Just a first step in allowing more 'legal' discrimination via health insurance, with the key word here being 'insurance'. As long as profits come before people's actual health, expect to see more of this.

Not mentioned is people who for various reasons may not hit their 'benchmarks' through no fault of their own; who will decide what is 'fair' for them?

I'm sorry ToxicChemist, I am a bit of a moron.

Could you help me out by specifically pointing out how Obamacare has affected CVS's (or your employer's) decision to offer discounts for being in good health?

And while we are at it, could you point out how charging people in good health (who are willing to prove it) less for health insurance is any different than charging good drivers (who are willing to prove it) less for auto insurance?

What they actually said was we're going to charge you up the @$$ but if you participate in this program we'll give you a discount. Also, not seeing the Obamacare connection, I must be a moron also.

Well, some of these comments so far as just another prime example of the Republican inconsistency. Where are all of you "free market" advocates now? CVS is offering an insurance plan that is cheaper but has restrictions. If you want a "Cadillac" plan, you can buy it elsewhere. It's standard free market economics.

But no ... now you want the government to force companies to give you the exact health care you want at the exact price you want. Hmmm. Sounds like socialism to me.

Hypocrites.

The report says smokers can still get a break if their numbers are otherwise good. Will the same be offered to fat people?

I also wonder if type I diabetes will be viewed the same as type II. They ARE different.

Dan-2358143

Dan, what are you talking about. I am republican and I'm all for this. I don't see any connection between this and obamacare. This is no different that offering an incentive to those who participate. it's just semantics. Nothing in this story says their insurance is priced based on their BMI, it's just something to encourage people to know their health status.

I see your point Texas Lady, but health insurance doesn't become mandatory until 2014 and companies offering discounts for participating in wellness programs has been going on for quite a while so I still don't see a great connection to Obamacare.

The problem here is not that people don't have choices. the problem is that people don't use their choices. Companies and big government all do the same thing, they all test and see just how far they can run over your rights and what you will do about it. Most people just allow themselves to be violated and consent out of fear. People need to say no, whenever a doctor,company,government or anyone else runs over your liberties and privacy, you need to put them back in their place. Don't work for CVS. don't shop there and don't use their health insurance. Everytime you comply, you giver permission. When I heard about Obamacare I knew that the natural next step to forcing companies to insure individuals was that they were going to want to start mandating how people live. This doesn't surprise me. Next they will mandate every vaccine they make in order to be covered. In this way they work hand in hand with government and pharmaceuticals to increase profits for all. The more people comply, the worse it's going to be.

As long as I am forced to pay for other people's healthcare I support this.

I think health checks are a good idea as long as everything remains private. CVS would not want to use this to terminate people because if they did then the next step would be people filing for disability until they get a handle on their weight or smoking or . . . That would blow up disability claims all over the country.

What good is insurance if it only covers a select few?

I don't believe people WANT to be unhealthy, it's simply not human nature. Knowing that loggers and shyscraper window washersare dangerous businesses, why do we have them? Is it because someone secretly hopes to maimed or killed doing a job?

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about modern life.

Private doctors were sharing health information with heath care providers long before Obamacare.

After visiting a new doctor to get antibiotics for a tooth infection, I receieved mountains of mail from the health care provider directed at my smoking habit. There is no way the health care provider would know anything about my smoking if I had not been honest with the doctor.

Sounds like a good way to have patients start lying about their habits in order to avoid an increase in premium.

STexan,

I was referring to CVS's health insurance policies, not Obamacare.

However, offering discounts to people in good health or penalizing people in bad health amounts to the same thing.

As to your concern about shifting those goals as a form of revenue, I agree that is a potential point of abuse. However, I have seen no evidence that there has been abuse. If you have some, please show it so I can adjust my opinion accordingly.

However, offering discounts to people in good health or penalizing people in bad health amounts to the same thing.

So, so wrong. Furthermore, Obamacare hasn't even kicked in yet to it's intended goals, and what is going on at CVS is merely a minor prelude to Obamacare. The idea of government trying to raise revenue is not built on rewarding "good behavior", it is built on penalizing "bad behavior". And the definition of "bad behavior" is much like the soup du jour ... it will change daily by mostly unelected bureaucrats.

... you'll see what I'm talking about when it's too late to stop and undo. But you're too blinded by the "grand idea" to see the what's fixing to slam you and your family in the face so I expect no less from such easily conned individuals.

“Going forward, you'll be expected not just to know your numbers - but also to take action to manage them,” the CVS policy states.

CVS, which is based in Rhode Island, also said the company would never see the test results.

So if they are never going to see the test results, how will they know there is something that needs to be improved and that it is getting done? Will they even consider the fact that genetics have a role in a person's health, or do you just have to fit their own cookie cutter health model?

Get used to this and more under Obamacare. It will become a requirement to avoid certain 'lifestyle' choices in order to survive the 200% increase in health care insurance premiums since Obamacare was first signed into law. If you think utilization review panels are not part of the new law you are simply just like the legislators who passed the bill to find out what is inside.

Over 20,000 pages of rules propagated by the 2,000 page law so far. Good luck lower the cost of insurance with this badly written law.

Next

Thank you Mr. Prez.

STexan,

Ok. Let's imagine two employers.

Employer 1 offers health insurance for $300/month, and offers a $50/month discount for people that participate in a wellness program.

Employer 2 offers health insurance for $250/month with the caveat that employees participate in their wellness program. There is a $50/month fine for those that do not.

Employer 1 insurance prices: $300/month if you don't participate in the wellness program, $250/month if you do participate.

Employer 2 insurance prices: $300/month if you don't participate in the wellness program, $250/month if you do participate.

How are these two things different?

Scubasteve58001

Actually, it is a result of obamacare. There are quite a few reasons, but here are a few of them 1) By forcing companies to provide insurance to all employees who work 30 hours or more per week (averaged over a year), they are being forced to provide insurance to people who’s health isn’t as good as it could/should be because they haven’t had access to routine care (not saying they were right or wrong, that’s just how it is) or they simply chose not to take advantage or perhaps they simply couldn’t afford it. As a result, premiums are going up. 2) Beginning in 2014 (I think that’s the right timeframe) a Cadillac tax will apply to policies with premiums over a certain amount as they are considered “luxuries.” Because premiums are going up, more policies will fall within that realm and companies are trying to contain the damage to try and keep from laying any more people off than necessary to be able to meet the new mandate. Though much of that effort is being handled by moving employees off PPO/HMO style policies to high deductible health plans, they still have to work at it to keep the premiums low. 3) obamacare requires that the employee’s portion of the premiums not exceed 9.5% of a family’s income or the employer will face a penalty. 4) under the mandate, premiums will need to be kept as low as possible to ensure low/mid income employees can afford it. If they don’t, those individuals will approach the government to obtain premium assistance which will cost an employer $3,000 per year per employee. Obamacare also provides a “whistleblower” requirement that won’t allow employers to force an employee to accept the insurance they provide nor to terminate their employment if they refuse. So it’s a catch 22 for them. 5) employers know that the best employees will go to employers with the best fringe benefits, including health insurance. If they want to remain a choice employer for the choice employees, they have to force the premiums to the lowest possible threshold to be able to offer the best insurance without having to pay a penalty or risk losing their best and brightest current and future human capital to companies that do. 6) Obamacare provides companies with more rights to use good and bad incentives to force employees into doing what they want or suffer the consequences. Most people are more inclined to jump on board an idea to avoid a consequence than they are to earn a reward. These plus a whole bunch of others are why some employers are considering not offering insurance and just paying the penalty – it would be cheaper and far less hassle and why others who have the ability are ditching full and part time employees to try and get under the 50 employee cap or just get to where they can afford to comply.

So funny how the conservatives and Republicans are blaming this on "Obamacare", which is actually the Affordable Health Care Act. This penalty/discount structure embraces that most beloved of conservative mantras "Personal Responsibility". And also embodies another beloved tenet of Republican beliefs-"Free Market" economy. Employers have been instituting these types of plans for years - included such family favorites as General Mills, Pepsico and Home Depot. If you don't want to pay the surcharge, shop around for better insurance.
Oh right, that's why the ACHA was passed into law. Currently there is no guarantee you'd find a health insurance company willing to sell you a policy in today's market. Despite protestations from those opposed to Obamacare, insurance does not conform to Free Market economics, everyone is not able to play the game for the right price. Insurers do not have to sell you a policy, they do not have to sell you a policy that covers any and all medical conditions you may suffer from and there is no limit on what fees they charge nor on what health information they demand before even evaluating your application.

This is clearly an invasion of privacy, as they are not being asked to do this, but told to do this. Another company not to work for. One can only assume that other internal policies are bad if this is an example of their policies around health care.

Scubasteve58001

It's just like car insurance companies giving discounts to people willing to put monitors in their cars to prove they are good drivers.

Scuba, I'm sure I won't be the only one to point out the flaws in your logic, but I can't resist.

1-numbers don't tell the whole story. While someone who is 600 lb is probably not so healthy, someone classified as "obese" by current standards may be perfectly fine. I am overweight, but I am extremely active, have low cholesterol, perfect blood pressure, etc. I have plenty of skinny friends who eat junk food and never exercise. My weight does not reflect my overall "health". Plenty of skinny people have high blood pressure, and fat people aren't the only ones dying of cancer, heart disease, etc.

2-if you're a bad driver, it is evidenced by actual accidents, not by someone's notion that you are at risk of having an accident. Penalizing someone by assuming they're at risk for premature death by looking at weight and other ordinal factors looks at presumed risk, not actual fact.

3-there are factors that increase one's risk of premature death that cannot be measured by a scale or blood test. Should one be charged more because they have a family history of cancer? Or a genetic disease or malformation? If you think this is okay, then where does this institutionalized discrimination stop?

4-You can teach someone to be a better driver (usually?). For some people, their "numbers" (blood pressure, weight, cholesterol, etc) are not something they can control. How many people do you know that TRY to improve their cholesterol without drugs, but can't? Lots of examples out there. What will end up happening is that many more people will be forced to take prescription meds for these chronic conditions which may or may not be linked to improved health and longevity! (gee, do you think CVS will make any money from that bonanza?) Do we really know how hard the data is showing any one of these things is linked to premature death? Just because Dr. Oz or WebMD says it doesn't mean it's true, or true for everyone.

I cannot believe that in 2013, where people are so worked up about their rights being taken away, that this doesn't bother more people!! What happened to individual liberties? Freedom to choose? This is a very slippery slope, people!

CVS is just following in the footsteps of Obamacare. Under the new guidelines all of our medical records will be kept in a national database so the government or whoever can check on people with mental health or other issues.

It will soon be easy to prevent people on certain drugs like anti-depressants from owning a gun or working in certain jobs. That is what the Democrats pushed for so that is what we are now going to live or die with.

I really wish some people would learn what a free market economy is. Making people pay a fine for not being insured is not free market. Insurance is highly regulated by the government. Again, not a free market. Having the government pay for the uninsured is also not a free market.

Pretty much nothing about healthcare today falls under the concept of free market.

MsJ --- actually these programs you mentioned from General Mills, Pepsico & Home Depot WERE VOLUNTARY!! Employees not participating paid and had access to the same coverage. O'Bama Care is what has changed. Now your Health Care cost will increase to pay for those who like being fat, who like to smoke, who refuse to take responsibility for their own health because they get everything free. They don't feel good and have a sore throat , call an Ambulance and go to the ER because Welfare will pay the bill. Those of us that take personal responsibility are already paying higher Health Insurance Premiums with higher deductibles to pay for the deadbeats. Medicare recipents are paying more for medicines, more for durable medical equipment (which now cost more in addition to being taxed).

CVS underpays its employees and is now going to take another $600 from underpaid employees? If these people worked the required number of hours for their wages, CVS has a case if it thinks it can just help itself to another $600 just to reduce wages so CVS brute CEOs can live high on the hog.

HMOs are not free market...they are highway robbers. No other country of the world pays the kind of costs for healthcare people in the US are paying. And no other CEOs of HMOs in the world earn the kinds of salaries these American CEOs do.

How else did those 7 HMOs in Texas manage to bilk Medicare out of $350 million under the nose of a former Texas governor turned dumbass president from 2006 until they were caught by the Justice Dept. in 2012.

Texas has the worst record of healthcare insurance than any other state. This is why they bitch the most about having to pay for something they were bilking the federal government by using loopholes to get the fed to pay for TX healthcare needs for decades. Ask Cornyn how much HIS healthcare cost taxpayers all across the US last year. I'll be he had Blue Ribbon healthcare and is the first to deny others equal healthcare rights.

The problem is Weight is not always the culprit here, sometimes its flat out out genetics, diabetes and high blood presure. I am not overweight at least my dr says so, but my DNA says I get type 2 diabetes so I pay more for insurance, or what about those who are born with type 1 diabetes or other health issues...

I see this as a VERY BIG LAW SUIT in the making and a real test for if Obamacare will survive.

ScubaSteve. Traffic Tkts, and car wreck data tell the ins Co whether you are a good driver or not. Recording chips in you car add no additional sfaety, nor do they tell important info to the Ins. Co. They do let the Ins Co. s pretend to have another reason to raise your rates or cancel a discount. IF the Ins Co.s were interested in saving money, they should take on the Hospitals and Pharms that are overcharging on medical. yes your auto policy pays medical. There is a lot of money in the medical oversharges. But........ They'd actually have to go up against some Pros and they'd have to work at it. By tricking you into putting the chip in your car they only have to go up against you as an untrained amatuer and push you around with no effort at all. It's all about making money. None of these Corps care about you at all.

Ewent: I agree. This reminds me of the old company store. They pay you wages but also sell you what you need to survive. They control the wages - you don't. They control the price you pay for what you need - you don't. Result: You work and after so many years you look around, and you have nothing. The boss is filthy rich. You put two and two together and see if you can figure out how that happens.

1-numbers don't tell the whole story. While someone who is 600 lb is probably not so healthy, someone classified as "obese" by current standards may be perfectly fine. I am overweight, but I am extremely active, have low cholesterol, perfect blood pressure, etc. I have plenty of skinny friends who eat junk food and never exercise. My weight does not reflect my overall "health". Plenty of skinny people have high blood pressure, and fat people aren't the only ones dying of cancer, heart disease, etc.

The reason you are required to give your weight is so that you can talk to a doctor about it. It's not so that they insurance company can find arbitrary people to charge for more money. If you are technically overweight, but your doctor sees that you are healthy, it appears that the policy is written in a lenient enough way so that you wouldn't pay the penalty.

By the way, I know lots of people who use the "I'm overweight but I'm SUUUUPER active!" excuse, and there is no way in hell that they are healthy or are getting enough exercise. They are just lying to themselves. I've also seen 300-lb people at the gym who can almost outrun me on the treadmill. But again, it's obvious to anyone where the weight comes in and they are just built big.

2-if you're a bad driver, it is evidenced by actual accidents, not by someone's notion that you are at risk of having an accident. Penalizing someone by assuming they're at risk for premature death by looking at weight and other ordinal factors looks at presumed risk, not actual fact.

Ha, this is so ridiculous. There are a million random factors on the road that could have contributed to an accident. It's just the opposite of what you say. Accident records are not necessarily proof of a bad driver. Hell, my wheel could fall off and cause me to go careening into the next lane on my way home from work tomorrow, that doesn't make me a bad driver.

But if you are able to maintain a bodyweight of 300lbs (unhealthy fatty pounds), then there is clearly more you can be doing to take care of your body.

3-there are factors that increase one's risk of premature death that cannot be measured by a scale or blood test. Should one be charged more because they have a family history of cancer? Or a genetic disease or malformation? If you think this is okay, then where does this institutionalized discrimination stop?

Slippery slope argument. This policy does not discriminate for genetic/family history risks, and there's no indication that the trend is heading there.

4-You can teach someone to be a better driver (usually?). For some people, their "numbers" (blood pressure, weight, cholesterol, etc) are not something they can control. How many people do you know that TRY to improve their cholesterol without drugs, but can't? Lots of examples out there. What will end up happening is that many more people will be forced to take prescription meds for these chronic conditions which may or may not be linked to improved health and longevity! (gee, do you think CVS will make any money from that bonanza?) Do we really know how hard the data is showing any one of these things is linked to premature death? Just because Dr. Oz or WebMD says it doesn't mean it's true, or true for everyone.

The way the policy is written, it appears that you avoid the penalty by working with a doctor to correct the issue, NOT ACTUALLY correcting it. If you choose to ignore obesity and high blood pressure, then that is your own irresponsibility and absolutely should be penalized for it. If you are working with a doctor who's putting you on plans and medication and it's not working, then I agree you should not be penalized - and it doesn't appear that CVS thinks so either.

I cannot believe that in 2013, where people are so worked up about their rights being taken away, that this doesn't bother more people!! What happened to individual liberties? Freedom to choose? This is a very slippery slope, people!

Slippery slope indeed. Stop opposing policies that don't exist yet and no one is implementing. What a weak argument. I think the current policy is fine as it is.

It is very interesting how Republicans are blaming such things as the CVS policy on Obamacare while the Democrats are seeing it as an invasion of privacy by CVS.

Yes, Obamacare is placing some common sense restrictions on hetlth care offerings, such as the Walmart strategy of paying as little as allowed by the law while charging outrageous premiums to minimum wage employees while giving their executives "cadillac" plans that have no deductible and pay for things like spa treatments and "rest" cruises.

And yes, Obamacare is continuing initiatives that were started under Bush Jr (and unfortunately not decades sooner) that push more and more health care to prevention and managing chronic conditions than waiting until someone "crashes" and paying a much higher cost to treat them. And yes, it is not fair to saddle a person who goes to the gym 3-4 times a week and diets to keep their weight down with the premiums of the obese. And why should non-smokers pick up most of the premiums for smokers?

And yep, Obamacare is stopping the insurance company practice of cherry-picking only healthy people to insure and rejecting the rest. This is like the old saw that bankers will only lend you money if you don't need it. But people have little control over inherited conditions, of injuries and diseases that become "pre-existing" because a company is bought out by another company and changes insurance plans (usually with the same insurance company.) Ditto for caps that deny coverage the the most ill.

And, surprise of surprises, Obamacare won't allow companies to fire whistleblowers who report them for breaking the law and overcharging or undercovering to make more profits. Gee, that seems awful, unless you are illegally overcharged or undercovered.

Republicans do not seem to realize that the health care system in this country is broken. Period. We are 50th in the world in health care. When this discussion started we were 37th, then in a few years 42nd, and now 50th. What part of broken is so hard for the GOP to get? This country may be 50th in health care but we are #1 in per capita health care costs. France is #2 in costs and #1 in health care. But in the USA we pay twice what France pays per capita and only cover less than half our citizens with any coverage and less than 1% with coverage equivalent to what France has. In other words, we pay 4 times what France pays and get really crappy coverage.

The GOP needs to learn that you can't base a political creed on hate. That you can't cut your way to recovery. That you cannot cheat, lie and steal your way to political success. Old southern white men are in the minority now and each national election will be more dismal for the last for the GOP.

We have a form of this at my workplace. LOL, they don't ASK you how much you weigh, etc. A rep from the health plan comes in with a scale and weighs us, takes our BP, and takes several tubes of our blood. We are tested for lots of things: nicotine, high blood sugar, a full cholesterol panel, and several others that I don't even know what they mean. If you are too fat, have nicotine in your system, have high cholesterol, etc. you don't directly pay more for your insurance, but your deductible triples. They are planning to charge higher premiums to those who test poorly, but only after 5 years of doing it this way. We are in year 3 now. We all have had plenty of warning. I think it's a great thing and it is a great incentive to get and stay healthier. It seems like the only way to do this anymore is to hit people where it matters.....in their wallet.

Honestly I don't understand what all the fuss is about here. Must be a lot of unhealthy and overweight people who don't want to change that are glued to their chairs who spend their days cruising the internet for a story that hits a little too close to home......or their wallet. How about you take an hour and get some EXERCISE !!!

I suspect that employer policies requiring participation in wellness programs has little to do with Obamacare, and more to do with the high unemployment rate. With so many looking for jobs, the employer can require a lot of things that they would not get away with if there was competition for good workers (in other words, low unemployment). You don't like the wellness requirement, and don't want to pay the penalty, then see you later. There's always some one else looking for a job that will participate in whatever program the employer asks. When unemployment comes down (if it comes down), I'll be interested to see if policies like this last.

They won't get away with this for long. First class-action lawsuit that comes along and they'll change their policy.

Unfortunatley CVS is not the only company that does this. When it becomes "discriminatory" is when they stop hiring fat people. Until then it is just another workplace directive sent out from HR. You can choose to follow it or quit. If you don't take the assessment then they will charge you until you do.

There is nothing illegal here, they are trying to keep their costs down and it only covers employees that are on the company health care plan. Since most of the hourly employees do not get enough hours to qualify there will not be as many people that are affected as you think. The bigger crime is the low wages paid, lower than Wal-Mart.

Geezez, I'm sure glad that I worked during the era when employers were interested in one thing in an employee....ability! If I owned a business and I found a guy who weighed 325 lbs and smoked....but he could make lots money for the business with his skills and knowledge, I'd hire his fat azz on the spot. If his insurance cost me more, so what?...I'd pay for it with the additional profits he generated. What a generation of dumbsh*ts is running things today!

They won't get away with this for long. First class-action lawsuit that comes along and they'll change their policy.

Pulse - you are wrong. More and more companies are implementing health screening programs like this. IT HAS DEFINITELY BEEN CLEARED AS COMPLETELY LEGAL. Apparently, MSN is a bit behind the times in thinking this sort of thing is breaking news. My company is in year 3 of it, and the farther we go, the stiffer the penalties will be. It's working well.

"Avoid the $600 annual surcharge," CVS warns its employees who use the company's health insurance plan. They've been told they are required by May 1 to show up to a doctor for an annual WebMD Wellness Review and submit to tests for blood sugar, blood pressure, cholesterol and body mass and body weight.

Welcome to ObamaCare.

Bottom line: Progressives wanted ObamaCare, now they have it.

America is now on it's merry way to a ONE PAYER HEALTH CARE SYSTEM: the GOVERNMENT.

"Coercion" should be changed to "THREAT".

Pulse - you are wrong. More and more companies are implementing health screening programs like this. IT HAS DEFINITELY BEEN CLEARED AS COMPLETELY LEGAL.

HA HA - we'll see them in court.

Welcome to ObamaCare......

I have been warning the Medical ID card will ultimately be used to determine whether your doctor will "approve" you buying pizza, etc. I have been called many names over the last two years and some not suitable for younger ears.

But I stand firm in my expectation and this is just a sample. In this case (CVS) you will be required to manage what you eat and what you weigh but with ObamaCare the medical ID card will allow government to deny you the ability to buy a pizza (for example).

If your doctor states you must reduce "unhealthy food" it will be on your medical ID card and then when you go to a restaurant or grocery shopping the computer will be able to read that portion of the card and DENY your ability to even purchase. It's coming - as sure as I am sitting here typing.

Probusiness, you've posted that same sort of crappy, inflammatory response on other threads. Unless you can actually prove it, with actual references from reliable sources, you ought to just give it a rest. And don't bother with the web site reference you used the other day, it's just another partisan group trying to further their cause.

Yes conservatives, where is your personal responsiblity that you are always screaming about? Now when it comes down to YOU having to be responsible for the garbage you eat, the Chick-fil-a, the pink slime burgers, the GMO laced processed food, the twinkies, you don't think they have the right to make these requests, I think this is just the free market doing what it magically does with it's invisible hands and all. LOL I love it it when your one BS comes back to bite you in the ass!!

I see no problem with it, I don't smoke or drink, I have a 31" waistline and a 48" chest, my BMI is 20, my body fat percentage is 16, I'm at the gym at 5 am for 2 hours and at 7:30 PM for an hour. I don't eat processed food, I don't eat fast food, and I don't eat GMO's. My health insurance company loves me and I pay the lowest rate they offer.

I personally think is you can't take personal responsibility for the food you eat then you should have to pay higher rates. I mean these are private companies in a free market economy and they are out to make a profit, if you are a fat, cigar smoking wingnut who is addicted to perscription pain killers then I guess they have the right to drop you or charge you more money.

Guess you cons will have to change your lifestyle or get a better job. LOL

ToxicChemist , STexan, ldo

and all other UNEDUCATED republicans. This has NOTHING to do with Obamacare. My company has been doing this since 2007. Where has the Republicans been on healthcare? Why haven't they stood up against this? Because they SUPPORT IT.

Bush alone made it so the govt cannot negotiate the price of prescription drugs in 2005.

Yeah, Republicans care about health care.. NOT.

"This is about as coercive and blunt as I’ve ever seen,” said Dr. Deborah C. Peel, the founder of Patient Privacy Rights, a nonprofit organization

Glad someone is speaking the truth.

The Obama admin. is just trying to condition us in baby steps.

This has everything to do with Obamacare. Open your eyes. Baby steps people. Hitler used the same tactics.

Many people are missing the point. CVS has made it "voluntary" to participate in health and wellness programs just as many other employers do. the reason they offer these programs is that there are benefits to the employers and employees. The employer benefits by higher productivity, less absenteeism, lower healthcare costs, less on-the-job accidents, lower insurance costs, etc. The employees also benefit for many of the same reaons but additionally from lower hospital/care facility visits, less co-pays (less meds and visits), etc.

But the real point being missed is that there are always going to be a number of people who will not "volunteer" to participate in programs that incentivize participation by way of lower premiums, discounts on insurance programs (dietary, tobacco cessation, etc). They figure that they are comfortable with their lifestyles and the "benefits" are not worth the effort. Those people still have an impact on the total healthcare system. There are going to be those people that will only be motivated through "negative" impacts. As soon as you start to affect the amount of money in their wallet, you get their attention. Most will bitch and whine and try to do something about the negative impacts. However there are always going to be those few who will bitch and whine the loudest and sstill not do anything about it.

“Choosing not to have a screening will result in a $50/month increase.”

@the thinker,

Yes its "voluntary" to participate BUT if you don't participate it will result in a $50/month increase to each employee.

They will get you either way and its going to get worse. Don't wear blinders people.

Figures only 28% of the people on this forum believe that a company should be allowed to require this of their employees. Typical liberal attitude where you believe you're owed something with no requirements attached.

My company pays for 90% of mine and my family's benefits, and it costs them approximately $10K/year. I'm grateful for their largess and have no problem being held to a health standard in exchange for that.

So why do you have a problem with it, liberals?

Carrying,

You should be glad your employer is such a LIBERAL to want to ensure their employees do have health insurance by paying 90% of the premium, and not bandy the term 'liberal' around as a slur.

Looks like from the online poll about 70% of Americans are overweight.

ToxicChemist:

You are a moron Scubasteve. It has EVERYTHING to do with obamacare.

The point is they said participate or we are going to charge you up the @ss. If someone holds a gun to your head and says "do this or I blow your F'n head off", you'll do it no matter what it is won't you?

My, my, the goosesteppers certainly get testy when their ignorance is brought into the light publically.

You'd think they'd be accustom to it.

Does anyone doubt that corporate America sees its workers as its slaves?

Real simple, when a company does this, or is mandated by their insurance underwriter to do this, if you don't have a Labor Union, form one, then strike. If you do have a Labor Union, strike for violation of unfair work rules. Wildcat, and picket them, they will get the message.

Does anyone really believe CVS? You are required to provide all this information, but CVS will not be advised of it. Really? Then what's the point? Of course this has to do with Obamacare. It is the mindset of the left to control everyone. Let's face the basic facts of life: Who is pushing for universal healthcare? The left! Who are the ones who claim that it matters what someone else does in their personal lives? The left! What's the rational? Well, if we gotta pay for your health care then we have a right to demand that you live a healthy life! Who demanded that "we" pay for your health care? So, the fact is that the left are socialists who don't like you to have freedom and they want to control every aspect of your life. If you have half a brain, you should recognize this. If you don't, then you deserve what you get, which is Obamacare and a pill.

Of those 70% who are overweight, 68.2% of them are Progressives.

Please specify exactly what this has to do with Obamacare!!!!!

More offended messiah lovers.

For the ones using the CVS thing as an opportunity to bash Obamacare, consider this: If John McCain had won in 2008, do you seriously think insurance companies and employers wouldn't be doing this anyway? They probably would have done it even sooner!

Seriously, if this propaganda were traced back, I am sure it would somehow involve the Koch brothers and their big business partners. They were the ones who shot down healthcare reform in the Clinton administration. They are also the reason the United States is the only country in the developed world that doesn't have universal healthcare. Sure, there are some poorly run government healthcare systems, but it can't be any worse than a Nazi-esc system where the value of human life is now measured in money and productivity, like an animal. Propaganda people! Stop being suckers!

JAC- How much does your Co. Ins cost per employee, with and without the med exam ? What type policy is it - what does it cover ? I average 9.3 hour a day in a desk chair, plus 1.5 hours commuting - sitting in a vehicle. Over 60, my med expense last year was less than one month's medical premium. That's been true for over 35 years. I have a $2,500 deductible and the employees pay 100% of that $2,500 before the Ins Co. pays a dime. I give the employees $2,400 a year toward their HSA so they can pay those deductibles. Stay healthy and the money is the employee's to keep for a future medical emergency. Eat salty, sugary stuff too much, don't exercise and you'll spend it all on meds and you got nothing for a real emergency. Your choice. I'd like to avoid dictatorial policies from prejudicial decisions made by an Ins Co. Info from your experience would help.

I found out that someone I know "took the survey" and lied her big butt off on the questions. She said she was thin...no, a non-smoker...no, totally fudged the blood pressure and glucose questions with answers she knew would not cause alarm. Her employer offered the same deal...either you take the survey OR you will be charged extra $$ per month. SHE WORKS IN A HOSPITAL!

So you see this "survey" will not have amounted to a hill of beans when she strokes out or has a heart attack. She will have had the cheaper premiums everyone else did because she lied on the survey yet we will all still be paying for her dishonesty.

Ironic how the main center aisles of CVS right now are filled with....EASTER CANDY...and before this was.....VALENTINE'S DAY CANDY....and before that was......CHRISTMAS CANDY....and before that was.......HALLOWEEN CANDY!!!! Lots and lots of Candy. I don't see CVS selling fruit or veggies....just sayin!!!!!!!!!!!

Jo Ann -

it will result in a $50/month to each employee

...that doesn't participate. That is a far better choice than passing on the costs to every employee.

People need to stop and think about why CVS is doing this. Could it be because of a mandate by the insurance company and not because of CVS?

Unfortunately true that Obama Care has opened the door to this stuff.. Things will be gradually phased into the system over the next 3 years.. Stuff like being more then 5% above or below your weight index will give the insurance company the freedom to raise your deductible and premium even if you are healthy.. Those that are in the happy weight zone but with illnesses or a history of something will also be treated this way with higher rates.. Refusing to comply or attempting to falsify your metrics will get you a big penalty from comrade party leader uncle SAM.. All your personal activities will be charted and recorded, put on a risk scale and made available to insurance companies by the government.. So any activity like skate boarding or bicycle riding or sports or mountain climbing or sky diving or just driving a car will increase your premiums..

Besides higher premiums the law allows the Obama Care funding panel to tax anything they think has health risks.. So sodas, candy, chips, alcohol, cigarettes, fast foods, meat, sugar, butter and so on.. They will also be able to tax stuff like knives, hammers, chain saws, weed whackers, scissors, fire arms, cars and anything else that has or can cause an injury that has ever required someone to seek health care..

The better solution would have been to cap medical lawsuits and also cap medical salaries and procedure costs.. I got bit by a sick cat and had to get rabies shots.. yep you have to go to the hospital and have a surgeon inject you with the expensive antigloben? which was about $2k for 160cc's.. Doctor charged $500 got the bill and it was $16k all total, that's ridiculous $14k just for the service of injecting the antibodies at the hospital.. Hospitals are making billions in tax free money and so are insurance companies.. Deregulated health care does not work..

Things will be gradually phased into the system over the next 3 years..

It's called conditioning.

.that doesn't participate. That is a far better choice than passing on the costs to every employee.

What??? Don't believe in the BS about "passing on the costs to every employee". I see the mental conditioning is started to take effect.

No company should charge an employee $50.00 every month just for "not participating". It's so wrong on all fronts.

How is this wrong, Jo Ann? Employers could just as easily make the employees pay 100% of the cost of their insurance, which would be well within their right.

I just can't make sense of this liberal mentality where you believe, albeit mistakenly, that you are entitled to something other than the freedoms afforded you in the Constitution.

Here's a thought...if you don't like companies like CSV (or your employer) placing perfectly reasonable requirements on you in exchange for their largess, then I suggest you tender your resignation and go start your own company. And when you do, please let us all know so we can come work for you since you will over-pay us and give us twice the benefits of any other company for free, right?

Liberalism is a disease that will eventually rot this country from the inside out.

ewent

CVS underpays its employees

I'm just going to leave these links with you Ewent...and I'll let you get back with us as to how CVS underpays it's employees.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=CVS_Caremark_Corporation/Salary

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=CVS_Caremark_Corporation/Hourly_Rate/by_Job

Every time a company does something you don't agree with, your go to argument is "they underpay their employees"

roadrunnero. The price tag for your rabies is exactly like the story in the Time Magazine article on med costs. IT is pure financial fraud. Read the article and pass it to friends.

@Carryingconcealed, I don't know where you are getting that I'm a liberal because I'm not.

It's wrong for CVS to do this.

It's like CVS telling their employees that they will all have to ride the bus to work and if they don't then CVS will make the employee pay $50.00 a month to CVS just for not riding the bus. Sorry but this is wrong.

Your bus analogy has no merit whatsoever, Jo Ann.

Now, if CSV offered their employees free transportation to and from work and set a requirement that you had to take the bus or pay $50 a month to cover the costs of more expensive transportation, then that analogy would fit and, more importantly, be absolutely appropriate.

What I hope CSV does is gets tired of listening to liberals like you whine and bitch about this, and what they do instead is lay 100% of the cost of health insurance in the laps of their employees. I wonder how ridiculous this exam versus $50/month would look then.

Stop asking for something for nothing. You don't deserve it and neither does anyone else.

Honestly guys, CVS way of doing this is brutal, and frankly, stupid, but the idea isn't bad. If you have group health insurance policies, and you provide annual checkups and physicals for employees, I would count this as a plus, especially with the high number of lower-wage (read CVS) employees who may have little experience in assessing their medical health.

Preventative care is the number 1 way to cut medical costs in this country (by a few miles). As a country, we really all need to be focusing and zeroing in on preventative care, rather than our current policy of just treating symptoms of poor health and providing prescription drugs for everything.

This is something that every Universal Health Care first world country has figured out, but in our for-profit medical system, the medical industrial complex earns a lot more from keeping everyone sick.

Oh, and by the way, saying, oh it's my right to smoke, drink, be obese, and do nothing about it... that's fine. I would say that best solution would be to cancel Medicare, have these people sign an opt-out for universal health insurance, and let them fight for their rights without health insurance, nor a safety net.

Maybe they can all go to some magical free-dom based land where they can all get together and get sick and die together. Let's call this land, Texas.

Wow, I derailed pretty bad.

Conclusion - CVS, Stahp. you're being dumb.

It's a good idea, horrible implementation.

I'm sorry ToxicChemist, I am a bit of a moron.

Maybe yes, maybe not, Scubasteve. Personally, I think you must have been "a bit off on your oxygen blend" on one of your underwater excursions.

too true. People should have realised that once they enacted stuff to punish smokers due to popular opinion, that it was headed in this direction next.

Want to fix our health care cost problem? Medicare-For-All could save Americans a total of about $1 trillion annually...... a savings of 7% GDP ($1 Trillion annually) based on what other advanced countries with "socialized health insurance" pay.

Some smokers get health issues, some smokers do not! Will both smokers pay the same premium? or penalty?

People with many skin moles, same analogy...some get cancer, some don't?

Economics 101: if more people are insured (and not just the sick), everyone's rates will be lower (unless the insurance companies are permitted to gouge customers...which will be prohibited by Obamacare). It's called spreading out the risk.

What is consistently ignored is the cost to EVERYONE of having so many people uninsured. Aside from the ethics involved in only providing health care to those who can afford it, there are economic reasons to provide preventative care to everyone. Have you been to an emergency room in any big city recently? The majority of folks are not there for emergencies, but routine care. This is very expensive and drives up the costs for everyone in the system.

If you still think Obamacare will increase health care costs, you don't have all the facts. Please, read what the law actually says, not what some pundit has told you it says, and then check back with us.

Truth...Wrong...the HMOs know that once 2014 gets here and Elizabeth Warren starts investigating how they spend our premiums for their salaries, their days of wine and fatback are over.

Anyone stupid enough to think they HMOs are not thrilled with this little breather before their obscene salaries start to stagnate is fooling themselves. This is the reason since January 2009, the HMOs have all been playing fast and loose and are desperate to get in the last rivers of moolah they've grown all too accustomed to.

Sociallized Medicine DOES NOT WORK, Ask the Canadians that have it. Issue is Socialized medicine become rationed care... the older you get the less you get.

Jay...I've asked three of my Canadian friends who live in 3 different provinces if they'd rather have US healthcare or Canadian healthcare...They all said they couldn't "afford US healthcare."

Stop lying. A Canadian friend of mine was diagnosed with cancer and two weeks later had the surgery required. You liars of the right hate anything with the word "social" in it because you are all sociopaths who hate the idea that others won't bow down and obey righties who want nothing more than to turn a government into a for profit corporation and a citizens into free slave labor.

In Canada, to correct your erroneous statements, the cost of healthcare is about $500 a year. The cost of the same prescription drugs our Big Pharma soaks Americans for is half the cost in Canada...any more lies you want to spread?

bob- but that would make too much sense, and what about those poor CEO's that wouldn't be getting millions in bonuses? They'd be devastated! :p

Everyone is trying to keep medical costs and insurance rates down unfortunately Obamacare is taking both in the upward direction.

you're correct. I mean the statistics are obvious. The cost of health insurance premiums had flatlined and were staying consistent for decades prior to the implementation of the ACA, and now they're rising again.

Oh wait, you mean they were increasing at a ridiculously high rate all along? Nevermind, nothing to see here...

Quit being fat!

The problem is that no has done anything about the cost of health CARE. You all piss and moan about insurance companies raising rates but fail to realize they have to raise rates in order to pay the health care provider their outrageous fees. Health insurance was never meant to be a way to pay for your health care. It was meant to cover medical emergencies. Once doctors and hospitals figured out that they could charge more for services if someone had insurance, then they started demanding patients have insurance.

Um, we pay more for drugs so the drug companies can sell drugs to France and the other socialist countries for less....so the drug companies dont lose, just the US citizens.

@ Supper65 - Where Obamacare blew it is the fact that if you don't get insurance, you pay a small fine worth a fraction of a policy and insurance companies can't do much about pre-existing conditions. What I see coming is tons of people choosing to pay the small fine and then when they get diagnosed with cancer they get an insurance policy. That's going to put a huge burden on the insurance industry.

It's like the stories on this site a few years ago about people who didn't pay for fire protection and when their house caught on fire expected the fire department to come out if they paid them the fee on the spot. The same will happen with insurance.

Obamacare is designed to fail. They wanted a single payer system and couldn't swing it so they passed this abortion knowing it would fail and give the the leverage they needed to push us to a single payer system. The whole thing is dishonest.

As gday67 stated the insurance programs wer implemented for catastrophic care and emergencies. Over time,it morphed into every day maintenance costs. Just like your car, you have insurance to protect you in emergencies - collision, towing, liability, etc. How many of you file a claim for reimbursement for the oil change or routine tune-up?

@ Jay 12456

Who's tells you what to think and say? Your comment above about socialized health care is flat wrong. But you just keep being a good little puppet for our monopolized, private for profit health isurance / health care system.

Good job, you're f'n yourself and you don't even know it. If ignorance is bliss you must be one happy camper.

Ewent 2.7 is on to something. Read the Time magazine article on what drives med costs. I know a guy whose uncle is an Med Ins Agent. Has a mansion on the bay with a $500k boat. Your med premiums paid for that and I have yet to see the medical value in a system like that. Read that article and see exactly why US medical is the most expensive, least effective of all advanced countries. Too many people making too much money who are not directly delivering medical care. They take because they can. IT's a broken system.

Companies shouldn't be in the health insurance business in my opinion...let them focus on their business and let the open markets provide health insurance.

Theoretically, it is a "benefit" for employees and allows the company to attract better employees.

...I'm sure the "conditions" required are to keep company costs down. That's life...you do have a choice but perhaps some grandfather clauses might exempt some employees. I hate it when people change the rules in the middle of the game.

The advantage to employer-provided health care (at least for now) is that as a Group plan, everyone who meets the qualifications (at my employer, you have to be a full time employee) is covered. They can't refuse to cover a new hire because she is pregnant, or a smoker, or has a history of cancer, and they can't raise her premiums for it either. The premiums are averaged against the entire population of eligible employees, which keeps the rates down for everyone. Individual coverage for a comparable plan in these parts is at least double the cost. In addition, the premiums are deducted before your pay is taxed, which reduces your taxable income, and thus your tax bill.

The benefits to the employer are that the amount of the premium that the company pays is deductible on the corporate tax return, and just as the employee's Social Security and Medicare taxes are reduced by the pre-tax deduction, so too are the employer's portions of those taxes.

Dragon Lady...Good theory but employers have a different take on it. At the moment, all employers care about is making profits. How many employers live in ghettos or drive jalopies? If these businessmen actually operated their businesses according to the laws and stopped looking for loopholes in every law, the US wouldn't have to create laws on top of laws on top of laws. These guys just want to play as fast and as loose as the Robber Barons once did.

Employers are now telling all of the employees who are 65 or older, they will no longer be covered under an employer plan. They have to enroll in Part A, B and Part D of Medicare and pay for it out of pocket. Smell that profit rolling in yet? Dollar to a donut these employers will be driving a new Lexus before this year ends.

".... Social Security and Medicare taxes are reduced by the pre-tax deduction.."

Social Security and Medicare taxes are applied to your full wages. Only your taxable income for FIT is reduced by your portion of the health insurance premium. You will be taxed for Social Security on the full amount of your wages unless you reached the taxable wage cap for SS and Medicare taxes are not even subject to a maximum wage.

@ Jon - It started as a way to attract superior employees. Then it became an expected benefit. Now it's all messed up.

The CVS employees in Tulare,CA. for the most part work part time and can't afford to buy the company sponsored health insurance.Whether they provide the health insurance as an employee benefit or not CVS has no right to tread on people's personal freedoms and liberties.I don't see how it is legal to fine employees for not complying and I'm sure that the lawyers are salivating over this decision by CVS.This is a black eye that CVS cannot afford.As of this article I will not be doing anymore shopping at CVS. Walgreens and Rite Aid will be getting all of my business.I cannot patronize a store that uses gestapo tactics towards their employees.

It's hard to know where to start with the violations of Constitutional rights. If CVS expects one single dime in copays from its employees for their healthcare insurance or deductible, the employees are contributing to the cost of their healthcare and CVS therefore has no right to make such a mandate.

Check out the ages of the employees of CVS...most of them are well under the age of 30...so CVS can skank these less than savvy employees out of living wages and fully paid employer paid benefits. And NO NO NO Obamacare has zero to do with the cost of healthcare. Anyone want to man up to why nearly EVERY US HMO CEO earns over $1 million a year while they drop policies of older employees and reject claims? Where the hell do the righties think these CEOs get those million dollar obscene salaries from if not the premiums we all pay for?

Employers know going in there are always always always business expenses. That's the risk they choose to take when they become business owners. Last year, the government handed businesses over $22 billion in tax subsidies. That's tax dollars contributed by CVS employees through their payroll tax deductions. Where the hell does CVS get its nerve?

Country Girl...Maybe in your part of the country. Where I work we get calls from HMO hawkers the minute the company's HMO plan is up for renewal. Is that part of cutting costs too? Can you then explain why the employers put employees through 6 to 10 plans in a span of 5 years? All so they can reduce the cost of healthcare? Employers are gamed by these HMOs big time. These hawkers come in to a company and offer the employer a lower annual rate for healthcare, most of which is paid for by EMPLOYEES, not the employer, up to 35% of their annual incomes as the HMOs pre-plan. That rate only holds until renewal and then the HMO jacks the rate. This is the main reason every year, employees end up with a whole new HMO and never the same network of doctors or hospitals. All of which they are paying for by the way. A family of four pays around $1500 a month for minimal coverage which always includes at least a $2500 deductible for the hospital and copays of up to $40/per dr. visit. There are also copays for prescription drugs the employee pays for.

Let's stop the Poor HMO BS. HMO CEOS never earn less than $1 million a year for pointing, delegating and then send out their armies of hawkers to stiff employees. Now, they've discovered Medicare loophole and now even Medicare costs $300/mo.

You are so right.

Yep....All the fat people celebrated when insurance & govt jacked up taxes on the cigs....Now, Obamacare is coming after their donuts, sodas, pizzas, and gonna tax their lard butts into poverty.

Let that be a warning to all you liberal "tax the rich" crowd. They'll be coming for your money soon as well.

The liberals will say, "it's not Obamacare", but the costs of Obamacare is forcing insurance to surcharge people to pay those extra costs.

They should also jack up rates for those who frequently suffer sports injuries. No different than a driver who wrecks his car a lot.

As a non-smoker, I always fought the smoking bans for exactly this reason. Next on the list might be something I like.

cunical - exactly...and whoever didn't see it coming is blind to how our government/big business works.

Paws - why do you assume that everyone who is overweight is eating "donuts, sodas, pizzas,"? I'm overweight & eat none of those things. I exercise regularly & keep careful track of what I eat. I can't lose weight.

Reading over these comments makes me wonder if Bloomberg is right. We should just outlaw everything someone thinks is 'unhealthy'...of course we'll never provide anything that is 'healthy'. It seems like it's about the same thing as The East India Company sending a ship for breadfruit. The bottomline is always the goal. If a generation or three gets 'degraded' because of bad business decisions, well, that's the price they'll just have to pay. We may have raised our collective 'knowledge level' up, especially about Basketball, Football, Dancing With The Stars, American Idol, magic, vampires and Apples latest Ipod and IPad releases, but we've failed miserably in our physical well being and social skills.

Kids shouldn't roam the streets, but that's the outcome when nobody is home to watch them because both parents work. Nobody watches what they eat, or keeps their time occupied with interesting things, because everybody is out of the house. It's cheaper and easier to leave sugar-filled cereal for them to eat instead of fruit. 2 boxes of cereal cost less than 2 lbs. of apples, or one lb. of plums. Send the kids out to McDonalds and feed them for less than the cost of food at the store and there aren't any dishes to wash....what do you think is going to happen? 2 two liter bottles of Pepsi, cost a little over $2. A gallon of milk costs between $4 and $5 and you don't get a bottle deposit back for the milk carton. Or a half gallon of 10% juice and mixture of sugar and water for $2.50 or 2 for $4.50. What are kids going to drink? Oh....I know.....nasty foul tasting, foul smelling water loaded with chemicals.....right? People try to keep their kids off the streets by buying them video games and tvs. It MIGHT keep them off the streets and away from the bad influences, but at the cost of a generation or two of good health. Everyone can't be on the sports team at school.....or can they? Oh....I know the answer to that one....we'll just load the kids up in the SUV and take them to be on a soccer team we'll organize at the field down at the local Multi-National Corporate Headquarters!

We've made a life that isn't like the Nelsons and Cleavers used to live. This is more like the life Charles Dickens wrote about.

I hope a CVS employee has the good sense to publicize the weights, heights and health information of CVS CEOs. After all, CEOs are employees too.

@ Dave - It seems your attitude is very rare and refreshing. All I seem to hear is people what taxes raised - as long as it isn't their taxes. They couldn't care less about banning some activity - as long as it isn't an activity they like. They don't have a problem with people loosing their rights - as long as it's a right they don't exercise.

But when it starts to affect their wants then BY GOD DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH THAT. Well they are all fools for letting it start in the first place.

This isn't a discount on premiums; this is charging people a penalty if they don't share their information...even if they're not on the health insurance. That's the difference. Charging people more for insurance if they're likely to cost more doesn't phase me at all, but this is entirely different.

Works out to the same thing. Either show your healthy and get a discount or don't show you are and get a penalty. Two sides of the same coin.

Hi Montior,

Could you point out where it says it applies to all employees and not to just those on healthcare?

I re-read the article and that wasn't the impression I got.

Scuba; it never said it was just if you're on health insurance, it never said anything about it being tied to insurance at all. That leaves me to conclude that it's for all employees.

@monitor I assume you mean other than the first sentence.

"“Avoid the $600 annual surcharge,” CVS warns its employees who use the company’s health insurance plan."

Second sentence states that the letter about the surcharge was addressed to employees on the company health insurance plan.

Guest - it IS mandatory, because we will all have to have health insurance.

Part of the issue as well, is the use of utterly inaccurate and subjective numbers like the BMI. Allowing anyone, PARTICULARLY government bureaucrats to make ill-conceived, erroneous and intractable guidelines that cannot be universally applied is idiotic. I have worked with a great many folks that, according to their BMI numbers, were borderline morbidly obese. Funny though, one would think that the special forces community could weed out these porkers in their selection process.

For businesses and insurance companies to use these numbers is simply an out to garner more revenues without the need to prove anything. If your arbitrary number is above a certain level, well, guess what, pay us or walk.

No employer can make rules that deduct money from your earnings without a legal right to do so. It's the reason an employer can't make an employee pay when the till is short at the end of the night. Blow the whistle when employers pull stunts like this.

RjunCajun007,I wouldn't work for any company that infringes on my personal life choices or freedoms.Do you not see where all this is heading?Do you know what huge profits the health insurance companies are making?They've all raised the cost of health insurance because due to the affordable care act health insurance premiums will be at a minimum for the poor.They are dipping into the working middle classes pockets to take care of those who do not work.

Guest2468: Using credit reports to determine a person's risk for car insurance has been outlawed for the most part. Credit scores or credit reports don't correlate to how well or how bad a person would be at risk for accidents.

I still don't understand why everyone's all bent out of shape over invasion of privacy for health insurance, while other insurance (auto, home, life) has been using personal info all along to determine insurability and cost. Be glad that health insurance hasn't started charging different monthly premiums based on how many claims you've had over the past year like auto and home ins do. And by the way ... if you apply for a new private health insurance plan it is very likely that you will have to sign something authorizing the insurance company to request your medical records from various doctors. They can request the records and look at them, does no one realize that? If you've had your weight, blood pressure, etc checked by a doctor, your insurance company most likely has access to that info already. So by an insurance company requesting that employees submit their info en masse, it saves a lot of administrative costs b/c they don't have to go through the process of requesting the info themselves. Can you even imagine how much our premiums would go up if we had to add on that administrative cost of the insurance requesting and going through everyone's records just b/c people throw a fit when they have to submit the info themselves?

wabbitstu - Using credit reports hasn't been outlawed everywhere, my state still uses credit reports on car insurance.

wryview - it is mandatory that you have health insurance, but no one says you HAVE to use the insurance provided by your employer. If you don't like having to submit your health stats, you're free to get privately insured. Or you can just pay the higher monthly premium with your employer's insurance. It's still your choice.

You know Scubasteve, there are a lot of health issues that are hereditary. Someone can be in good physical shape, doesn't smoke, exercises regularyly, but gee, there is still that pesky genetic high-cholesterol that just won't go down! Should those people be labeled high risk? Because a seemingly healthy person who would be labeled low risk can have a massive heart attack at any time. Where is the balance?

I have a problem with programs like these because they don't actually benefit anyone. These programs just want to see what services they can weed out. They are taking a page out of the government handbook. Obamacare will affect the accessibility of healthcare services. The suggestions are already happening. Women don't need yearly paps done until after age 40, even though more and more younger women are getting cervical cancer. Men don't have to have prostate exams until after 60 because it is so slow growing. Well, if I were a man I would question this. What could be found early could very well be late stage if you wait. It is ridiculous.

I had cancer, and during treatment I became diabetic temporarily (a common side effect). Upon completing treatment I recovered from the diabetes, for a few years. I'm now diabetic, caused by the chemo. How could I control any of that?

I'm a young male and am a pretty good driver (no accidents or tickets) but I still have to pay the higher insurance premiums because people in my age and gender brackets tend to have a higher risk of accidents.

Is it perfectly fair to judge people only by a set of numbers? No, of course not. But the amount of effort that would be required to perfectly align people's premiums to their personal risk of needing health services is so huge that it is basically impossible.

Putting people in statistical groups and charging them accordingly isn't perfectly fair, but it is certainly fairer than just lumping everyone together and charging one premium.

Following that logic, as you get older or if you have been sick before you are going to need more medical care than someone else. Guess we should charge them more too.

It would not work for healthcare. Automobile insurance is something you could help by not getting in a car accident. Diabetes Type I and Hypertension (high blood pressure) are hereditary. I have high blood pressure (hereditary) and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and disc problems (caused by a bad car accident) and I had these when I was thin! I am not grossly overweight, but I am no longer thin because of the blood pressure pills I was on for over five years that caused bodily inflammation. The car accident caused disc problems in my neck and low back. Mind you, as I said, I was thin. Don't you think it's wrong to be discriminated against because of these conditions? I could not help getting hypertension because it's hereditary and someone else caused the car accident. Should I have to pay higher premiums? No. I think CVS is playing with fire.

I haven't gotten in any accidents. I'm still charged the higher rates because people in my age group tend to have more accidents.

I'm not disputing that putting people into buckets based on certain criteria isn't perfectly fair. I just can't think of a fairer way to do it, can you?

Nowhere in the article does it state anyone is being charged a higher premium for illnesses out of their control. Right now, the penalty applies only to those who do not participate in the evaluation.

Also, for anyone who buys insurance as an individual, and not through a group plan, such as the one offered by CVS, you are already being charged extra for having been ill, suffering from a chronic disease or just simply for being old. Also, an individual policy can refuse to cover certain medical conditions indefinitely, leaving you on the hook for 100% of the bills related to high cholestorol, high blood pressure or diabetes.

Scubasteve58001 and others who think this is just like car insurance:

Ask yourself who is profiting from this! You can't control everything by diet, and you can't change your genes. So, pop some pills to lower your cholesterol, correct your blood pressure, supplement your deficiencies...hmmm, who stands to make money from this?!

Do your homework...yes, a healthy lifestyle may help you live longer, and you may end up spending less on healthcare, but the evidence for many of the metrics used to measure "health" is a lot shakier than you might think. But if I can convince you that you need to lower cholesterol to live longer, than someone will sell a lot more pills to lower your cholesterol levels. Forget that those same pills may give you a stroke or some other problem.

I feel for all of you who say you have hereditary problems that you can't control. But does that mean the rest of us (or CVS) should cover the extra costs associated with your health problems? Heck no. I'm sorry, but why should I pay more because you are unhealthy (whether by choice or just bad genes)? You have health issues, pay for them. You want fair? Don't make me pay for your health risks. That's fair for all, not just you.

In the military they have a fat boy program--if you're overweight and can't slim down by a certain deadline then you get kicked out. Should we all stop joining the military now?

JaneDoh...If you're vying for the Ayn Rand award for Narcissism and Selfishness...you've won hands down. I pay the "associated costs" for the luxuries your kind never get enough of...when money runs out your ilk just jack prices to fill the gaps for the money you spent wildly.

By the way, why should WE pay for the roads your drive on? Or the government services YOU use? What a sick, pathetic bunch of selfish Daycare Generation anti-social sociopaths. You live in a society honey. North Korea is calling.

Janedoh,

the military aslo has the option to get off of the fat boy/girl program if you meet the BMI standards but don't meet the weight. and last I saw we had a total voluneteer military and you knew that they had weight standards before joining. health standards also effect your job in the military.

CVS does my high cholesterol affect my performance? it didn't in the military (yes mine is totally hereditary)

I didn't see anywhere in this article where it said people's premiums would be affected by their medical conditions. These programs are designed to make people aware of their health and see how their numbers change from year to year. Will it ever change to a more individualized cost structure based on your health? Maybe, but it isn't that way right now so why all the fuss? And I also don't know why everyone assumes that insurance companies will not make a distinction between a hereditary condition vs a lifestyle choice. I don't know how they will decide, but insurance companies have extremely complex formulas they use to calculate risk and none of us know what they would come up with. They may weigh factors such as tobacco and alcohol use heavier and charge higher rates for lifestyle choices, and not take hereditary conditions into account as much. Who knows? And if you are privately insured, isn't this what they already do ... base your premium on your health history? So why should employer-provided plans be any different?

Guest...premiums are not affected now but who knows down the line if your information won't in some fashion be used against you. If I worked for CVS, I'd like a statement in writing that it now nor ever won't be used against you. Once your personal information is out there, you can't ever make it private.

Thomas M. Ryan is the CEO of CVS...his annual salary is $18 million. Meanwhile, CVS is planning to highjack their employees paychecks for $600 a year if they don't obey the dictator? And what pray tell is the reason Ryan earns $18 million? He's not the founder of CVS. The founders are Sid Goldstein, Stanley Goldstein, and Ralph Hoagland. Has anyone forgotten how these three opened the Customer Value Store (CVS) and customers had to bag their own purchases? How's that for using consumers to do the work these CEOs wouldn't pay employees to do?

LuckyL.A.,I agree with you.

How so?

Well, scubasteve, because I have a deathly fear(phobia) of needles. Whether the needle is used to take blood or give an injection. If I don't close my eyes or turn away quick enough, I pass out! Hit the floor! When I said frightening trend, I meant personally for me.

If I was required to do this, I would have a problem on my hand.

That's a fair point.

I am also pretty terrified of needles. Try turning your head, closing your eyes, and singing. Also, ask the person sticking you not to let you know when it's going to happen. Tensing up seems to make it worse (for me at least).

If you pass out whenever you are having blood drawn, etc., you can request to lie down. This beats sliding out of the chair or pitching forward.

Good question, kkwilson. But we both know the answer to that is a resounding NO!!! It's all about money and has nothing to do with health.

That's the best comment on this entire board!

I agree! Best comment of all!

99% of the goods in CVS are unhealthy. It's mostly cheap imports.

Eliminate their candies section?!?!?! Why?!?!?! It's about moderation & having self control, no need to get rid of them, it's just people over indulge on certain things, like me for example...I some times tend to over do it with my beers but I'm not out of a job or sick (Knocking on wood) due to it but I hope that if that situation ever did come about I would react & say "Now it's a problem" & change my ways!

In order to lose weight, I had to make a rule for myself: eat nothing purchased from a drugstore. The junk sold there was addictive to me and it took abstinence to break it. If I worked in one of those stores and I had to face all that junk every day, I would have a hard time keeping my weight at a healthy level.

If the article is accurate, this doesn't apply just to people on the company's health insurance plan, which is what I object to.

Uh, monitor, not to beat a dead horse but...

How is CVS going to charge an employee an additional $600 in healthcare insurance premiums for a plan that they currently do not have and are not paying for in the first place?

Even if you did not get that from the articile itself (which it clearly states), how could that possibly make any sense?

“Avoid the $600 annual surcharge,” CVS warns its employees who use the company’s health insurance plan

Well the CEO and his or her family members don’t pay for their insurance coverage. That’s the perk given by the insurance company to the employer and family members for providing a pool of paying employees to a particular insurance company.

Did you ever wonder why employers want to be involved with administrating health insurance coverage in the first place?

1. For the perk that I mentioned above.
2. Control of the employer over the employee. A lot of employees are tied to their employer because of the health insurance.

Why do employers want to be involved in health insurance??????

There's another reason...one that most employees never consider. If the healthcare provided is a payroll deduction, that deduction (money) sits in the employers' interest bearing impound account until it's time to disperse it to the HMO underwriter. If the number of employees paying a deduction is more than a handful, that's a considerable amount of interest accrusing and pure profit for the employers.

Renee: I think the CEO, CFO etc could afford the extra $600 a year - not so much the $7.25 an hr employee.

Mary,the $7.25 an hour employee usually do not participate in the company health insurance plans because they cannot afford to.

It's not a HIPPA violation because they aren't sharing the personal health info for individuals. This is just an incentive for people to go see the doctor to stay healthy. CVS may get aggregate numbers but that also isn't a HIPPA violation.

Mike - do you really believe the info won't be shared with the company? I have bridge to sell you.

It IS shared. I found that out accidentally when my employer goofed in a conversation and mentioned that the cost of healthcare insurance had to do with the increase in the cost for prescription drugs for two employees who are "diabetics." How did he know that if the HMO didn't tell him that. I called the HMO and reminded them that our health information was not the business of the employer. The snotty HMO punk said that the employer has to know how much each employee's health is going to cost and the only way to do that is to know the state of their health. This was either CYA or it's BS.

SOOOOO when will they start this BS with welfare recipients? Which I believe should have been the first step seeing as that would specifically effect government spending.....Make them meet specific health choices and parameters or no benefits. If it works, then explore this BS in the working class sector

Bull@!$%#.

adc...aw....the big bad Americans won't let you live off your Worry Free Wall Street ROI ...boo hoo..You can dream that government won't keep its eyes on what businesses do...Most of us who had Great Depression parents remember how your kind found loopholes around the laws and then Madoff with millions when the market crashed. Sorry...I'd rather have the government regulations than a 17-year greedy Madoffing stint.

Ok, so if they framed it as "Everyone has to pay $X for health insurance but if you participate in this wellness program, we'll give you a $600/year discount." then you'd be ok with it?

Fining people for not participating and giving people discounts for participating is basically the same thing.

The point is to save money in the long run by requiring people to get preventive care. They don't care if you're actually healthy but they want you to know about potential problems so you can correct them before they get to be huge problems.

And what about the person who goes for a check up; is given a clean bill of health & then dies of a heart attack in the parking lot? Yeah - that check up did that person a lot of good - and was a waste of resources.

People should boycott business'es like CVS when they start this kind of c--p. I never liked the CVS stores anyway and never shop there. They look like a second hand store to me. I always go out of my way to shop at other than CVS.

Yeah, let's boycott all the companies doing this: Home Depot, General Mills, Pepsico, Home Depot, Safeway, CVS....

Mike....do they have these problems in Canada?

wryview, it's all statistics. It's true that anyone can drop dead at any time, whether they had "risk factors" or not. People who have never smoked do get lung cancer. The point is to identify people with risk factors that can be controlled through changes in lifestyle and make information and opportunities available to them. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with insurance companies having ALL of your medical information, and making that mandatory. That seems wrong to me.

Remember the flap in the 1980's when several corporations were taking out life insurance policies in their employees name unbeknownst to their employees and then when the employees died, the employer collected on the life insurance policies? Pure greed and pur profit. Another way these employers get away with what they know is illegal.

Wow , Ewent really hate capitalism , corporations ,CEO`s and the like !

For the record--healthcare in the former Soviet Union sucks. So I don't think we're there yet!

Actually, my wife is Russian and lived under Communist rule. Companies even in the Soviet Union did not leverage this type pf draconian control over its employees. Of course, healthcare was and still is largely free to Russian citizens. And Jay, you are quite mistaken, healthcare was very good, but, like here, you had to do a little research and find a good healthcare provider.

If you really meant that then it might do some good at bringing a stop to this invasion of privacy.