Obesity and Smoking: Higher Insurance for Everyone (Coursework Sample)

Obesity and Smoking: Higher Insurance for Everyone
By name
Course
Instructor
Institution
Date
A report filed by Reuters ( Begley, 2012) indicates that the percentage of obese Americans had tripled to 34%since 1961 and records of extreme obesity had risen six times to 6%.The rising trend of obese population in America is worrisome since it has significant consequences for individuals, business and society at large. Research shows that obesity leads to debilitating chronic illness for individuals which in turn spirals health costs causing reduced productivity to society.Contentions arise as to who should pay for these actions, whether health costs associated with obesity should be borne by the employer or an individual should bear full responsibility for his actions.
Obesity and Smoking: Higher Insurance for Everyone
An analysis conducted at Mayo Clinic in Rochester confirmed that both obesity and smoking were associated with increased medical costs. For instance, smokers incurred an average of $1,275 more than non-smokers while obese persons paid $ 1,850 more than normal weight persons ( Morarity, Branda, Olsen, Shah, Borah, Wagie, Egginton, &Naessens, 2012). The nation spends an additional $190 billion on health care as a result of obesity which translates to 20.6% of the state’s health care expenditures (Begley, 2012). Yet those extra costs are taken care of by non-obese and non-smokers.Body Mass Index (BMI) is a measure used to determine obesity. It is obtained by dividing an individual’s weight in kilograms by height in meters. A BMI of 30 and above indicates obesity. With all the statistics on incremental health care costs incurred by smoking and obese individuals, I support the increment of insurance premiums for both smokers and obese individuals.
One of the affirmative action is the Health Care Reform Law of 2010 which allowed employers to charge obese employees 30%-50% more for health insurance if they refused to enrol in qualified wellness programs. Smoking and obese individuals should pay higher premiums because both conditions are associated with chronic medical conditions. In addition, obesity intensifies the risk of cancer, heart attack and diabetes because for any surgical procedure there are complications that come with anaesthesia, healing and so forth. Therefore, obesity increases the expense of treating most medical conditions.Consequently, obese individuals have a tendency of absenteeism; men and women who are obese take 5.9 and 9.4 more sick days more than individuals of healthy weight respectively (Begley, 2012). This costs employers close to $6.4 billion a year. Moreover, obese individuals may experience difficulties such as shortness of breath, pain and fatigue while at work. This implies that even when they are not sick, their productivity is reduced. As a result, the employer incurs an extra cost due to the presence of employees with lower productivity.
Both obesity and smoking constitute voluntary health risks because they involve hazardous behaviours and lifestyles. Actions such as compulsive over-eating, physical inactivity smoking are considered voluntary because risks associated with such actions are foreseeable. This implies that, for example, the effects of smoking on one’s health are well documented. Both Manufacturers and Public Health have gone to an extent of embedding warnings on tobacco products. It would then mean that consumers of tobacco products knowingly or unknowing choose to expose their health to chronic diseases. Additionally, smoking is not only harmful to the smokers alone but also to the population around inhales the smoke. Hence apart from increased health costs they also compromise the adjacent population’s health. On the other hand rational obese individuals should bear the full cost of their decisions about food intake and exercise.
Buchanan (2011) gives ethical justifications for charging individuals living unhealthy higher premiums. To him, differentiated plans should be imposed upon an individual’s refusal to voluntarily take part in activities that would change his lifestyle. Such a standard would not be criticised for charging individuals who come into plans more for being an obese or smoker but for declaring that they are not willing to try changing their lifestyles. Furthermore, the standard shows a pattern in individual’s health status that is influenced by social positions which are not determined.
Organisations that have implemented the program
Apart from offering wellness programs some companies have embraced the strategy because they believe that its effect on the employees’ pocket will alert them on the need to get healthier.The practice is expected to rise in 2012 due to the hard economic times. Wal-Mart Stores started the anti-smoking program this year and has had an enrolment of 13000 out of more than a million employees’.It charges an excess of up to $2000 on smokers. The only option for Wal-Mart employees to escape the surcharges was to have a doctor’s report that he/she had medical difficulties in quitting smoking. The main reason for the increase was that tobacco consumers consume 25% more. But other companies allow for automatic waivers for those employees who enrol in tobacco cessation programs. For Wal-Mart, to qualify for lower premiums an employee who smokes ought to have stopped smoking. Employees of Home Depot who smoke are charged $20 a month while PepsiCo charges smokers $600 a year more than non-smokers but exempts those who have completed an antismoking program (Abelson, 2011).
From the discussions above, it is clear that the costs related lifestyle decisions such as smoking and body weight decisions are most relevant in formulation of policies regarding human resource management. Organisations have to review their procedures for hiring and placement with regard to their health status. Organisations’ policies on employees’ welfare have to be revisited in order to create awareness among existing employees while helping them in practicing healthy lifestyles.
Human Resource Management
Noe, Hollenbeck, Gehart and Wright (2009) suggest thatorganisational employee policies are supposed to be rationally connected to organisation’s goals. Productive human resource management involves paying attention to employees’ fitness and healthy lifestyles. On the other hand, healthy employees’ efficiency is higher hence reducing costs while increasing productivity which in turn increases stakeholders’ profits. This is because productivity directly corresponds to employees’ health status. Concerning employees’ health, an organisation is required to conduct needs assessment in order to identify both the existing and potential health-related problems of its workforce. As for obesity and smoking, the effectiveness of the wellness program depends on the philosophy towards tackling the issue.
Human resource management is crucial in the acquisition of human capital, keeping the workplace functional and productive. Human resource department involvement in wellness programs is equally important since wellness programs are usually tied to employee benefit plans that would be utilized by the department. According to Werner and DeSimone (2012), wellness can be a source of competitive advantage for organisations. That is if a company portrayed itself to be an advocate of wellness including healthy eating then the organisational members would be a source of competitive advantage for the organisation .Most common employee interventions among large employers are corporate exercises and fitness. They provide a variety of services including jogging trails and on-site fitness centres for the employees to exercise.
Studies on the impact of wellness programs indicate a reduction in sick leave, health plan costs while compensation costs reduced by over 25%. Moreover an average cost-benefit ratio of 5.9 was noted suggesting that the benefits of such programs outweighed the costs (Werner &DeSimone, 2011). As mentioned, smokers incur more medical expenses than non-smokers. Therefore in response to health risks and costs associated with smoking, organisations have implemented various measures. Some organisations have either restricted or banned workplace smoking. More companies are advising their employees to quit smoking or be charged more for their insurance premiums.
One way to motivate employees is by involving them in the planning and implementation of health programs pointing towards them. This is for the reason that, employees’ participation in the procedure gives them a personal stake in the program thereby increasing the chances of having them committed to the program. Additionally, administration personnel would influence the employees’ behaviour if they lead a healthy lifestyle.Employee participation in large corporations is difficult and therefore necessitating formation of wellness committee.
Management can enhance its existing pool of employees’ wellness through evaluating their job designs.Redesigning jobs, for instance, toprovide for job rotation will assist in modifying worksite environment while supporting health behaviour changes. Daily routine for employees should be altered since they contribute significantly to the declined physical activity levels. Considering that habits are dependent on situational factors, introduction of new motivational behaviours would momentarily alter the routine. Prolonged interruptions of unwanted unhealthy behaviour would lead to formation of a new healthy behaviour.
Incentives are about changing workers behaviour as well as culture within the company. Organisations can take advantage of the fact that people respond best to health messages when they perceive that the problem is severe and they themselves are susceptible to th...