Fat Tax In Alabama, Indiana
Something that we haven’t talked about yet—but which others have, of course—is the proposed increase in health insurance costs in Alabama, directed at the overweight. That is, you have one year to get “healthy” and if you fail, you have to pay an extra $25 per month in health insurance. From Wallet Pop:
So, what’s “healthy” according to the state of Alabama? Anyone with a BMI (body mass index) less than 35. Employees will also have to submit baseline readings for their cholesterol, blood pressure and glucose—three other factors considered critical indicators of “health”…
The program will allow employees to see a doctor for free, be screened for free, and have the chance to enroll in wellness programs, Weight Watchers, etc. And as long as they show progress in a follow-up screening they won’t be charged.
Fox News released a lengthy story about this earlier in the week:
This is a dreadful, dreadful policy,” said Judith S. Stern, an obesity expert and nutrition professor at University of California at Davis. “Overweight and obese people, especially women, feel that their weight is private, and being weighed at work is like having a prostate exam in the hall. It’s not appropriate”…
Medical and social considerations aside, other critics say it’s just not going to work. “There’s the thought that obese people are weak-willed, and if we charge them more they won’t be as fat,” Stern said. “This assumes they have control over what’s involved, and often they don’t”…
And there’s the cost factor. In its efforts to reduce heath care costs Alabama will spend an extra $1.6 million for health screenings and programs next year.
So, a great idea, then! Hey, why don’t other states join in?
Clarian Health Partners, a hospital chain in Indiana, has taken a different approach. In 2009, they will start deducting money from the paychecks of workers who do not meet — and don’t show efforts to meet — various health criteria. Smoking without trying to quit will cost $5; high glucose, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels will cost $5 each; a high Body Mass Index will cost $10.
My first thought was that this extra charge is disproportionately penalizing, yet again, the economically underprivileged. The link between poverty and obesity is clear, and states with higher poverty levels have corresponding higher obesity levels—Alabama being, of course, one of these states. (And that’s without bringing race into the equation at all, although it is a factor in BMI calculations…)
It is those people—the obese poor—who will be hit the hardest by this $25 per month surcharge, which is a significant amount of money to many working people with modest incomes. In addition to everything else that’s wrong here, this strikes me as the wrongest part of all.
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Cold Hard Cash, Exercise, Fatism, Health, Race & Ethnicity, Weight Loss, Work
Email us
The Clarion surcharge was actually proposed in 2007, and the company decided, after the hue-and-cry, to reward those who hit the targets with small bonuses.
It’s the same idea couched in different language – you get a “reward” for “being good” rather than getting hit with a penalty. It’s still a wage difference because of size.
Clarion is a private company, rather than the state doing it as in Alabama, but it still sucks no matter who is doing it.
I almost feel like I don’t understand.
It’s so outrageous and belittling and almost..cruel that it doesn’t make sense to me.
Thank god I own my own business, and that I do not live in Alabama. The first person who tried to weigh me at my job would get a swift kick in the balls or puss, respectively.
It really isn’t a good thing…I pointed out on another blog that, for the most part, the fat aren’t causing the outrageous health costs on these plans. They may be going to see their doctors, but it’s almost all preventive care. When people really get sick, they almost always lose their health insurance and then the cost gets picked up by state and federal programs.
And I wonder when they are going to start monitoring all those pesky dependents that working folk like to include on the health insurance.
The whole point of a group insurance policy is to help average out the costs of people who are healthy with those who are sick. So why should an otherwise healthy person with a high BMI be charged more than a skinny diabetic or cancer patient?
I’m okay with companies offering free or reduced-cost help to people to quit smoking, or to lose weight. Those things might actually work (some employers do offer free or reduced-cost gym memberships or Weight Watchers meetings and/or access to smoking cessation programs). But to implement a policy whose sole purpose is to try to shame people into being healthy seems stupid and counterproductive and, as you point out, won’t even save any money.
Wait, so the surcharge for high BMI is higher than for actual indicators of health (cholesterol, high BP)?!
We need anti-discrimination laws.
I had the same thought, FGoaD. The whole thing is offensive, but that part is the worst.
This is just unbelievable.
While they’re at it, the should institute an asshole tax. How about a skinny bitch tax?
How about a tax for those with eating disorders? They cost us significant money. What about a tax on smokers, drinkers? Let’s tax women higher than men–they might have babies and that costs a lot. Let’s tax diabetics more? Let’s tax people with cancer more.
Can you tell this pisses me off?
So, when can we expect women who frequent the tanning bed to be charged extra rates, seeing as tanning beds are linked to skin cancers? Red meat has been linked to stomach cancer, so why aren’t we penalizing meat-eaters? Is your insurance company going to pry in your bedroom next and begin penalizing you if you have unprotected sex? What about people who gain weight because of an antidepressant or birth control? Should they go off their meds and be crazy and depressed, or risk an unwanted pregnancy (which would end up costing insurance companies a lot more)? People who have binge eating disorders or bulimia often tend to be overweight or obese. Should these people be penalized for having a psychological disorder, especially when the same insurance company often doesn’t offer parity in their own mental health coverage?
My BMI may define me as obese, but not only have I lost and sustained more than 30 percent of my body weight already, I am completely healthy. The only health problems I have are completely unrelated to my weight at all (thyroid, ADD, and depression). Wait, my thyroid is related to my weight, but in this case, it causes me to gain weight and makes it difficult to lose weight. I am much healthier today than I ever was when I was eating disordered and my BMI was at the mid- to low-range of normal.
There are many reasons why people are fat and it’s not always within their reach to control these factors. I understand insurance companies wanting to charge people who use coverage more money, but charging fat people more money based nothing more than on their BMI is like assuming how much money someone makes by what’s in their wallet.
There is so much that is wrong here (like, EVERYTHING!) that I can’t even wrap my mind around it. So, they’d rather have people go to Weight Watchers and start yo-yo- dieting (‘Cause WW doesn’t work long-term for most people) rather than having them stay at a steady weight, WHICH IS HEALTHIER THAN LOSING AND RE-GAINING OVER AND OVER AGAIN?!?!?!
We DEFINITELY need anti-discrimination laws. And insurance companies to get a f****ing clue!
I wonder if they’re considering taxing those who take part in high-risk sports, or refuse to abort difficult pregnancies? I’m sure that would go over well.
What I love best is that this will penalize body-builders, and those who just genetically have lots of muscle-bulk – not overweight, not even fat, but having much higher BMIs than the average person would.
Wait, no. What I love most is that this may push poor people out of their insurance, since $25 per month is a hell of a lot more to someone who is barely scraping by. So, the people who need the medical care most will be left without it.
What a fine plan!
I wonder what Clarion’s co-pay is on things like high blood pressure meds?
If Clarion charges an $5 for high blood pressure, and the co-pay for the prescription to bring it down is $10, which would you do?
*smirk* I’d pay to see that.
The rest of it is just Huxley come to pass. *shudder*
The only thing is that when I was reading him when I was a nerdy little kid, I didn’t think I’d see it come to pass in my lifetime.
We DEFINITELY need anti-discrimination laws. And insurance companies to get a f****ing clue!
I would like to second this. Completely unrelated to weight, I had to go ROUNDS with my dental insurance company about the fact that they won’t pay to build up a part of my mouth where a tooth is MISSING, to put in another tooth. She informed me “we dont pay for any grafts where there is no tooth”. I attempted to ask her “why in god’s name I would get a bone graft if there was already a damn tooth there?!!” but she didn’t seem to see what I was saying. In the end I paid the whole thing out of pocket, so I didnt have a big whole in my face.
Insurance companies……..BAH.
Madge brings up a good point. Many athletes have BMI’s of 30 and up, but more than likely are healthier than those who are not obese and overweight. So if they worked for the state, they’d be slapped with this charge.
Which is why companies and industries should NOT LOOK AT BMI AS AN INDICATOR OF HEALTH!!!
My BMI is 49 (*egads*)! Someone get the lap band! But except for IBS and anemia (which my mother also has and is not weight-related). I’m healthy and have no heart issues. This fat chick isn’t dropping dead anytime soon.
Yet, because of a stupid number, they want to penalize a group of people, label them as unhealthy, and further shame them into becoming what they think is ideal. Sickening.
This is all getting crazy. The Indiana thing really hits home and makes all these rights violations really hit home for me. I know it shouldn’t have to hit home for it to sink in, but it sure helps. I’m pretty sure Clarian is the hospital chain I see hocking bariatrics on TV most often here. See, this is where if I were able to be a full-time fat activist and weren’t in grad school, I’d try to organize the workers against this. It’s craziness.
My mom is a nurse at a hospital in Ohio. They are doing the anti-smoking thing and in fact, have made it so that no one can smoke *anywhere* on the property…not in the parking lot in their cars with the windows rolled up…nada. And I’m sure they’re “encouraging” them to stop smoking. For awhile my mom was wearing a patch at work because she couldn’t smoke…but then she’d come home and smoke, which uh, is not healthy.
How are these things not considered employment discrimination or creating a hostile work environment? Rights over profits, srsly. Anything in the name of health. We need to figure out how to combat this craziness, and soon.
I’ve been thinking about this all day.
What happened to our rights to eat, smoke, fuck, love, hate, spend, save how ever the hell we want to.
Why is it that I am an adult, I can buy a home, own a business, get married to the man I love, but the government wants to tell me what I can or cannot do with or to my body.
We need rights, and we need to stop being viewed as a segment of the population that needs help. We do not need help, we do not need ridicule, we do not need approval, we do not need rules on food, we do not need rules on weight loss or gain.
Why don’t these people do something that will really help people instead of picking on the fat kids.
I wonder what Clarion’s co-pay is on things like high blood pressure meds?
If Clarion charges an $5 for high blood pressure, and the co-pay for the prescription to bring it down is $10, which would you do?
That’s rich. And a very good question.
All the more reason for me to leave Alabama!
I’m all for healthy living. But how about making a buying a salad cheaper than buying a burger and then start talking about how much the govt cares about folks being healthier (notice I did not say skinnier)?!
This is just a ruse to milk poor folk for their dollars.
I live in Alabama and work for the State of Alabama, and my BMI is right at 35 even though my doctor considers me slightly overweight and not obese because of my height and build, so you know I’m pissed off about this.
I see the need for helping people own responsibility for their health, but I too think it would be more profitable to encourage instead of penalize. I am wellness consulant and a certified weight management coach, and have been telling people for years that they will either pay now or pay later. This not exactly what I envisioned, but I am not surprised. I have always know that prevention is cheaper than the alternative, but most people don’t look at their health maint. like they do car maint. Why? Because of the broken system we have that pays when we’re sick, and makes us pay to be healthy. What would be better would be to add taxes to the unhealthy choices, and help lower the cost of the healthy ones. The impetus is not to help people be more healthy, it is just to keep the profit margin for insurances at a ‘healthy’ ratio.