Psychology Professor Anita Blanchard has a pretty sweet deal with her employer. Even if the 40-something mother of three leaves her job at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, the state of North Carolina guarantees her premium-free health insurance that will cover 80% of her health care costs for life. But's there's a hitch: she can't gain too much weight or start smoking. If she does, she could be on the hook for an additional 10% of her health care tab.

Companies have long promoted healthier behavior by subsidizing gym memberships and smoking-cessation classes. But several private and public employers have started tying financial incentives to their health-insurance plans. North Carolina this year became the second state to approve an increase in out-of-pocket expenses for state workers who smoke and don't try to quit or who are morbidly obese and don't try to lose weight. Alabama was the first to pass what critics call a fat fee, in 2008, and several state insurance plans have started imposing a $25 monthly surcharge on smokers.

There's even a push in Congress to let employers further link lifestyles to insurance premiums. Right now companies that run their own insurance programs can reward employees with bonuses or premium reductions of up to 20% if they meet certain health guidelines. John Ensign, Republican Senator from Nevada, and Tom Carper, Democratic Senator from Delaware, co-sponsored an amendment to the current health care bill that would raise the limit to as high as 50%. The Senate Finance Committee gave it a thumbs-up in September.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Culture-Watch • Health & Medicine • --The 2009 American Health Care Reform Debate • * Economics, Politics • Economy

1. Uh Clint wrote: If this approach is to be taken legitimately, then *every* “at-risk” behavior must be included.  I’m not going to try and specify them all, because the list is extensive, and includes things which some might find offensive, but I would suspect that various things which have been proven statistically to be hazardous would conflict with the desires and agendas of the “inclusionists”.  One of the major problems with relying on statistics is that they can prove to be VERY double-edged; they do not make allowances for politics, theology, or *ANYTHING*. Elves - please, edit if necessary, but understand that I’m trying to make a legitimate point without being hostile.  I think you know what I’m getting at.  November 30, 3:54 pm | [comment link]

Registered members must log in to comment.