My company recently implemented a new wellness initiative (God, that sounds so corporate: “wellness initiative”): They are asking every employee to undergo biometric health screening, which would provide you with you health stats consisting of: cholesterol, blood pressure, BMI, glucose, and body fat, as well as health counseling to go along with those results. And when I say “they are asking” what I mean is “It’s voluntary, but if you do not participate, your health premiums will increase by $1,000/year.”
Ok. So. Ignoring the fact that using BMI as a way to assess health is a quick way to get my ass to clench, I generally think this program is a good idea. Sure, the “counseling” you get regarding your results is simplistic at best — a short explanation of why blood pressure numbers need to be in certain ranges, a summary of ways to lower cholesterol, no real discussion of how or why to improve these things — but the intent is a good one. It’s well documented that preventative medicine is cheaper (and better) than waiting until dire circumstance (meds for lowering blood pressure are WAY cheaper that medical care that is needed after a stroke), and if a large group of people (say, an entire company) can continually monitor warning signs of major health issues and deal with them up front, that group of people (company) would tend to find the overall cost of health care going down. That’s good; it means either cheaper health care for employees, or more money to invest back in them or the company. Very fair trade off, in my mind.
I also like this because our CEO has been very vocal about her own health struggles, her efforts to lose weight, deal with chronic illnesses, and what making health a priority has meant for her. I think it’s a genuine message from the company that health is a priority and something that is valued, both from a monetary perspective and from a quality of life perspective. So, sure: I can spend an hour of time (an hour of WORK time, which was sanctioned) to get a finger prick and a blood pressure cuff and whatever. No big. Right?
WRONG. Oh my STARS people are PISSED. They are sure that either a) their health results will be stored and used punitively for those who are in poor health; b) any money saved will be used to increase the salaries of “the executives” and not provide cheaper health care plans, and c) it’s not important, ANYWAY, GOD.
I am amazed by this reaction. First, it’s ILLEGAL for the company to store individual health information and/or use that information when assessing individual performance, and the medical professionals doing the screening, as well as HR, have been very clear on this fact. (Frankly, the idea that they would seems ridiculous to me, and it never even occurred to me that their could possibly be such a sinister motive until a conference room of people started discussing it, but I guess I am more of a pollyanna than I realized.) Second: if the company is continually telling you that they’re looking for ways to offer lower health care plans, and this is one way they could do it … why would they take the savings for themselves? There’s easier ways to swindle some cash, right? I mean, in my experience, when there is a chance to show notable savings in any corporate program, executives are really eager to do that, more so than they are to squirrel more cash away in their Swiss Bank accounts.
But mostly, I think, people don’t want to be lectured about health at work. Now, I’m pretty healthy, so I don’t really care – my baseline reaction was “Oh, I should probably check my cholesterol anyway, so I’m glad they’re making it easy for me to do so”, but if I wasn’t — if my health wasn’t strong and I felt like it was something I KNEW was off but I hadn’t DEALT with it yet, I don’t think I’d want a workplace reminder. In fact, I’d just want to go to work, do my job well, and go home, and not effing hear about it. Certainly everyone has the right to say “I’m not going to think about my blood glucose levels, because I don’t wanna” …right? Or is it our responsibility to acknowledge the fact that our health care system is TOTALLY EFFED and if we have the capability to improve our health now to avoid catastrophic illness later, we absolutely owe it to the greater good to do so? I mean, I guess, but … eeeeep.
If I look at this in terms of finances — if the company was basically requiring everyone to go through counseling for their personal finances — I find my reaction to be much more extreme. I don’t think that is an area of my life that I want discussed in a corporate setting. But why not? Certainly the country is in just as big a financial crisis as it is a health crisis, yes? Isn’t it better for the overall collective to have everyone take a preventative look at their finances and have them assessed? Of course. And yet: I’d be just as uncomfortable doing that at work as the majority of my coworkers are having their biomedical screening.
I’m not sure the point of all this, except to ask: Where is the limit of corporate responsibility? My company’s CEO prioritizes health and wants her employees to do the same, and in doing so she can save everyone money. That seems like a no brainer. But is it? And where is the limit of OUR responsibility? Do we, as employees, have a responsibility to take measures to ensure we keep ourselves as healthy as possible in order to not over burden the system?
InnerTeub 
I think the issues of “what a person’s health status is” and “whether that person should be forced to have it evaluated” need to be separated from the issue of “whether employers should be the ones to decide this and enforce this and charge fines for non-compliance.”
That’s a really good point. I think a problem is that as long as employers are footing the bulk of the costs of a health care plan, they’re already very invested in the health decisions of their employees.
Interesting post. I think the correct reaction to the company fits somewhere between “none of your business” and “thanks for doing this, it’d be helpful” and probably varies by the person. Every company has a culture and its stance here helps define that culture. If the CEO wants this to be part of the culture, that’s fine with me. I’d probably be the same way.
My company does all of this, and as someone who is actively involved in prioritizing the improvement of my health, I am still outraged. I hate it, actually. For a few reasons.
*My medical records are no one’s business but my own, unless I choose to make them public. (Now, I’m a blogger, and I talk about this shit all the time, so it’s not like I feel private about it — here’s my BMI! I’ve shouted it from the rooftops!) But I feel absolutely FURIOUS that if I wanted to keep that information private (or at least private in that it is not in some “safe” corporate database, I would have to pay a premium to do so). On principle, that really chaps my hide.
* Second, the fact that because I haven’t always had “ideal biomarkers” I actually have had to go through some of this “health counseling.” And let me tell you, there is no one more irritated than me when I am sitting through a teleconference about how a low-fat, mostly vegetarian diet is going to help me “be healthy” while I’m sitting all day at work.
*Third (and this is mostly an issue that has to do with my particular company, probably) it makes me mad that they say “Oh we are doing this because we want you to feel empowered about your health” though when I asked if my desk could be converted into a standing desk I was told that there was not a “a business case to do so.” And you know, when that happened I was like “Oh, ok, well thanks for wanting to EMPOWER ME TO IMPROVE MY HEALTH BY SITTING ON MY ASS ALL DAY.”
Grrr.
So, now that I have written a novel — I think it’s complicated. The intention is good, yes. Our healthcare system is so effed, yes. Prevention is better than treatment, yes. But the whole — we’re charging a premium unless you do it the way we want you to do it — is where I get a little fearful of the slipper slope, you know?
Hmmm. Interesting points. I guess I don’t see this as a privacy issue, because I really really don’t believe that the corporation would receive the information (the biometric screening for my company was done by either personal physicians or nurses that work for the insurance company, with the only data going back to the company a ” did participate/did not participate” — and while maybe I’m being naive to think that, I do think that people acknowledge the medical right to privacy as sacrosanct, and don’t think it would be breeched.
As for the lame counseling: word. I mean, WORD. I mostly wanted my numbers so I personally knew where I stood (numbers like chol, BP and glucose — I could give a shit about BMI and body-fat-as-measured-by-a-scale-because-we-all-know-that-is-bullshit); I did NOT need the corresponding “Great cholesterol scores, keep eating whole grains!” because….no. Just, no. So I can imagine you sitting there going “Lady, I have thought about this more than you EVER will so get off my jock already”
There is a strong business case for getting preventative numbers like glucose. Treating pre-diabetes is cheaper than treating diabetes, and you would have no idea that you’re there without doing that test. If I’d gotten back shitty cholesterol numbers, I’d prob think harder about my “Fuck YEAH Bacon!” lifestyle. But I’d need that feedback to know, right? So I think it’s a good step, and I get why the company is really forcing the issue. HOWEVER, to your point, and also to Swistle’s earlier — is this really the type of decision making companies SHOULD be in? Why is health insurance and health awareness a function of my employer, anyhow? And it’s shitty, because it always will be, as long as “having adequate health insurance” and “being employed” are one and the same.
I spent years on the flip side of this situation…I used to be one of those evil beings who actually created the rates for group health insurance. Fun times, let me tell you (if I hear one more comment about insurance company profits being the reason insurance costs are so high I might have to throttle someone with my calculator. I am not saying insurance isn’t broken, just that it isn’t broken in the way the majority of the public thinks it is and it is definitely not the only broken piece of the medical care puzzle….).
sorry, I digress…..
From a PHI standpoint (personal health info), none of that goes back to the employer. All the regulations they have now for PHI, insurance companies jump through countless hoops to keep individual info away from the employers, and same goes for the employer. If a company was ever caught using individual health info in their HR, well, that wouldn’t be pretty. Employers get countless reports from the insurance provider on claims utilization, trends, etc, and all of those are scrubbed of any markers that could be tied back to an individual employee. Same goes for the health screenings. Insurance companies have really been hammered in the last decade on PHI regulations with millions going into programming and internal controls. Sheesh, it felt like every week we had another ‘training’ program on PHI handling and hipaa compliance. Just an FYI, even if an employer asked for info, no insurance company would release it, that’s for sure.
By the way, even employees at a health insurance company who TOTALLY understand health screenings and their future benefits, still complain when they have to attend theirs each year. Always gave me a chuckle to say the least. 🙂
I have to do a pretty thorough health screening for work because I work on Haz Waste sites. It doesn’t do anything for health insurance rates. The company gets more data than yours would, but it’s basically a letter that says, “Nothing important has changed since last year. Employee is approved for continued work on Haz Waste sites/to use a respirator/etc.” Or “Whoa Nelly, this kid’s blood lead levels are way higher than last year. You done f***ed up.” (I’m just guessing at the verbiage, here, but I think that’s pretty close.)
I never thought about it very hard except when I was about 6 weeks pregnant. I just didn’t know if pregnancy had any bearing on your ability to work in Haz Waste, and I thought it would be a little screwed up if my company knew before my parents did. Ended up being a non-issue, but I think it was a legitimate concern. It’s a bit of a different case, though, since the company gets more data than just did/did not participate.
As for why a financial check-up is more offensive than a health check-up, I think it comes down to there being a legitimate business reason behind health screenings. I think it’s more than a little stupid that decent, affordable health insurance has to come through an employer, but until that changes, health screenings and an emphasis on preventative medicine make sense. A employer-offered, financially-incentivized, financial check-up is just not their business in any direct sense.