Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Workers Should Be Wary About Corporate Wellness
http://www.healthcare-now.org/why-workers-should-be-wary-about-corporate-wellness
Among the other groups sounding the alarm about this trend are Families USA, Georgetown Universitys Health Policy Institute, the American Cancer Society and the American Heart and Diabetes Associations. A report by the HPI at Georgetown called in February 2012 for new federal and state standards that will protect consumers from programs that inappropriately punish workers in poor health, are overly coercive, or create perverse financial incentives that result in poorer health outcomes.
As Cancer Society lobbyist Dick Woodruff told National Public Radio, The whole point of healthcare reform is to make sure that everyone gets insurance. And if people have to pay more because theyre unhealthy, thats a barrier. It defeats the whole purpose.
California Nurses Association co-president DeAnn McEwan, a nurse for nearly forty years, sees great risk of discrimination through backdoor redlining for individuals with pre-existing conditions and disabilities. She points out that the workers more likely to have the health conditions that wellness programs target are low-income individuals and racial/ethnic minorities. By no coincidence, she says, they also face barriers to health such as unsafe neighborhoods; poor air quality; substandard, decaying housing; and lack of access to affordable, healthy food.
<snip>
e danger of a membership backlash to the wrong kind of wellness plan is very real. In 2011, labor organizations represented on Oregons Public Employee Benefits Board (PEBB), agreed to a new Health Engagement Model (HEM), that required mandatory risk assessments (including waist measuring), plus penalties for non-compliance. According to one labor educator in the state, the HEM riled up many workers, who turned their fury and frustration on the unions. The Service Employees International Union was among those soon apologizing for a poorly communicated change to our health plans that included a punitive surcharge and got us started on the wrong foot. Labor officials later persuaded the PEBB that non-participants in health engagement should no longer be subject to the surcharge; instead, participants are now rewarded with an additional $17.50 per pay period. However, the health plan forces non-participating workers and their families to pay $100 to $300 more in deductibles, a punitive aspect still opposed by their unions.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 882 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Workers Should Be Wary About Corporate Wellness (Original Post)
eridani
Mar 2013
OP
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)1. Where I work, the guidelines are written like .... you know
When I link the url to get the credits, it says: "not ready yet"
bemildred
(90,061 posts)2. Employers should not be involved in any way with your health care. nt
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)3. Why worry? It's sooooooo much better to have your employer all up in your business between you and
your doctor instead of the government!