CVS to require workers to submit medical info or face fine

[sebastacat]

I have just learned that pharmaceutical giant CVS has announced that they will require all of its employees to submit their weight, body fat levels, glucose levels and other vital medical statistics or face a fine of 50 dollars a month, or 600 dollars a year. Failure to comply could also result in being dropped from the company health plan.

At first, I had a hard time believing it, but then I did my own independent research and found out that it is, indeed, true.

In my opinion, they are attempting to tear down the walls of one of the last bastians of privacy: one's personal health information. If they win the first round of the medical-information battle, who knows what's next?

I ask you: What kind of a corporation would enact such a draconian policy which so blatantly disrespects the medical privacy of the members of its dedicated work force? The answer, unfortunately is obvious: one whose corporate executives place the privacy rights of its employees at the bottom of the corporate priority list.

It is absolutely imperitive that all legal avenues and remedies be pursued and exhausted in an attempt to assure that the instituting of this draconian policy never sees the light of day, at least not here in California.

To that end, I urge all employees of CVS to unite and file a class-action lawsuit to accomplish the above goal. In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union should be consulted and asked to lend their support.

Unfortunately, a win is not a sure thing, as a CVS employee in Florida found out the hard way. However, California law has not been tested, and I would think it would be worthwhile to at least find out if CVS workers have a chance of successfully defeating the policy in this state.

To all of you who are opposed to the relocation of CVS to the downtown core, it is time to reaffirm your opposition.

And to all of you who continue to blindly support this bully corporation, I pose this question: How would you like it if you were placed in the position that these employees now find themselves? Are you content to merely sit back and offer your blind support to a corporation which is so eager and willing to cast employee health privacy rights aside? If your answer to the above question is "Yes," I implore you to do some deep soul-searching.

The enactment of this policy exposes once again the serious values void and disconnect on the part of CVS and also serves to reaffirm why many of us who call Sebastopol home have said and continue to say, "Not here, not now, not in our town."

[Barry]

I have just learned that pharmaceutical giant CVS has announced that they will require all of its employees to submit their weight, body fat levels, glucose levels and other vital medical statistics or face a fine of 50 dollars a month, or 600 dollars a year. Failure to comply could also result in being dropped from the company health plan.

Thanks for catching this, Thomas.

Here's some background material. First a video by ABC news:

And here's an article from the LA Times:


Report: CVS Caremark demands workers disclose weight, health info
https://www.latimes.com/business/mon...,3069855.story

By Walter Hamilton
This post has been updated. See below for details.
March 20, 2013, 12:05 p.m.

Employees at one of the nation’s largest drugstore chains must disclose personal health information -- including their weight -- or pay a $600-a-year fine, according to a published report.

CVS Caremark Corp. is requiring workers to reveal the information to their company’s insurance carrier or pay an extra $50 a month for health coverage, according to the Boston Herald.

CVS could not immediately be reached for comment. But a spokesman told the newspaper that “our benefits program is evolving to help our colleagues take more responsibility for improving their health and managing health-associated costs.”

Employees must reveal their weight, height, body fat and blood pressure, the paper reported.

The company calls it a "health screening and wellness review" and will foot the bill for the associated doctor visits, according to the report.

But employees must agree to sign a form claiming the screening is voluntary, according to the paper, and allow the insurer to pass the results to the firm handling its health program.

The effort is likely to spur strong feelings from both advocates and detractors.

Critics fear such programs encroach on employees’ privacy and could lead to discrimination against unhealthy or disabled workers.

Proponents, including companies that are anxious to reduce spending on medical coverage, say it holds down costs borne by all employees and encourages people to get healthier.

[Updated, 12:44 p.m. PDT March 20: CVS Caremark issued this statement Tuesday afternoon: "We want to help our employees to be as healthy as they can be, which is why we decided to implement this plan. In fact, we have been working for a number of years on ways they can improve their health through preventive measures. Healthcare programs that incent employees to be healthier are not new. Many companies around the country already have plans similar to the one we are implementing. In fact, 79% of large employers have health assessments incorporated into their programs. To encourage a higher level of participation in our wellness review, we reviewed best practices and determined that an additional cost for those who do not complete the review was the most effective way to incent our colleagues to improve their health care and manage health costs.

"CVS Caremark is committed to providing medical coverage and healthcare programs for our colleagues and privacy is rigorously protected, consistent with HIPAA regulations. All personal health data from these screenings are collected and reviewed by a third-party administrator that supports the CVS Caremark Wellness Program, and this data is not shared with CVS Caremark -- rather it is designed to help employees make the best decisions about their own healthcare."]

---

And there's an article on Huffington Post about this that contains this paragraph:

Obamacare could make such practices more common. The health care reform law allows employers to levy a higher penalty against workers who don’t participate in company wellness programs. In some cases, workers could also have to pay more if they don’t meet certain health targets like appropriate body mass index.

---

Comments from Barry:

This is a complicated one! While the privacy concerns are real (this is the Nanny State in spades!), so are the costs. Also note above Obamacare supports this.

From a wider perspective, I think this is an artifact of the strange system we have of tying health care to employment (which started as a way to get around wage controls during WWII).

Another thought is that is this any different than being forced to pay car insurance premiums if you have a bad driving record?

What do you think?

[podfish]

I have just learned that pharmaceutical giant CVS has announced that they will require all of its employees to submit their weight, body fat levels, glucose levels and other vital medical statistics or face a fine of 50 dollars a month, or 600 dollars a year. Failure to comply could also result in being dropped from the company health plan....

I ask you: What kind of a corporation would enact such a draconian policy which so blatantly disrespects the medical privacy of the members of its dedicated work force? The answer, unfortunately is obvious: one whose corporate executives place the privacy rights of its employees at the bottom of the corporate priority list.

sorry, the answer is more complex than that - though that doesn't mean I think they lose much sleep over their employees welfare either.

This is the same trend we'll be seeing more and more of. It's like Bloomberg's anti-bigGulp movement. We have a societal conflict going on where weirdly enough most people occasionally fight for the opposite side. If you are a true extremist, where you believe that people are totally and solely responsible for themselves to the point where if they can't afford healthcare we let them die in the street; or the opposite, where you think it's a nanny-state's role to take care of people even against their will, you have no ambivalence.

For the rest of us, you have conflicts: should society pay to help those who can't afford appropriate care? should those relying on help from the society have any responsibility to minimize the amount of help they need? Are there any penalties for people failing to fulfill their role, on either side? Can society impose policies or limitiations on everyone when they're only needed for some? How much privacy do you retain when you become dependent on others?

Top it off with policies being put into place that may well be ineffective, whether because they're based on poor science or because they won't be successfully implemented, and we've got a chaotic future ahead of us. Unfortunately, since a huge part of our (and the world's) economy is going to be driven by health-care issues; and because most of us are or will be dealing with elderly and/or unhealthy family and friends, we're gonna keep seeing this on center stage.

[sebastacat]

Thank you, Barry and Podfish, for your posts, which are both insightful and informative. It is posts like these, which contain a wealth of useful information and a high degree of civility, which stimulate further dialogue and elevate the debate to a higher level.

When I read the part in your post, Barry, that employees "must agree to sign a form claiming the screening is voluntary,"
things such as "intimidation," "extortion," and "subornation of perjury" came to mind. What if the employee does not agree to this release but has no choice, due to the economic hardship of not having a job would create? This is a sterling example of corporate bullying and mistreatment of its workers at its best.

With respect to signing the "voluntary" release, what do you think an employee who desperately needs a job is going to do? And if they sign this "voluntary" release, there will be no going back; the employee will become a mere cog in the CVS corporate machine, expendable and terminable at CVS's will if their health record is found to be less than stellar.

While I agree with Podfish that perhaps people need to take more responsibility for one's own health, as I have suggested in the fluoride debate, I believe that some stark differences exist here. For one, these workers were hired with the enticement and promise of health care being one of the benefits they would receive once they became employees. But with these proposed changes, CVS will probably have the option of dismissing a worker whose condition does not meet the standards set by CVS corporate executives -- through no fault of their own.

This is both unfair and disloyal. Why stand by a loyal employee who has given the company many years of service who now has become unfit or has acquired a health condition requiring treatment when you can trade them in for a new one?

This appears to be corporate CVS's way of doing business, and it stands in stark contrast to the community-oriented business model which was the hallmark of its predecessor, Longs Drug, where employees were treated with dignity and customer opinion and community involvement truly mattered.

Is this the kind of business we want in the Sebastopol downtown core, one who thinks so little of its workers that it will intimidate them to get what it wants? Remember the Karl Marx quote, "The ends justify the means"? I see some eerily stark similarities between this ominous quote and the situation here.

If this is a precursor of what is to come, we all have good reason to concerned , and scared -- very scared.

[podfish]

Thank you, Barry and Podfish, for your posts, which are both insightful and informative.
While I agree with Podfish that perhaps people need to take more responsibility for one's own health,....
If this is a precursor of what is to come, we all have good reason to concerned , and scared -- very scared.

thanks for the kind words. One clarification - I left alone the question of what each person's responsibility is. I do agree with you that what's to come is scary. I don't know what should happen, much less what will.

I agree with you that employees need to be treated with dignity; that may not mean what it used to. Privacy loss and (I hope mild) coercion from employers and government seem inevitable and if they come I want most of all to avoid a situation where some have it (the privileged) and others don't. That's my personal take. Obviously, others will differ.