CVS Now Wants Workers' Health Information

[npage148]

---

Members do not see this ad.

People are fickle, the boycot and backlash will disappear in 3 days when the customers realize they have to be inconvinced to maintain their anger

 

[PharmDHawkeye]

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.

If healthcare providers would practice what they preach, it wouldn't be necessary. I'm interviewing with CVS on Monday and I don't mind this one bit.

 

[PharmDHawkeye]

Judgmental much? I wasn't aware that people could just decide to be healthy.

You can choose to take care of yourself or not. There is no one else making you do it. People shouldn't have to be convinced to take care of themselves.

 

[GatorPharm07]

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.

I signed up specifically to comment on this thread (yes I am crazy).

The difference between what WAG and CVS are doing is that WAG offers a BENEFIT of getting money to those who qualify vs CVS is going to FINE those who do not fall into their "recommended biometrics".

I believe that there is a huge difference between offering a benefit of a discount if you are "healthy" and assessing a penalty on you if you are not or if you refuse to test. What the article fails to mention (and most people seem to overlook) is that your rate does not go down if you are healthy, it only goes up if you are NOT healthy. In reality, what this does is bring extra funds to the insurance without the healthy members getting the financial benefit of lower monthly premiums.

Not to put this off topic but this seems very similar to the "TAX" part of obamacare on those members who fail to sign up for health insurance. It is a PENALTY on those who do not sign up without financial benefits to those who do.

To summarize, it is a plain and simple MONEY GRAB, hidden under the thin veil of patient advocacy... As WAG says, on the corner of healthy and happy... (ofcourse if you arent healthy, CVS will charge you a fee, otherwise move down the street)

 

[FlavyFlav]

I will slightly agree with what you say. However, Walgreen's previously carried much better insurance at a much lower rate before they started their new wellness program. So, depending on what light you use to look at it, Walgreen's new 'plan' can be as much a negative as it can be a positive.

My point wasn't that either system (Walgreen's vs. CVS) was necessarily better than the other. I was implying that CVS could have taken a much better spin on this to avoid the public scrutiny and backlash they have now.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

So let me get this straight...the difference here is essentially:

CVS: Health Insurance is $70 a month. $30 penalty if you don't meet health goals.

Walgreens: Health Insurance is $100 a month. You get a $30 discount for meeting certain health criteria.

----

Yeah...you know, honestly, if that's the case, I actually prefer CVS's method. I'd rather be given the straight info than a euphemism. Either way, you are penalizing the fat.

Guess I got to get on a treadmill and get myself under 20 BMI, I guess. Spring will be here soon. I'll basketball game my way to health like usual...god damn winter...

 

[GatorPharm07]

So let me get this straight...the difference here is essentially:

CVS: Health Insurance is $70 a month. $30 penalty if you don't meet health goals.

Walgreens: Health Insurance is $100 a month. You get a $30 discount for meeting certain health criteria.

QUOTE]

Thats not the case at all since there are no $ numbers presented here. If you want to randomly use your made up numbers to make yourself feel better, fine, but dont state is as fact.

The company I work for was purchased by WAG 1 year ago so I do not know how their rates compare to those of years past, but I do know that my company almost doubled rates in the past few years (before being bought out).
I would venture to bet that CVS increased their rates across the board over the same period of time and now are looking to further penalize those who do not fall into their criteria.

 

[FlavyFlav]

Thats not the case at all since there are no $ numbers presented here. If you want to randomly use your made up numbers to make yourself feel better, fine, but dont state is as fact.

The company I work for was purchased by WAG 1 year ago so I do not know how their rates compare to those of years past, but I do know that my company almost doubled rates in the past few years (before being bought out).
I would venture to bet that CVS increased their rates across the board over the same period of time and now are looking to further penalize those who do not fall into their criteria.

Well, I believe WVUPharm was just trying to illustrate my point and they were not intending that to be read as exact figures. I feel it definitely reflects what I was attempting to say in how one can look at either company in different lights and yet realize that they are both accomplishing the same end. That end is the issue I have with programs like this, if they succeed at forcing a certain group of people to pay more, what stops them from targeting others? Who decides what is healthy? The extreme end is that the only people who can afford insurance are the ones who don't necessarily need it, which is counter to the insurance model inasmuch as I understand it. I realize this is hyperbole, but I do believe it to be a valid point.

So, just ease up a bit on WVU, as we may all be on the same side.

 

[Unchained]

Well, I believe WVUPharm was just trying to illustrate my point and they were not intending that to be read as exact figures. I feel it definitely reflects what I was attempting to say in how one can look at either company in different lights and yet realize that they are both accomplishing the same end. That end is the issue I have with programs like this, if they succeed at forcing a certain group of people to pay more, what stops them from targeting others? Who decides what is healthy? The extreme end is that the only people who can afford insurance are the ones who don't necessarily need it, which is counter to the insurance model inasmuch as I understand it. I realize this is hyperbole, but I do believe it to be a valid point.

So, just ease up a bit on WVU, as we may all be on the same side.

I think we can all agree on what is healthy and what is not. It's not like they're going to start hiring blond haired blue eyed caucasians of Nordic descent. This is a very fair system they have here. We as a country need to get control of our vices. We are number one or two in the world in all of them. Heroin, cocaine, fat, alcohol, marijuana. I think they should draw blood samples while they are at it. Terminate those who are abusing illegal drugs if they don't agree to a rehab program.

 

[FlavyFlav]

And yet you and I already don't agree if you're going to bring marijuana into this. I believe the system can start as fair but what stops it from progressing to something that may not be?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see people quit smoking and lose weight and be fit and healthy, but I just don't believe this is the right way to accomplish that.

 

[Unchained]

And yet you and I already don't agree if you're going to bring marijuana into this. I believe the system can start as fair but what stops it from progressing to something that may not be?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see people quit smoking and lose weight and be fit and healthy, but I just don't believe this is the right way to accomplish that.

People always make the argument "God help us where will it all end?". It never gets to that point. Ever. The best way to accomplish this is to punish people monetarily. Diabetes and the risk of cancer don't work.

I don't really want to turn this into an anti-marijuana thread but the drug brings more problems than it solves. Example drug cartels in Cali. Amsterdam is even restricting distribution due to criminal gang intrusion.

 

[lorain]

companies are turning to this to reduce costs

my company requires certain goals to be met or your premium is higher

nicotine free policy too

this is nothing earth shattering

 

[MountainPharmD]

This is funny reading everyone's freak out posts.

This is old news.....Safeway has been doing his for 5 years. Hell at Safeway the pharmacists are resonsible for conducting the biometric screenings. Along with everything else, flu shots ect. we had to do these screenings that took about 20 minutes.

Kroger started it 3 years ago and the pharmacists also did the screenings. They took it a step further than Safeway. We had to do weight, blood pressure, glucose and cholesterol. The only good thing is I got to take the APHA lipid certification.

 

[297point1]

So let me get this straight...the difference here is essentially:

CVS: Health Insurance is $70 a month. $30 penalty if you don't meet health goals.

Walgreens: Health Insurance is $100 a month. You get a $30 discount for meeting certain health criteria.

----

Yeah...you know, honestly, if that's the case, I actually prefer CVS's method. I'd rather be given the straight info than a euphemism. Either way, you are penalizing the fat.

One man's penalty (read: tax) is another man's discount, or something like that.
I think that was Chief Justice Roberts' line of thinking when he sided with the 5-4 majority that ruled the ACA to be constitutional.

This is further evidence that semantics do matter. 🙂

 

[WVUPharm2007]

The mailings they send DO say that CVS will not use any of the numbers internally and that it won't be used to determine benefits...so...when they do that, I guess I can sue?

 

[pezdispenser]

I've had the Walgreens one for several years. I like it because the premium is low, I rarely use it, and when I do, I don't pay anything out of pocket because I have accumulated enough money in my Health Reimbursement Account to cover my deductible.

Here's what they have charged over the years (every 2 weeks, single, non-smoker), and they play around with the HRA amount and the deductible too.

2010 $34.70, $500 HRA, $1,000 deductible
2011 $38.17, $400 HRA, $1,200 deductible
2012 $29.43, $200 HRA, $1,500 deductible
2013 $30.14, $300 HRA, $1,500 deductible

The premium went down a lot from 2011 to 2012, and the HRA amount went down as well, so it looks like they include the HRA amount in the premium.