Clarion Health Partners Shape or Pay up policy do you agree?

Saw this on the local news tonight. Here is one link. I would have to pay $5 for high cholesterol.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20212332/

"For several years, we've had a reward program, where if you cease smoking and do a self-assessment, you receive a reduction in your [health care] premiums," Clarian president and CEO Daniel Evans told TODAY co-host Matt Lauer on Friday. "[But] our health care costs were going up and our employees were not taking full advantage of the programs we had in place."

To combat the problem, beginning in 2009 Clarian employees will be charged up to $30 every two weeks for failing to meet standards set by the company in a number of areas. That breaks down to $10 for a body mass index that's too high, and $5 each for smoking, high cholesterol, high blood sugar and high blood pressure.

that's BS. the BMI is a seriously flawed way of measuring health, and I know many, many people who live healthy lives with high-blood pressure and cholesteral level even though they eat well and exercise(like my relatives and parents). the level of blood pressure and cholesteral is not somehting you can regulate with certain patterns of behavior.

The BMI rule would punish people who work out regularly and reward people with anorexia. How is that healthy?

Last time I went to the doctors, I have a BMI of 31, and my doctor has a BMI of 26. he looked over worked and exhausted, while I was going to the gym three times a week. I ride a bike regularly and lift regularly. But hey, I'm apparently obese. better start my anorexia regime to make my self healthy again.

The idea has some merit under the best circumstances... unfortunately it's going to be supplanted as an excuse to charge additional fees, while still maintaining an option to deny or reduce coverage.

As a medical student, I am frankly alarmed at the state of healthcare in this country... and at the same time appalled at many of the suggested "improvements".

As a medical student, I am frankly alarmed at the state of healthcare in this country... and at the same time appalled at many of the suggested "improvements".

Click to expand...

I have no health insurance. I'm probably going to die from something that could be maintained by a pill or an injection like insulin.

I agree in principal with something like this but disagree as to the barometers used to determine who is unhealthy. As already mentioned, unless it's measured by water displacement BMI is not an accurate measure of how overweight a person is. Even being a bit overweight is not necessarily bad if you exercise/eat right. Poor cholesterol, blood sugar. and high blood pressure readings are not always correlated with an unhealthy lifestyle. Smoking though on average shortens lifespan by 15 years. Of course, there may be fairly healthy smokers, but they would be far healthier if they quit.

I have an alternate method. See how fit a person is by measuring their maximum power output, heart rate under stress, etc. Basically use the same tests used on elite athletes. Have them do timed tests like running one mile or biking 10 miles. Normalize the results for age (obviously a fit 70 year old won't be able to perform like a fit 20 year old).

After the above tests add in certain risk factors like smoking, unprotected sex, or eating fast foods. Don't use any genetically inherited diseases as risk factors as that's totally outside the person's control. The end result should correlate fairly well with who may end up costing more down the road. Of course, something like this would never be done because it's too time consuming. Instead, they use the lazy man's way of just picking a few test results.

meuge said:

As a medical student, I am frankly alarmed at the state of healthcare in this country... and at the same time appalled at many of the suggested "improvements".

Click to expand...

The trend of using pills to temporarily compensate for an unhealthy lifestyle is probably the single most alarming trend. My dad took Lipitor, blood pressure medication, and one or two other things instead of eating properly and moving around. Sure, most of the time his readings were OK, but now he's six feet under. The drugs were a crutch which allowed him to postpone making necessary lifestyle changes. Without them it would have been a choice of change now or die. With them change was still ultimately needed, but the drugs gave the illusion that things could be OK forever by just taking a pill. For all the effort spent on stopping illegal drug use, I find the legal drugs much more worrisome. I feel drugs should not be allowed to be advertised outside of medical journals. Nothing good comes from drug ads on TV. A layperson will see the ad, and then push their doctor to prescribe a drug that may not necessarily be right for them. Doctors all too often go along with such patient requests just to get them off their back.

jtr1962 said:

The trend of using pills to temporarily compensate for an unhealthy lifestyle is probably the single most alarming trend. My dad took Lipitor, blood pressure medication, and one or two other things instead of eating properly and moving around. Sure, most of the time his readings were OK, but now he's six feet under. The drugs were a crutch which allowed him to postpone making necessary lifestyle changes. Without them it would have been a choice of change now or die. With them change was still ultimately needed, but the drugs gave the illusion that things could be OK forever by just taking a pill. For all the effort spent on stopping illegal drug use, I find the legal drugs much more worrisome. I feel drugs should not be allowed to be advertised outside of medical journals. Nothing good comes from drug ads on TV. A layperson will see the ad, and then push their doctor to prescribe a drug that may not necessarily be right for them. Doctors all too often go along with such patient requests just to get them off their back.

Click to expand...

It's usually not to compensate for an unhealthy lifestyle but the body wears out and cannot produce the necessary chemical reactions or hormones, etc so pills/insulin must be used to compensate.

A quick read indicates that the additional cost is for their health insurance -- not a "fine" reducing their paycheck, just as those who did the self assessment and quit smoking received a reduction in their health insurance premiums.

Theoretically, I have no problems with actuarialy driven costs. Someone 40 years old with 3 DUI and 6 speeding convictions should pay more auto insurance than somone 40 years old with a couple of moving violations.

What aggravates me is that we (wife and I - no kids) pay the same group health insurance premium as a family of five with more kids on the way. Basically, I am being forced, through payment of the same premium, to subsidize their choice to have children. Actually, I think the employer is kicking in more to subsidize their insurance. Which really chaps me.

The program is not set to start until 2009. I wonder if from a legal standpoint the company could enforce it. I wonder if they might open themselves up to possible discrimination suits.

I know where I work a married, childless couple have found it cheaper for both of them to each have their own single coverage rather then participate in the family plan together.

BIGIRON said:

What aggravates me is that we (wife and I - no kids) pay the same group health insurance premium as a family of five with more kids on the way. Basically, I am being forced, through payment of the same premium, to subsidize their choice to have children. Actually, I think the employer is kicking in more to subsidize their insurance. Which really chaps me.

Click to expand...