Employers May Charge You for Being Fat, Smoking
More firms planning to use surcharges under ObamaCare
By Matt Cantor, Newser User
Posted Nov 16, 2013 5:38 AM CST
Employers are readying surcharges for workers who smoke.   (Shutterstock)

(Newser) – If you don't meet your employer's health requirements, you may soon be paying more for health insurance. One survey found that as of next year, 40% of major US firms will be instituting surcharges on workers who fail to meet such requirements—things like quitting smoking or meeting weight goals—and by 2015, two-thirds of large employers are expected be doing the same. That's in contrast to 19% in 2011, Reuters reports. Already, according to a survey released this week, workers at more than 5,000 companies have to take part in their firms' health programs if they want full coverage; 67% of those workers were subject to specific goals like a maximum body mass index.

ObamaCare measures say employees can get a reward of up to 30% of their health costs if they choose to participate in health programs—for instance, to help quit smoking—or voluntary screenings. Companies are, however, allowed to raise premiums if these programs aren't saving them money. And with employers focused on weight and nicotine, "Some programs can verge on discrimination," says an author of this week's survey. Among the new costs:

  • Smokers who work at Procter & Gamble should get ready to pay an extra $25 per month next year—that is, until they finish a program to help them quit, paid for by the company.
  • Nonunion UPS workers could pay up to $1,800 extra per year if they smoke.
  • Penn State wanted workers to pay $100 per month unless they underwent screenings and a WebMD questionnaire (sample question for men: How often do you examine your testicles?) But workers successfully fought the plan after concerns about privacy arose.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Employers May Charge You for Being Overweight, Smoking is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 115 comments
Nov 18, 2013 2:24 PM CST
Ditto...and I don't suppose the cost of healthcare ever goes up out of the greed of doctors, health organizations, insurance companies, medical equipment manufacturers, etc. Go to Walmart and buy a box of bandaids...$1.59. Go to the hospital or doctor's office and get ONE bandaid...$35. Do I smell bullshit, diversion tactics and GREED? I think I do. I'm fairly certain that Walmart's overhead is far greater than most that of most health organizations. Don't supposed unmitigated greed could be a factor, huh? Soon they'll be telling us that on-the-job stress jacks healthcare rates and because I'm not "emotionally stable and able to handle stress" despite my employer being an unreasonable asshole and working me to death, I should pay more than everyone else. GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED... GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED... GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED... GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED...GREED... GREED...ETC.
Nov 16, 2013 5:16 PM CST
Anything to convince us to bicker amongst ourselves rather than point the finger at the real thieves - giant multinational corporations.
Nov 16, 2013 3:50 PM CST
I guess the question is, if you are at a higher risk to cost the insurance company...should you be charged more...It is the case for Life Insurance...Should it be the case for health insurance? If cost is risked-based...then looking beyond life style choices, what about inherited diseases, family history, age, gender, race, location?...it would get very complicated......National Medicine is my vote.