CVS reportedly has a new policy REQUIRING workers on the company health insurance to report their weight as well as body fat and glucose levels — or they have to pay $600 per year as a penalty.

A new policy by CVS Pharmacy requires every one of its nearly 200,000 employees who use its health plan to submit their weight, body fat, glucose levels and other vitals or pay a monthly fine.
Employees who agree to this testing will see no change in their health insurance rates, but those who refuse will have to pay an extra $50 per month - or $600 per year - for the company's health insurance program. All employees have until May 1, 2014, to make an appointment with a doctor and record their vitals.
"The approach they're taking is based on the assumption that somehow these people need a whip, they need to be penalized in order to make themselves healthy," Patient Privacy Rights founder Dr. Deborah Peel said.
Critics are calling the policy coercion, and worrying that CVS or any other company might start firing sick workers.
"It's technology-enhanced discrimination on steroids," Peel said.
The policy change was introduced to employees in a memo highlighting the change in the health insurance plan.
CVS, which is based in Rhode Island, said the health screening was voluntary and the company would never see the test results. In an email to ABC News, CVS explained that its "benefits program is evolving to help our colleagues take more responsibility for improving their health and managing health-associated costs.
"The goal of these kinds of programs is to end up with a healthier work force. If your employees are healthy they're going to work better and they're going to cost the employer a lot less money," ABC News' chief health and medical editor Dr. Richard Besser said.
CVS insists that the use of health screenings by employer-sponsored health plans is a common practice. A quick search of the Internet shows many websites and message boards filled with questions from families asking if similar programs and policies are legal.

QUESTION TIME: What do you think about this policy?

Edited March 20, 201312 yr by Silver Lord

Absolutely agree with it. Vital statistics are absolutely essential for planning group health plans and care packages for workers. It's an intrinsic part of actuarial science that insurance companies rely on to not go bankrupt by planning what their client base will require in the future, and that goes for every kind of insurance (home, auto, life etc). The suggestion that CVS would fire "ill" patients is nonsense, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen and a total PR nightmare.

Edited March 20, 201312 yr by DaytimeFan

Absolutely agree with it. Vital statistics are absolutely essential for planning group health plans and care packages for workers. It's an intrinsic part of actuarial science that insurance companies rely on to not go bankrupt by planning what their client base will require in the future, and that goes for every kind of insurance (home, auto, life etc). The suggestion that CVS would fire "ill" patients is nonsense, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen and a total PR nightmare.

+1

I see nothing wrong with it.

Absolutely agree with it. Vital statistics are absolutely essential for planning group health plans and care packages for workers. It's an intrinsic part of actuarial science that insurance companies rely on to not go bankrupt by planning what their client base will require in the future, and that goes for every kind of insurance (home, auto, life etc). The suggestion that CVS would fire "ill" patients is nonsense, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen and a total PR nightmare.

Here's a question, if they use vital stats to determine these things, just why are they so damn picky? I was turned down flat for an individual policy with blue cross and blue shield, and take a look at these stats:

5' 11" 215 pounds (yes, I need to lose 30 pounds)

NEVER had surgery

On no prescription medication

Am very physically active

Never smoked a cigarette

Never taken a drink of alcohol

Never taken any ilegal drugs

Never spent the night in a hospital

I was 42 at the time

CBC w/ diffeential was all dead center in the normal range.

I've went to the emergency room exactly 4 times in my entire life.

I'm like WTF?

Edited March 21, 201312 yr by alphanguy74

Here's a question, if they use vital stats to determine these things, just why are they so damn picky? I was turned down flat for an individual policy with blue cross and blue shield, and take a look at these stats:

5' 11" 215 pounds (yes, I need to lose 30 pounds)

NEVER had surgery

On no prescription medication

Am very physically active

Never smoked a cigarette

Never taken a drink of alcohol

Never taken any ilegal drugs

Never spent the night in a hospital

I was 42 at the time

CBC w/ diffeential was all dead center in the normal range.

I've went to the emergency room exactly 4 times in my entire life.

I'm like WTF?

Consider yourself lucky because Blue Cross is nothing but a group of pirates looking for any and every reason to deny a claim!

Well that's Blue Cross in the US. Blue Cross in Canada is a whole other story, it's an excellent extended healthcare insurer.

I can tell you why you were denied Alphanguy74, they didn't believe you.

I have Kaiser insurance, and it is the absolute best.

Like it is exactly what I want from an insur co. I only pay like $60 a month, work covers the rest. My urgent Care/Dr vists are $15, my RXs are next to nothing, ER vists for $100, I was in the hospital for 10 days and didnt pay anything because i somehow qualified for assistance even though i make decent money. The care is great, the specialists are awesome.