26° CLEAR, Could obese state workers pay higher premiums?
Last Modified: Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 11:30 p.m.
Montgomery - State employees who are significantly overweight could pay more in health insurance premiums.
The State Employees Insurance board will meet in August to discuss whether to charge extremely overweight state employees $24 a month more in health insurance premiums, the same charge for smokers, SEIB chief operating officer Gary Matthews said Thursday.
"Anybody with a (body mass index, BMI) of 35 or greater would pay a surcharge," Matthews said. "(This is) to (encourage them to) lose weight or make sure they are under a doctor's care - because it is unhealthy - and to try to promote exercise and proper eating."
Alabama State Employees Association Executive Director E.J. "Mac" McArthur Jr. said he hopes any wellness program is positive rather than a negative one that sticks employees with higher costs.
"We want to do everything to make our work force healthy," McArthur said. "If you approach this with education in a positive manner, you'd have much more merit than punishing someone."
The SEIB March/April newsletter said the medical cost of extremely overweight state employees is $50 million a year, so there's a financial advantage in encouraging weight loss.
"Obesity has become an epidemic that is destroying the health of state employees," the newsletter said. "The number of state employees who are obese continues to rise."
The SEIB notes that in 2007, nearly 43 in 100 state employees were overweight and 19 in 100 were extremely overweight with a body mass index of 35 or above.
Based on 37,500 state employees, that's about 7,100 extremely overweight employees who would have to pay the $288 annual surcharge unless they start to lose weight or have medical excuses.
In 2006, between 25 percent and 29 percent of Alabama's residents were overweight. Only two states had a higher percentage of overweight residents.
BMI is a measure of body fat based on a person's height. Overweight is a BMI of more than 25, and obesity is defined as having a BMI of greater than 30, the SEIB notes.
The "normal" weight of a 5 foot 10 inch man is 167 pounds. That height with a BMI of 35 pushes the weight to at least 243 pounds, Matthews said.. The "normal" weight for a 5 foot 6 inch woman is 148 pounds. A woman of that height with a BMI of 35 weighs at least 216 pounds, Matthews said.
In 2007, taxpayers and state employees paid $374.2 million to cover state employee medical costs. The year before it was $333.1 million, according to the Legislative Fiscal Office.
Medical costs of a state employee with a BMI greater than 35 is at least $1,700 a year more than a state employee of "normal" weight and a BMI of less than 25, the SEIB notes.
Matthews said the Legislature in 2005 authorized the SEIB to consider lifestyle in setting insurance premiums. A single state employee pays nothing for the state's self-funded insurance plan while family coverage is $180 a month. There are co-pays.
Matthews said in practice, all state employees would have to pay the obesity premium but it would be waived for an employee with a BMI of less than 35, or is exempt for medical reasons, or is successfully losing weight.
The weight surcharge wouldn't take effect until 2011 if approved, Matthews said.
"The state has only so much money," said Matthews. "Would you rather pay health insurance premiums or get a pay raise?"
Dana Beyerle can be reached at (334) 264-6605 or dtb123@aol.com.
Next Article in Local News
-
Study: Tornadoes deadlier during night
Knowing that severe weather threatens the area during overnight hours puts Mike Melton on edge.
As the director of the Colbert County Emergency Management Agency, he and others in his department will be the first to respond to reports of...
Events Calendar More Events Submit Event
- One man shares his story of hope, acceptance on World AIDS Day
- Hargett expected to stay police chief
- Reports indicate Tuberville will return in 2009
- Holidays can be difficult for grieving families
- Farmers could face tax for belching cattle
- Arthur seeks DNA evidence in murder case
- All three phases are dominant as Lions roll into D2 semifinals
- Physical play pays for Lions
- After this win, Saban is golden
- Geography program brings world to students
- In Wake of Attacks, India-Pakistan Tensions Grow 1 hr ago
- A Scare Forever Etched 1 hr ago
- Arrogant, Abusive and Disruptive — and a Doctor 1 hr ago
- Officials Vow to Act Amid Forecasts of Long Recession 1 hr ago
- Standing in Someone Else’s Shoes, Almost for Real 1 hr ago
- Tradition Counts More Than Beauty at a Pageant 1 hr ago
- Afghan Strategy Poses Stiff Challenge for Obama 1 hr ago
- In a Host of Ailments, Seeing a Brain Out of Rhythm 1 hr ago
- Big Three May Need to Trim Number of Brands 1 hr ago
- In Deal With Hitachi, Intel Will Expand Its Flash Memory Business 1 hr ago
Comments
Post a comment | View all comments on this topic.
July 18, 2008 2:06:23 pm
Is it just me or does this seem a little bit prejudice? If they are going to charge higher premiums for someone significantly overweight should they not charge higher premiums for smokers, drinkers, those who drive to fast, those who are not overweight, but chose to eat high fat diets therefore clogging their arteries just as much as those who are overweight, I could go on and on. Basically if you are going to charge higher rates for thoses who are obese in order to be fair you would need to charge higher rates to everyone who doesn't live perfect lifes. No over eating or eating anything unhealthy, daily exercising, no smoking, drinking, unsafe sex, once again I could go on and on! I don't know if the idea is that if we charge them higher rates they'll loose weight or what. If loosing weight were this simple why didn't they think of it years ago? I actually know people who by BMIs are considered overweight that are healthy, take no medications, exercise daily and eat very healthy and never get sick. On the other hand I know some who are considered underweight and stay sick, on numerous medications and stay either at the doctor's office or in the hospital. Anyway, just wondering what this was suppose to accomplish.
July 18, 2008 2:52:54 pm
Smokers already pay a hefty premium for insurance. Because they are more of a health risk. Medical studies have shown that (surprise) obese people are more of a risk. Should they be excluded?
July 18, 2008 3:00:06 pm
Life insurance premiums are higher. Life insurance on me for 100k is 19 dollars a month, for my husband, who dips and is eight years younger than me, the premium is 25 dollars a month. I think what this was talking about was regular health insurance. Any job I've ever had premiums were only based on type, single, family and so on. As for thinking that only smokers pay a hefty price, those who are obese most of the time can't even get life insurance.
July 18, 2008 3:06:57 pm
Let me clarify.
I smoke, I pay my own health premiums.
I pay about 25% more than a non-smoker. I also pay more for my life insurance. Why should it not cost these people more?
July 18, 2008 3:20:52 pm
It actually cost more. As I said, they can't even get life insurance most of the time or health insurance if they are buying it independently. At my job they actually offer up to 100k life without a physical, but you don't hear of this often.
July 18, 2008 3:38:53 pm
**** those fried pickles....
July 18, 2008 9:40:46 pm
I understood that smokers and fat-asses would have to pay more. Why not? They cost more and drive up the cost of health care for everyone. But, I bet it won't happen because it will be too hard to police who gets fat when and who stops or starts smoking. And I doubt it would encourage people to lose weight or stop smoking - if they won't do it to save their lives and their childrens lives why would they do it just to save money. Alabama is the land of fat people and it gets worse everyday.
July 18, 2008 11:38:24 pm
First off, your attitude towards overweight people stinks. I agree that the premiums for insurance should be higher for tobacco users and people with a high(er) BMI since it shortens the length of their lives and may contribute to various other health issues. HOWEVER, there are ways to "police" these factors. Mandatory health screenings and physicals would be a good start. They could also check who is going to the gyms or wellcare centers since you have to check in at these type places. If a large group from a company/business/entity joins a health care center or gym a lower rate may be given. Anyway, your whole attitude is awful, you need to think before you type.
July 19, 2008 6:33:57 am
Macey, I thought long and hard before I typed. Who is going to pay for mandatory health screenings and physicals you suggest - well care is not readily available in our health care systems that denies coverage to needy people and even hard workers with decent jobs. Do you think most of us work for companies/businesses/entities that have the resources to provide access to and time to use gyms and health care facilities let alone the ability to police who goes to them? My criticism does not extend to people with health problems beyond their control, to the extent those exist, it is aimed at people who smoke and shove junk food in their lazy mouths without regard to what they are doing to themselves and their children. You seem to live in plenty - Congratulations. Remember those who do not.
July 19, 2008 7:44:59 am
I believe this is all a big scam by the insurance companies to squeeze out a few more dollars in their stock prices. Believe me insurance companies are the most meticulous companies in the world as far as probabilities and statistics are concerned with their income and expenses. Obesity and smoking are already priced in and they are all profitable. It's easy picking to squeeze more money out of smokers and the obese because they have a negative image. What will happen once this is accepted by the public is they will start charging in strata of overweight, such as 10 to 20 pounds overweight 2.00 a month 20 to 40 4.00 etc etc. They are good at putting it to the middle class consumer.
It is however an incentive for individuals to become more healthy so even though its aim is to soak the insurance consumer it will also improve the lives and health of the target groups, whether it be the obese, smokers, or alcohol abusers.
Post a comment | View all comments