CVS Now Wants Workers' Health Information

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
First they want your health information and then they will set goals that you must meet or your premium will go up. Just another way to squeeze its employees.
 
At Walgreens, we have a Wellness Program. The results are self-reported, and I know of people who have made up their own numbers. If you submit the numbers, they give you HSA money. You're not penalized by not doing it, but you are leaving money on the table.
 
This is good. People need to be more accountable to their health (or lack of). I'm healthy and use very little care a year while others utilizes 10,000$s a year because their refuse to be healthy. My premiums are high enough as it is and until we have a single payer system I'm ok with it and would even support a system with scaled premiums based on health risk factors
 
Ericokle said:
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blog...on-theyll-pay-114807670--abc-news-health.html
Click to expand...

BMBiology said:
First they want your health information and then they will set goals that you must meet or your premium will go up. Just another way to squeeze its employees.
Click to expand...

We do this at our hospital. Highest rates if you don't jump through their hoops. For the first time I did---- since I'm healthy its just a physical and making up numbers that you exercised but if you have HBP, DM or weight issues you must meet guidelines or you will have the highest premiums.
 
Just wait for the outbursts when CVS takes away traditional health plans and replaces them with high deductible plans with attached HSA accounts. This is actually very good for me financially because I am young and healthy, but my technicians are very scared they will be forced to pay 3-4k per year of health related expenses with these plans.
 
awval999 said:
We do this at our hospital. Highest rates if you don't jump through their hoops. For the first time I did---- since I'm healthy its just a physical and making up numbers that you exercised but if you have HBP, DM or weight issues you must meet guidelines or you will have the highest premiums.
Click to expand...

Health benefit is so expensive!
 
Last edited:
My job did that. Something like 3k deductible which is pretty crazy with total of 8k OOP/year. Luckily we use very little health care and it's probably cheaper for us in the long run and our FSA max will cover all of our expenses baring some major accident/surgery
 
Good, someone needs to lose weight!
 
npage148 said:
This is good. People need to be more accountable to their health (or lack of). I'm healthy and use very little care a year while others utilizes 10,000$s a year because their refuse to be healthy. My premiums are high enough as it is and until we have a single payer system I'm ok with it and would even support a system with scaled premiums based on health risk factors
Click to expand...

Judgmental much? I wasn't aware that people could just decide to be healthy.
 
owlegrad said:
Judgmental much? I wasn't aware that people could just decide to be healthy.
Click to expand...

The most costly and prevalent diseases in the US right now are largely the direct result of poor health choices. Type 2 DM, heart disease, and obesity related comorbidities are the due to poor diet and inactivity so yeah, for most it's a choice. Tobacco related diseases are also directly due to unhealthy choices. You could also say some cancers (e.g. lung and colon) are also a result of unhealthy choices (smoking and excessive consumption of red meat)
 
Wants you to be healthy? That's just a front.... Behind closed door, they probably favor healthier worker.

I have a problem with overweight techs, they are not very productive, they lean on the counter while typing to support their body and did 1/2 work than regular techs, have snacks within arm distance, and they frown when you tell them to do physical work. I am talking someone <5'5 with 300 lb... Those people are out there, eating themselves to death.
 
Momus said:
Wants you to be healthy? That's just a front.... Behind closed door, they probably favor healthier worker.

I have a problem with overweight techs, they are not very productive, they lean on the counter while typing to support their body and did 1/2 work than regular techs, have snacks within arm distance, and they frown when you tell them to do physical work. I am talking someone <5'5 with 300 lb... Those people are out there, eating themselves to death.
Click to expand...

I've seen nurses who were so obese, I don't know how they did their jobs, and a few doctors who were the same way.
 
npage148 said:
The most costly and prevalent diseases in the US right now are largely the direct result of poor health choices. Type 2 DM, heart disease, and obesity related comorbidities are the due to poor diet and inactivity so yeah, for most it's a choice. Tobacco related diseases are also directly due to unhealthy choices. You could also say some cancers (e.g. lung and colon) are also a result of unhealthy choices (smoking and excessive consumption of red meat)
Click to expand...

Genetics has a role. That's not a choice.
 
I think it's sad that people are viewing this so negatively. There are lots of other companies that do the same thing. Making people accountable for their health should not be considered bad.
 
they been doing this in japan for a while now

government measures waist circumferene

called the "metabo law"

clever.....
 
I don't see a problem with this, its "insurance". Car insurance, house insurance, life insurance....premiums are based on a number of factors indicating the persons risk. It only makes sense that health insurance premiums would also be based on risk.
 
BidingMyTime said:
I don't see a problem with this, its "insurance". Car insurance, house insurance, life insurance....premiums are based on a number of factors indicating the persons risk. It only makes sense that health insurance premiums would also be based on risk.
Click to expand...
I have thought this for a while. On auto, you pay more for being a male, being younger, traffic violations, all because those things increase your risk of having a claim. Homeowners too. Pay more for having a pool, crime in the neighborhood you live in, etc. Insurance has to base the odds according to the risks. Why wouldn't big fat fatty pay more than mister marathon? Who's more likely to have an MI or develop DM? Who should pay more?
 
Soon it's going to be just like Gattaca (if you haven't seen the movie you should), where discrimination will be down to a science. Just listened to an NPR debate the other day discussing whether or not they should allow human genetic engineering. Eventually we'll all be the genetically impure underclass!
 
...because we all know, health is always a choice!

That worker with asthma? I'm sure they smoked, otherwise they'd be totally healthy. The worker with testicular cancer? They must not have eaten their vegetables. The person born with one kidney? Well, shucks, they should have thought about that before being born disabled!

Health...always a choice!
 
When I went for a drug test with CVS I brought my scripts, the lab told me they didn't need them, the info would be sent to the company and then the company would contact them/me. So basically CVS can collect a bunch of information on what meds you are taking from urine test, rather than have you submit valid rx's and have the lab make the ok or not, funny how a massive pharmacy company pisses all over HIPPAA style regulations.
 
iamaninja said:
When I went for a drug test with CVS I brought my scripts, the lab told me they didn't need them, the info would be sent to the company and then the company would contact them/me. So basically CVS can collect a bunch of information on what meds you are taking from urine test, rather than have you submit valid rx's and have the lab make the ok or not, funny how a massive pharmacy company pisses all over HIPPAA style regulations.
Click to expand...

This wasn't how it was done for me or my wife. At all. A physician at the lab contracted you if there was a possible issue, you resolved it with the lab ,the lab then sent a "pass" note.
 
radio frequency said:
...because we all know, health is always a choice!

That worker with asthma? I'm sure they smoked, otherwise they'd be totally healthy. The worker with testicular cancer? They must not have eaten their vegetables. The person born with one kidney? Well, shucks, they should have thought about that before being born disabled!

Health...always a choice!
Click to expand...
Did you read what this program is tracking? Vitals, weight, glucose. You know, those things that ARE modifiable with lifestyle changes....
 
Ackj said:
Did you read what this program is tracking? Vitals, weight, glucose. You know, those things that ARE modifiable with lifestyle changes....
Click to expand...

I know what they're tracking now. I don't know what they'll track in the future.

People on this thread keep getting all hot and bothered making it sound like those sickies costing their company healthcare dollars should just will and exercise themselves well, and that all health is based on willpower and choice. I sure wish that was the case, but it's not.

Honestly, it's really disrespectful; most people I know with chronic disease were given a terrible set of cards and never had an option to make a change to make themselves well. I'm sure they wish they could.
 
radio frequency said:
I know what they're tracking now. I don't know what they'll track in the future. People on this thread keep getting all hot and bothered making it sound like those sickies costing their company healthcare dollars should just will and exercise themselves well, and that all health is based on willpower and choice. I sure wish that was the case, but it's not.
Click to expand...

The "slippery slope" argument is certainly valid and something to be aware of in these discussion......it doesn't mean that all tracking is wrong, just because of different scenarios that can be used in the future.

Fact, at this point companies are NOT punishing people for having bad levels, they are just requiring that the person be aware of their levels. An argument can be made that many people who end up with complications of diabetes or having a heart attack had high glucose levels & high cholesterol levels for years, and had no idea because they felt "fine."--so by requiring people to learn their levels, these people will be giving empowering healthcare information, at that point, what they do with it, is up to them. Certainly some people will ignore problem levels, but their will be others who decide to take some positive changes or consult with their dr, and improve their health. These companies are hoping to save on paying for the complications of long-term untreated diabetes and high cholesterol.

2nd, I think we can all agree, that there are some people who are never going to have a perfect cholesterol, perfect weight, or perfect blood sugar. But I believe *improvements* can definitely be made in all of these areas-and many times even small improvements in these areas can bring positive changes. For example, one doesn't have to get to their ideal weight to start improving their diabetes, even small weight loss of 10 pounds can start decreasing insulin resistance and bring positive changes. It's possible in the future, that rather than penalizing people with bad levels (as has been hypothesized here), a company may not monetarily penalize these people, but may require they to get medical consultation on their problem or may give them a "coach" to encourage them to make improvements.
 
rxlea said:
Not always. What bubble do you live in?
Click to expand...
Okay, aside from those with adrenal tumors and renal stenosis, eating healthy and exercising can manage your blood pressure. I'm sure there will have an exception policy for those few individuals. No matter what state your beta cells are in, portion control and carb counting will help your glucose. And please don't go down the "being obese is genetic" road, because "my mom overeats and I have her bad habits" does not count as genetics.
 
BidingMyTime said:
The "slippery slope" argument is certainly valid and something to be aware of in these discussion......it doesn't mean that all tracking is wrong, just because of different scenarios that can be used in the future.

Fact, at this point companies are NOT punishing people for having bad levels, they are just requiring that the person be aware of their levels. An argument can be made that many people who end up with complications of diabetes or having a heart attack had high glucose levels & high cholesterol levels for years, and had no idea because they felt "fine."--so by requiring people to learn their levels, these people will be giving empowering healthcare information, at that point, what they do with it, is up to them. Certainly some people will ignore problem levels, but their will be others who decide to take some positive changes or consult with their dr, and improve their health. These companies are hoping to save on paying for the complications of long-term untreated diabetes and high cholesterol.

2nd, I think we can all agree, that there are some people who are never going to have a perfect cholesterol, perfect weight, or perfect blood sugar. But I believe *improvements* can definitely be made in all of these areas-and many times even small improvements in these areas can bring positive changes. For example, one doesn't have to get to their ideal weight to start improving their diabetes, even small weight loss of 10 pounds can start decreasing insulin resistance and bring positive changes. It's possible in the future, that rather than penalizing people with bad levels (as has been hypothesized here), a company may not monetarily penalize these people, but may require they to get medical consultation on their problem or may give them a "coach" to encourage them to make improvements.
Click to expand...

Not true. They are going to use your biometric as a baseline and they will give you some time to improve. If you do not then your premium is going to increase. So the biometric is not just for your information. It is being used to penalize you if you do not meet their guidelines.

This is fine if you are young and healthy but eventually we are all going to age and their health is going to be as good. This is just the normal aging process.
 
Ackj said:
Okay, aside from those with adrenal tumors and renal stenosis, eating healthy and exercising can manage your blood pressure. I'm sure there will have an exception policy for those few individuals. No matter what state your beta cells are in, portion control and carb counting will help your glucose. And please don't go down the "being obese is genetic" road, because "my mom overeats and I have her bad habits" does not count as genetics.
Click to expand...

Actually, the recent research on the Native American population shows that it is largely due to genetics and that their metabolic function is genetically "programmed" to store fat because of how they used to live prior to Americans coming and taking everything away from them.

You are also not considering other factors-- like access to to healthy foods. a gym, etc. in rural locations. You also have to consider SES-- technicians are not paid that well. There are SOOO many other factors. Even things like polycystic ovarian syndrome and small birth weight have been linked to insulin resistance. What if they are on other therapies that can elevate lipids or affect insulin sensitivity? I could go on all day about it.

I challenge you to look into these issues a little further rather than just post an uninformed assertion. It is no secret that health professions education is lacking in the cultural sensitivity/knowledge department. They have recently made additions to the ACPE standards because of it. Many schools of pharmacy are beginning to (slowly) address it and some of the continuing education seminars at APhA have focused on it.

I think smoking is a MUCH easier issue to tackle. Some institutions (mine included) offer free smoking cessation services. Quitting reduces cardiovascular risk by 50%. Now THAT is a modifiable risk factor but is only really successful with adequate access to support and nicotine replacement therapies (or chantix, which some institutions DO pay for-- of course there are issues with that therapy as well but I digress).

With that said, I think it is important for preventive care to be a focus of health care (rather than the treatment focus we have historically had) but you shouldn't just charge people more money based on an arbitrary cutoff (especially those that may already be disadvantaged anyway) because it increases their risk by decreasing their SES even if it is slight-- 50 bucks is a lot to some people.

If the company wants to charge people more, then they should also pick up the cost of more primary and secondary prevention.

And with your idea of an exception policy-- that would require people telling the company about their health issues, which I think is a violation of privacy, especially for certain chronic disease states that come along with a stigma.
 
Last edited:
rxlea said:
Actually, the recent research on the Native American population shows that it is largely due to genetics and that their metabolic function is genetically "programmed" to store fat because of how they used to live prior to Americans coming and taking everything away from them.

You are also not considering other factors-- like access to to healthy foods. a gym, etc. in rural locations. You also have to consider SES-- technicians are not paid that well. There are SOOO many other factors. Even things like polycystic ovarian syndrome and small birth weight have been linked to insulin resistance. What if they are on other therapies that can elevate lipids or affect insulin sensitivity? I could go on all day about it.

I challenge you to look into these issues a little further rather than just post an uninformed assertion. It is no secret that health professions education is lacking in the cultural sensitivity/knowledge department. They have recently made additions to the ACPE standards because of it. Many schools of pharmacy are beginning to (slowly) address it and some of the continuing education seminars at APhA have focused on it.

I think smoking is a MUCH easier issue to tackle. Some institutions (mine included) offer free smoking cessation. Quitting reduces cardiovascular risk by 50%. Now THAT is a real modifiable risk factor but is only really successful with adequate access to support and nicotine replacement therapies (or chantix, which some institutions DO pay for-- of course there are issues with that therapy as well but I digress).
Click to expand...

Uninformed assertions, huh? You can concentrate on a few zebras among the horses, but the "Born this Way" attitude is not an excuse for behavior choices or noncompliance. For your DM example across the board, no matter what ethnicity you are if you exercise and lose weight you are less likely to get diabetes. You don't need a gym to exercise and on any budget you can choose the food that you buy. You can be culturally sensitive and be an awesome patient educator, but ultimately it is the patient who must make their own decisions and be responsible for those choices that they make.
 
Last edited:
rxlea said:
Actually, the recent research on the Native American population shows that it is largely due to genetics and that their metabolic function is genetically "programmed" to store fat because of how they used to live prior to Americans coming and taking everything away from them.

You are also not considering other factors-- like access to to healthy foods. a gym, etc. in rural locations. You also have to consider SES-- technicians are not paid that well. There are SOOO many other factors. Even things like polycystic ovarian syndrome and small birth weight have been linked to insulin resistance. What if they are on other therapies that can elevate lipids or affect insulin sensitivity? I could go on all day about it.

I challenge you to look into these issues a little further rather than just post an uninformed assertion. It is no secret that health professions education is lacking in the cultural sensitivity/knowledge department. They have recently made additions to the ACPE standards because of it. Many schools of pharmacy are beginning to (slowly) address it and some of the continuing education seminars at APhA have focused on it.

I think smoking is a MUCH easier issue to tackle. Some institutions (mine included) offer free smoking cessation services. Quitting reduces cardiovascular risk by 50%. Now THAT is a modifiable risk factor but is only really successful with adequate access to support and nicotine replacement therapies (or chantix, which some institutions DO pay for-- of course there are issues with that therapy as well but I digress).

With that said, I think it is important for preventive care to be a focus of health care (rather than the treatment focus we have historically had) but you shouldn't just charge people more money based on an arbitrary cutoff (especially those that may already be disadvantaged anyway) because it increases their risk by decreasing their SES even if it is slight-- 50 bucks is a lot to some people.

If the company wants to charge people more, then they should also pick up the cost of more primary and secondary prevention.

And with your idea of an exception policy-- that would require people telling the company about their health issues, which I think is a violation of privacy, especially for certain chronic disease states that come along with a stigma.
Click to expand...
It's all about education an accountability, though. If you're a diabetic, you know that you are, and several people from doctors to dieticians are telling you what you need to do. Sure maybe you got dealt a bad hand and wound up with insulin resistance based on some other factors, or maybe you're even a type 1. How you got there doesn't matter, but you need to take care of your health, and adjust your diet appropriately. You don't need a gym to exercise, and cooking your own meals is often cheaper than eating out.

I'm finishing up my rotation at an am care clinic, and we see this the time. Out of control htn and dm, and patients come back for f/u with the exact same numbers saying "no, I didn't try any of that diet we discussed." Then we have another patient drop from 170s systolic to 120s without a single rx because he listened to us and decided to chill out with the adobo and take a daily walk. Sometimes you get a change because they don't want you to keep adding more and more meds onto the list, but other times that's the only thing you can do. You can counsel the patients and educate them, but ultimately it's on them to make the changes.

If this program gets people thinking about their current state of health, and allows them to talk to people like us, I can see a good number taking the initiative and getting good outcomes. Again, this is for CVS employees, not the largely unemployed patient population that we serve here. Maybe it is harder to exercise and cook if you're working all day, but as the saying goes: "If it's important you'll find a way, if not, you'll find an excuse."
 
Ackj said:
It's all about education an accountability, though. If you're a diabetic, you know that you are, and several people from doctors to dieticians are telling you what you need to do. Sure maybe you got dealt a bad hand and wound up with insulin resistance based on some other factors, or maybe you're even a type 1. How you got there doesn't matter, but you need to take care of your health, and adjust your diet appropriately. You don't need a gym to exercise, and cooking your own meals is often cheaper than eating out.
Click to expand...

What is the recommended diet for someone with type 1 diabetes?
 
BMBiology said:
Not true. They are going to use your biometric as a baseline and they will give you some time to improve. If you do not then your premium is going to increase. So the biometric is not just for your information. It is being used to penalize you if you do not meet their guidelines.
Click to expand...

Where is this happening at? Or do you have insider information of CVS? There is *nothing* in the original article that says this is happening or even being planned. Quite the opposite, the article states that CVS will not have access to the results.

Now, I agree with you that its quite possible that there could be some executives secretly planning on how to penalize people for bad numbers (and personally, I think from the insurance standpoint, that is justifiable. Ultimately, it will be for the courts to decide.) But currently this is NOT happening, and I haven't seen any executives speaking openly about it being planned for the future.
 
owlegrad said:
What is the recommended diet for someone with type 1 diabetes?
Click to expand...

I don't think that ACKJ was implying that someone with type 1 would not need insulin if they followed the proper diet. But certainly, people with type 1 must also count carbs and eat properly in relation to their insulin shots. I've seen people with diabetes who think insulin is a license to eat however they want, but that's not the way it works. Everyone benefits to some extent by following proper diet, even if some people will have more benefit than others.
 
rxlea said:
Actually, the recent research on the Native American population shows that it is largely due to genetics and that their metabolic function is genetically "programmed" to store fat because of how they used to live prior to Americans coming and taking everything away from them.
You are also not considering other factors-- like access to to healthy foods. a gym, etc. in rural locations. You also have to consider SES-- technicians are not paid that well. There are SOOO many other factors. Even things like polycystic ovarian syndrome and small birth weight have been linked to insulin resistance. What if they are on other therapies that can elevate lipids or affect insulin sensitivity? I could go on all day about it.
Click to expand...

Proper living, or at least making some improvements, will definitely help anyone. But, of course, there are those who will need medication therapy as well. Each year, I see more and more health plans offering 0 copay's for several generic diabetes & blood pressure medications. Obviously, these health plans are doing what they can to encourage people to control their diabetes & blood pressure, by giving them medications for free, in order to prevent the long-term complications of untreated diabetes & blood pressure.Nobody is saying that proper living alone with solve all problems. But most problems can be treated, or at least have the progression slowed way down, by a combination of medications & proper living, and it is to both the individuals benefit & the insurance agency's benefit, to encourage both for maximum health.

I totally agree, some people may never meet the "ideal" because of genetics, but everyone can improve to some extent and minimize their risk as much as possible.
 
BMBiology said:
Not true. They are going to use your biometric as a baseline and they will give you some time to improve. If you do not then your premium is going to increase. So the biometric is not just for your information. It is being used to penalize you if you do not meet their guidelines.
Click to expand...
I read that as a joke, and I thought it was hilarious! :laugh: You will get written up and an action plan is expected if your cholesterol levels are not at goal!
 
BidingMyTime said:
Where is this happening at? Or do you have insider information of CVS? There is *nothing* in the original article that says this is happening or even being planned. Quite the opposite, the article states that CVS will not have access to the results.

Now, I agree with you that its quite possible that there could be some executives secretly planning on how to penalize people for bad numbers (and personally, I think from the insurance standpoint, that is justifiable. Ultimately, it will be for the courts to decide.) But currently this is NOT happening, and I haven't seen any executives speaking openly about it being planned for the future.
Click to expand...

Why let facts stand in the way of a good story? :laugh:
 
If you look on Drudge Report, apparently CVS is doing this because of Obamacare and not complying will take away your coverage (neither are true).
 
Why should I pay the same amount for health care coverage as the chain smoker or the obese diabetic? Do you guys not understand the concept of insurance?
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...8422e2-9251-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.html

Washington Post said:
Yet I'm actually surprised there's as much interest in the news as there seems to be. CVS is hardly the first company to make such a request: According to human resources consultancy Aon Hewitt, 83 percent of respondents to a 2013 survey of more than 1,000 U.S. employers said they offer some type of incentive to employees for taking a health-risk questionnaire or submitting to a biometric screening. Other companies even go much further, asking employees not only to submit to a health-care screening but to actually meet certain blood pressure or cholesterol thresholds, or at least agree to work toward improving them, to receive the discount.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
WVUPharm2007 said:
This wasn't how it was done for me or my wife. At all. A physician at the lab contracted you if there was a possible issue, you resolved it with the lab ,the lab then sent a "pass" note.
Click to expand...

I would hope that would be the case, but the tech at the lab who took my sample said that they send the information to the hiring company and if there is a problem they request more information. She may just have no clue what shes talking about, but I remember in pharm school we submitted any prescriptions on the spot so when the lab ask and then how they explained the process really left a bad taste in my mouth.
 
I work for kroger they have been doing this for 3 or 4 years now. They have several basic tests they preform and for each one you pass you get so many dollars off your insurance costs. up to i believe 400 dollars max off. They monitor blood pressure, bmi, cholesterol, blood sugar, and smoking status. off all the tests the bmi test pisses me off. I have never passed their bmi exam. Im not fat. Im a big guy who through the gym and other physical activities weighs more than what their bmi calculator says i should. im not a bodybuilder by any means but im not obese either. i sit around 15% body fat which is in the "fit" range for most calculators. I even offered to get my body fat analyzed at a lab so i can prove im not fat. They're are more interested in cutting their costs than public health. We even had a girl who didnt get her money because she was 5 or 6 pounds too lite. Its a joke at best.
 
Walgreen's does the same thing with their insurance. If you do the assessment and submit your numbers, you get a certain amount of money added to an HSA that goes towards offsetting your deductible.

What CVS is doing is not inherently bad. Their execution and presentation was absolutely abysmal and the person in marketing/ public relations who allowed this to happen should probably be fired. All I'm seeing on comment sections on news sites is how people are going to boycott CVS. They will have to scrap this and present it in a completely different format in order for it to not cause this much backlash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

owlegrad
CVS sucks now
Replies
6
Views
4K
clarkbar
C
WildWing
[Announcement] CVS Health / AACP Community Pharmacy Health Equity Award for Student Pharmacists
Replies
1
Views
2K
Dred Pirate
Dred Pirate
R
Multiple suicides among CVS employees in Pennsylvania
Replies
9
Views
1K
bluc
B
D
Cvs rx connect question
Replies
1
Views
2K
Old Timer
Old Timer
P
CVS 401k Match Contribution Date
Replies
1
Views
2K
RxPreceptor
RxPreceptor
Top