<p>If the screenings are optional and the results confidential, I do not think the policy is offensive if the goal is to save the company money and ultimately protect the jobs of the very people being asked to do the screening. </p>
<p>On another note, aren’t most CVS employees on their feet all day? It would be difficult to work in a job like that if one were obese or in poor health.</p>
<p>University of Pa Hospital system will officially not hire people that smoke.</p>
<p>Will companies soon start officially refusing to hire obese people?</p>
<p>Will companies then not hire people who have uncontrolled high blood pressure? Poor cholesterol?</p>
<p>Will companies not hire people who have had cancer?</p>
<p>Will companies then not hire people with mental illnesses?</p>
<p>Will companies refuse to hire young women as they are likely to have children and increase the companies cost?</p>
<p>Slippery, slippery, slippery slope.</p>
<p>^Of course they will since it is all about the companies bottom line. </p>
<p>Personally, I’d much rather the government have my personal health information than the entity responsible for my livelihood. </p>
<p>Does our Medicare system use the personal information they collect in any nefarious way?</p>
<p>Haven’t read the whole thread, so apologies if this is redundant. My DH’s company also offers a modest discount on the healthcare (onetime annual discount) if you annually fill out their “wellness screening”. I wanted nothing to do with it but we are healthy, our lab results are good and my DH wanted the discount. So I begrudgingly did it. But, lo and behold, I am now hearing from my fellow healthcare providers that some insurance companies were trying to limit or deny some requested/recommended services based on the results of that clients wellness screening (eg, and I am making this up as an example,- “you told us your sleep was fine, you get 8 hrs a night and feel rested in the morning-- we dont think you need a sleep architecture study”). Thats wrong on so many levels. </p>
<p>Its ironic that my DH was fine disclosing this personal info, but he won’t use one of those little plastic things from the supermarket that tracks your purchases in order to target the right coupons to send you. Ridiculous.</p>
<p>Someone on our town forum owns a company that does prospective employee background checks for employers. I wouldn’t be surprised if they looked for the metrics mentioned above that don’t violate any laws.</p>
<p>Aren’t the “wellness screenings” essentially the same thing as a doctor visit? I would assume the results would be treated the same by insurance companies, i.e., pre-existing conditions, etc.</p>
<p>sax,
There are already laws in place that protect against discrimination in hiring based upon disabilities, including medical conditions.</p>
<p>BCEagle,</p>
<p>interesting (about the machine). </p>
<p>Alternatively, you can ask the club manager how do THEY measure body composition. They have to do something if they market weight loss programs. My club used to do old fashioned pinch test before we switched to the inbody machine. Although they still do pinch test in conjunction with inbody. The pinch test only covers the surface fat, while the inbody also calculates fat around your organs. In my experience the inbody showed that I have more fat than what the pinch test showed. My club only does 3 pinches (back of the arm, thigh and stomach), which is not as accurate as the full pinch test. So, I am not sure how to interpret the discrepancy. Actually it is 5 pinches, since I have 2 legs and 2 arms. </p>
<p>Also, I get all these tests for free, as part of the membership, so even if these tests are not completely accurate, I guess I have nothing to complain about.</p>
<p>“There are already laws in place that protect against discrimination in hiring based upon disabilities, including medical conditions.”</p>
<p>There are multiple applicants for a job…how are these laws really going to protect you?</p>
<p>I am just going to repost GladGradDad’s post. </p>
<p>“This program by CVS (and many other companies) goes beyond just stepping on a scale to discover (???) one’s obesity, it also involves blood tests and sharing the data. People should rightly be concerned about privacy in this regard (you can’t tell by just looking at someone what their blood tests might reveal) -
Quote:
Despite the companys promises, Peel worries if CVS and WebMD will be able to keep the employee records completely private. Peel said people are already declining to get health treatment for issues ranging from psychiatry to sexual diseases, for fear the information will not be kept private.
I wouldn’t trust CVS to be able to keep data private and I wouldn’t trust the external company WebMD (with ‘Web’ as part of its name - the repository of repeatedly hacked information). I also wouldn’t trust employers to not eventually use that data in a proactively negative way for the employee and as time goes by, glean more and more information from the various tests.”</p>
<p>I think GladGradDad’s post is pretty damn good.</p>
<p>I agree completely with the esteemed gentlemen above.</p>
<p>I wonder if anyone has any data or anecdotal information about the success of voluntary wellness programs.</p>
<p>Also, what does Webmd get out of this? seems a little weird to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They protect you by prohibiting employers from inquiring about your medical condition/history when you apply for the job.</p>
<p>Some people who have obvious conditions will be discriminated against, no doubt. But if the applicant suspects that his/her disability, age or gender was the reason for not being hired, then s/he has legal recourse, which is good and helps keep employers honest as they won’t want to have to go through government investigations into their hiring practices.</p>
<p>My opinion on voluntary wellness programs is that people that want to lose weight badly enough will pay for a gym membership to do so. Providing them with wellness facilities just reduces the costs of something that they’d do anyways.</p>
<p>There are some people that will sign on to programs if it is convenient enough but I don’t think that the staying power is that strong.</p>
<p>Bay. The U of P Health Care system now refuses to hire people who smoke. </p>
<p>These are people who smoke at home that you would only be aware of by giving them a blood test.</p>
<p>They are not protected. Although in New Jersey thay are.</p>
<p>[Non-Nicotine</a> Hiring Policy | Careers | Penn Medicine](<a href=“http://www.pennmedicine.org/careers/working-at-penn-medicine/tobacco-free.html]Non-Nicotine”>http://www.pennmedicine.org/careers/working-at-penn-medicine/tobacco-free.html)</p>
<p>This is allowed by law.</p>
<p>Laws are in a constant state of flux.</p>
<p>Slippery slope. Who is next? Diabetics?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually agree with you, dstark. Getting a job is more than about your skills, it is also about chemistry and it is about money. </p>
<p>I always tell my mom that if she ever looses her job, she’d better dye her hair and buy stylish shoes. Because no one wants to hire a grandma in old ugly shoes.</p>
<p>
I think it depends. In my office (and I’ve heard that this is a successful program overall), the Weight Watchers at Work program has been hugely successful over many years because it’s convenient and also because it is supportive and fun. Here, though, the program is 100% female.</p>
<p>“Some people who have obvious conditions will be discriminated against, no doubt. But if the applicant suspects that his/her disability, age or gender was the reason for not being hired, then s/he has legal recourse, which is good and helps keep employers honest as they won’t want to have to go through government investigations into their hiring practices.”</p>
<p>It is very expensive to sue…very difficult to prove your case.</p>
<p>For example, I think many posters would say their age is used against them while looking
for a job. </p>
<p>It is interesting. When it comes to regulation or tax laws or zoning, I read individual freedom as an argument. When it comes to universal healthcare, we can’t have that…that restricts individual freedom to choose. We should get rid of SS. I can save myself. If I want to drink 48 ounces of soda, I should be allowed to do that. My personal freedom.</p>
<p>But for some reason it is ok for a corporation to gather my personal health information.</p>
<p>Soemtimes when people talk about freedom, what they really mean is they want the right to make money. The right to make money takes precedence over other individual rights. Like the right of privacy of my health records.</p>
<p>I agree with the concern about web privacy, but I don’t understand the concern about CVS misusing the information. I don’t think the idea is that CVS will have access to an identifiable individual’s health records. It is the same as if a CVS employee goes to the doctor and the visit is paid by the insurance company. The employer never sees the diagnosis or treatment. My understanding of the goal here is to force the employee to become knowledgeable about his/her own health condition, in order that s/he might take action to improve it.</p>
<p>sax,
Is smoking a “disability” or medical condition needing protection from discrimination? I think it is the opposite - smoking is a danger to not only the smoker but to people around him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dstark,</p>
<p>I think you confusing an issue a bit. Participation in the screening is voluntary. Unless you want a discount (or not pay a penalty). You have every right of privacy of your health records. You just have to pay for it. </p>
<p>Companies are asking you to surrender your right to privacy in exchange to a health insurance subsidy. You are free to choose what is more important to you: privacy or health insurance subsidy.</p>
<p>It is the invasion of privacy that bothers me.</p>
<p>It is the fear that once we allow banning of certain health issues more are soon to follow.</p>
<p>There is an angry, hatred for obese people right now. It is given further creedence by the medical community and health insurance companies. Fat people are readily recognized and universally shunned. </p>
<p>Who is next? </p>
<p>My brother went in recently to pick up his eye glass script.</p>
<p>While he was there, the secretary told him his blood pressure medicine was ready to be picked up. This was a script his medical Dr. had ordered for him the day before. These two Dr. visits and scripts had nothing to do with each other but the medical records are all shared on line.</p>
<p>Why is it okay for her to know this???</p>
<p>I work for CVS and have no problem with these incentives to get a physical. The company is, after all, paying quite a lot of money for insurance, and it is much less expensive to be proactive with your health than reactive.
And a positive example of required physicals, a family member of one of our customers, age 45, (who works for a different company by the way) recently had his first physical in many, many years
and had to have immediate bypass surgery. He was told by his doctors that had he not come to them he could have died instantly almost anywhere.</p>