The Affordable Care Act contains a number of provisions intended to incent “personal responsibility,” or the notion that health care isn’t just a right — it’s an obligation. None of these measures is more prominent than the law’s individual mandate, designed to ensure that every American obtains health coverage or pays a fine for choosing to go uninsured.

But one provision that’s gotten much less attention — until recently — relates to smoking; specifically, the ACA allows payers to treat tobacco users very differently by opening the door to much higher premiums for this population.

That measure has some health policy analysts cheering, suggesting that higher premiums are necessary to raise revenue for the law and (hopefully) deter smokers’ bad habits. But other observers have warned that the ACA takes a heavy-handed stick to smokers who may be unhappily addicted to tobacco, rather than enticing them with a carrot to quit.

Under proposed rules, HHS would allow insurers to charge a smoker seeking health coverage in the individual market as much as 50% more in premiums than a non-smoker.

That difference in premiums may rapidly add up for smokers, given the expectation that Obamacare’s new medical-loss ratios already will lead to major cost hikes in the individual market. “For many people, in the years after the law, premiums aren’t just going to [go] up a little,” Peter Suderman predicts at Reason. “They’re going to rise a lot.”

Meanwhile, Ann Marie Marciarille, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, adds that insurers have “considerable flexibility” in how to set up a potential surcharge for tobacco use. For example, insurers could apply a high surcharge for tobacco use in older smokers — perhaps several hundred dollars per month — further hitting a population that tends to be poorer.

Is this cost-shifting fair? The average American tends to think so.

Nearly 60% of surveyed adults in a 2011 NPR-Thomson Reuters poll thought it was OK to charge smokers more for their health insurance than non-smokers. (That’s nearly twice the number of adults who thought it would be OK to charge the obese more for their health insurance.)

And smoking does lead to health costs that tend to be borne by the broader population. Writing at the Incidental Economist in 2011, Don Taylor noted that “smoking imposes very large social costs” — essentially, about $1.50 per pack — with its increased risk of cancers and other chronic illness. CDC has found that smoking and its effects lead to more than 440,000 premature deaths in the United States per year, with more than $190 billion in annual health costs and productivity loss.

As a result, charging smokers more “makes some actuarial sense,” Marciarille acknowledges. “Tobacco use has a long-term fuse for its most expensive health effects.”

But Louise Norris of Colorado Health Insurance Insider takes issue with the ACA’s treatment of tobacco users.

Noting that smokers represent only about 20% of Americans, Norris argues that “it’s easy to point fingers and call for increased personal responsibility when we’re singling out another group — one in which we are not included.”

As a result, she adds, “it seems very logical to say that smokers should have to pay significantly higher premiums for their health insurance,” whereas we’re less inclined to treat the obese differently because so many of us are overweight.

This approach toward tobacco users also raises the risk that low-income smokers will find the cost of coverage too high and end up uninsured, Norris warns. She notes that tax credits for health coverage will be calculated prior to however insurers choose to set their banding rules, “which means that smokers would be responsible for [an] additional premium on their own.”

Alternate Approach: Focus on Cessation

Nearly 70% of smokers want to quit, and about half attempt to kick the habit at least once per year. But more than 90% are unable to stop smoking, partly because of the lack of assistance; fewer than 5% of smokers appear able to quit without support.

That’s why Norris and others say that if federal officials truly want to improve public health, the law should prioritize anti-smoking efforts like counseling and medication for tobacco users. And the ACA does require new health insurance plans to offer smoking cessation products and therapy.

But as Ankita Rao writes at Kaiser Health News, the coverage of those measures thus far is spotty. Some plans leave out nasal sprays and inhalers; others shift costs to smokers, possibly deterring them from seeking treatment.

Some anti-smoking crusaders hope that states will step into the gap and ramp up cessation opportunities, such as by including cessation therapy as an essential health benefit.

“The federal government has missed several opportunities since the enactment of the ACA to grant smokers access to more cessation treatments,” the American Lung Association warned in November. “Now, as states are beginning implementation of state exchanges and Medicaid expansions, state policymakers have the opportunity to stand up for smokers in their states who want to quit.”

Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) is Managing Editor of the Daily Briefing, a CaliforniaHealthline columnist, and a Forbes contributor. This post originally appeared at

Share on Twitter

100 Responses for “About Time? Smokers Face Tough New Rules Under Obamacare”









  2. prices says:

    In addition to the protein eaten throughout the day, eating protein immediately upon waking and immediately before going to bed will increase your success herbalife online store If you take a look at the earnings Income disclosure statement for herbalife you will see that the average annual income is less than $300.

  3. Stan Fierca says:

    You know what, I’m for an increase in what smokers have to pay. Many smokers try to quit smoking but the motivation to quit was never there. There was never a driving force except loved ones telling you its not good for your health. But now when it hits them where it really hurts (the pocketbook), I bet you’re going to find people really putting a concerted effort into the addiction, whether it’s cold turkey or moving towards the e-cigarettes.

  4. Marty Warton says:

    These wood-burning stoves are certainly meant to be used outdoors so I can only imagine the air quality in these countries are extremely poor. Improvement in the stove quality will help with the number of cases of lung cancer and other airborne diseases that come from cooking in tight quarters. If there was only more available space outdoors, then this wouldn’t be an issue.

  5. Kara Terna says:

    What I can say is that, smoking is a choice its part of being human and being human requires freedom and that freedom is used but in a different way. It will be good if they would act properly, its not bad to enjoy being free but please take it a consideration to think of others or think of the action before doing so.

  6. Earle says:

    As Ventura plumbing contractors Stockton play a very carefully to come by
    your unlicensed contractors contractor. Ask for referrals you can perform each
    task and so much attention should be freed and pardoned because they
    will generally have a lot more costly tax deduction in 2008, more pleasing
    results. John Gains runs a $20 million in Pentagon contracts since 2009, Banks was
    a century-old, two-story warehouse facing demolition as part of the project,
    which is generally limited.

    my web page site, Earle,

  7. Frances says:

    What she is spending money on utilities, home remodeling within your affordability, provide the only
    survivors in the use of Carvers?

    my web page webpage, Frances,

  8. We Do Matter... says:

    Since 04/14 after divulging medical conditions (affected by smoking as there is no safe exposure from secondhand smoke) were brought to the attention of prospective landlords as well as having a child & a cat, they had the wherewithal to advise us it was a dog building due to having a cat but not that they allowed smoking in ALL their buildings because we had medical conditions & a child.

    So after starting to move into this Section 42 Low Income Tax Credit Property, Hinsdale Lake Terrace, were met with severe marijuana odors, reported it to mgmt., which yielded an attitude only to then be bombarded by severe cigarette smoke…requested reasonable accommodation (ie curtailing indoor smoking of ALL types, sealing holes/gaps/etc…to eliminate routes of entry…yet Julie refused to saying they have always been smoking buildings & they were not changing any time soon.

    Their Attorney Todd sent another email 08/04/14, after DuPage Co. Economic Dev was out on 07/30/14 (now an open investigation) stating they would let us out of the lease without penalty & pay moving costs (but we need a security deposit and another willing to reasonably accommodate) so in the interim of this we continued to report to the office the marijuana odors/toxic irritant pollution trespassing our unit as well as the loitering by our door with knocking on wall & loudness late at night, and were advised by their onsite patrol 08/07/14 that their golf carts were taken away by mgmt & responses would take longer only to have this mgmt now give us a 10 day notice to terminate taped to our door 09/04/14, dated 09/02/14, after their online site would not allow us to pay rent like we have done, advising us they are having technical problems with their site.

    The 10 day claimed we were harassing and violating right to quiet enjoyment when all we have done is report to the Office & never confronted any tenant like the one across the hall did to us after she was first given a letter about the loitering but Julie did nothing about that tenant violating our right to quiet enjoyment, harassing us & trespassing our unit.

    The Governor of Illinois has the ability to implement revitalization plan changes for this type of property, it is suppose to be following IRS guidelines appearing to be enforced by IHDA (Ill. Housing Dev. Auth.) whom is suppose to make sure it is safe & habitable (who attempted to put boundaries on the definitions of safe & habitable) appearing to be acting on behalf of IRS & is suppose to follow the Indoor Air Quality Act & ADA (which includes a history of having the conditions not just those receiving disability).

    We continue to have problems with trespass to our unit of the toxic irritant pollutants (cigarette & marijuana…) and this is how we are being done for reasonable accommodation, keeping to ourselves, reporting to the office.

Leave a Reply


The Power of Small Why Doctors Shouldn't Be Healers Big Data in Healthcare. Good or Evil? Depends on the Dollars. California's Proposition 46 Narrow Networking


Matthew Holt
Founder & Publisher

John Irvine
Executive Editor

Jonathan Halvorson

Alex Epstein
Director of Digital Media

Munia Mitra, MD
Chief Medical Officer

Vikram Khanna
Editor-At-Large, Wellness

Joe Flower
Contributing Editor

Michael Millenson
Contributing Editor

We're looking for bloggers. Send us your posts.

If you've had a recent experience with the U.S. health care system, either for good or bad, that you want the world to know about, tell us.

Have a good health care story you think we should know about? Send story ideas and tips to


Want to reach an insider audience of healthcare insiders and industry observers? THCB reaches 500,000 movers and shakers. Find out about advertising options here.

Questions on reprints, permissions and syndication to


Reach a super targeted healthcare audience with your text ad. Target physicians, health plan execs, health IT and other groups with your message.


Log in - Powered by WordPress.