, 2011
1:11 pm
What about the epidemic of obesity? Alcohol consumption? There are a myriad of thigs that are not “good for you” yet every group is not being singled out such as smokers. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander so let the pricing be decided truly fairly i.e. based on your fat %, BMI, alcohol intake, cholesterol level and while we’re at it throw your family history in there too. Afterall why should I pay more because your family has a history of heart disease and you’re choking down a Big Mac?
picky person
March 18th, 2011
1:14 pm
I really hate seeing that brown spot on a smoker’s front tooth from where they stick the cigarette butt there several times a day for years and inhale in the same place on the tooth. How can they not see that in the mirror? And don’t get me started on their breath, it’s worse than rotten garbage left out in the sun. They also usually have bad attitudes, I would too if I smelled like that all the time and got those looks from people who just happened to get a whiff of that stank even from 5 feet away.