OP-ED

Are Smokers Really the ACA’s Biggest Losers?

Facing thousands in extra insurance costs, smokers appear to be the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) biggest losers.  Employers are allowed charge smokers up to 50% more for their medical coverage than nonsmokers , starting in 2014.

On November 25, Fox News put it best:  “Obamacare Policies Slam Smokers,” , noting that “smokers are the only group with a pre-existing condition that Obamacare penalizes.”   THCB itself has headlined:  Smokers Face Tough New Rules under Obamacare.

And these headlines are absolutely accurate —  meaning that, with the possible exception of the e-cigarette, ACA is the best thing that has happened to employed smokers ever.

Here is how we arrive at this conclusion.  The data is mixed on whether smokers incur much higher healthcare costs or just slightly higher healthcare costs during their working ages than non-smokers do.  None of the data shows that their costs are lower, but let’s say there is no impact on health spending.

Nonetheless, the following is incontrovertible:  smokers take smoking breaks.

Remarkably, there are no laws specifically governing smoking breaks, and like most other quantifiable human resources issues, no one has quantified them.   But we all observe these breaks, and about a fifth of us participate in them.  They reduce productivity.  By definition, if you are outside smoking, you are not inside working.

Sure, some smokers make up the time by working harder when they aren’t smoking…but (1) many non-smokers work hard too and (2) some workplaces, such as inbound call centers, don’t offer the luxury of catching up later because they operate in real time. Lacking quantification, fall back on your imagination…and imagine what you would do if you ran a company in which non-smokers spent as much time mulling around outside as smokers do.  That should give you an understanding of the impact of smoking breaks on productivity.

Even absent quantification, most employers know there is a substantial productivity impact, and prior to the ACA, increasing numbers of employers addressed this productivity issue by not hiring smokers, or occasionally even firing them.   Once again, no hard numbers exist but this practice was and is becoming common enough that 29 states now expressly forbid it.

Before the ACA, that was the choice employers faced, because once hired smokers could not be charged higher insurance premiums.

However, in economics the right answer is rarely all or nothing, and fortunately the ACA provides a surprisingly efficient middle ground.   The extra premiums that a smoker can be charged and increasingly are being charged make hiring smokers a good deal for employers who must now offer them insurance.  Particularly among lower-income workers (and smoking rates skew that way), the premium increase roughly offsets the productivity decrease.  Further, the premium differential mitigates non-smoker resentment of the smoking breaks.    Finally, employers no longer need to bribe (“incentivize” as they say) smokers to participate in what turn out to be ineffective smoking cessation programs.  The total cost of smoking a pack a day could now exceed $5000/year for some people in some states, far greater than any incentive.

The Supreme Court upheld ACA as within the government’s power to tax, and (while they did not have smokers in mind), this premium is in reality the most efficient type of “redistributive” tax because it is paid by people (smoking employees) who incur the cost to the people (employers) who must absorb it.

Finally, let us dispense with the argument raised by the ACLU and others that smokers are no different from alcoholics or obese people and therefore should not be discriminated against.  Wrong:  smoking is a bright line.  There is no such thing as second-hand obesity, vending machines in the break room don’t dispense cigarettes, and teenagers don’t sneak behind the barn to experiment by eating a few of their parents’ French fries.  Alcoholics don’t go outside to take drinking breaks every couple of hours, no one looks at you funny if you say you don’t smoke, no one warns you not to smoke too much at company parties, and we’ve yet to see evidence that small amounts of tobacco are good for your heart.

So smokers are a class of their own and should be singled out for different treatment.  That treatment under ACA is the best thing that could happen to smokers, especially in the 21 states where employers no longer have to hire them at all.  The ACA could almost be considered the Smokers Full Employment Act.

Al Lewis is the author of Why Nobody Believes the Numbers, co-author of Cracking Health Costs: How to Cut Your Company’s Health Costs and Provide Employees Better Care, and president of the Disease Management Purchasing Consortium.

Vik Khanna is a St. Louis-based independent health consultant with extensive experience in managed care and wellness.  An iconoclast to the core, he is the author of the Khanna On Health Blog.  He is also the Wellness Editor-At-Large for THCB.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

23
Leave a Reply

13 Comment threads
10 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
13 Comment authors
MarieJonathan SchnellePatAl LewisBob Hertz Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Marie
Guest
Marie

I know a diabetic woman who insists on eating candy and downing sugary drinks… ALL DAY LONG. She seems to think her insulin shots negate the dangers of sugaring up her body. In the three years I have known her, she has left work to go to the emergency room FIVE times and has frequent issues with concentration due to spikes and drops in her glucose levels. I’m a smoker. I take the breaks I have been allotted by my employer. I have not missed time at work due to smoking. Of course I shouldn’t smoke and I have not… Read more »

Jonathan Schnelle
Guest

If we’re continuing to move into a shared cost type healthcare system it would only make sense for smokers to have to pay more. The healthcare costs associated with smoking should be covered by the smokers.

AliceH
Guest
AliceH

“The healthcare costs associated with smoking should be covered by the smokers.” That was how the old individual insurance market worked. Smokers pay more. Pre-existing conditions pay more. Obese pay more. High-risk = higher cost. The new system is no one pays more – except smokers. This, even though the evidence for higher healthcare costs of smokers is not conclusive. My position is… if you want to argue smokers, and ONLY smokers, should pay more, then have enough integrity to admit that it’s an argument based on agreeing the government should have arbitrary power to mandate individual choices. Just stop… Read more »

Pat
Guest
Pat

Have any of you seen the lobbies in hospitals ours has fountains and pianos in one in the villages her in florida. stores coffee shops and that is not in the cafeteria but the lobby. it is crazy the money they spent on this building. so you can just imagine how much the paper pushers are getting paid. never mind the ceos. now wonder health care cost are so high, greed they go around trying to find where to cut the workers and make them more productive when they are working twice as hard, and they want to cut their… Read more »

Bob Hertz
Guest
Bob Hertz

Note to Peter 1:

why would your insurance company pay $21,000 for 40 minutes of surgery?

Was this perhaps the rack rate and they actually paid much less?

How much did the surgeon get? How much to the hospital? Was there a multi-nite stay?

This absolutely cries out for national fee schedules if it is true.

Thanks – I mean no criticism of you.

Peter1
Guest
Peter1

Bob, got those figures from the EOB and the bill from the hospital. I don’t know what the surgeon got. He’s a private doc who has privileges, but he is not extra billing above what insurance pays. This was also out-patient surgery – out before noon, and without full anesthesia. Maybe having it done in Chicago has something to do with it.

The only good thing is we got 4 months to pay it off, by request.

Peter1
Guest
Peter1

Bob, I might be wrong but don’t understand the difference between the EOB and the hospital bill. Bill says total insurance payments/adjustments $21k, but EOB says “Your plan paid” $6700. I assume the $23k was the rack rate, or the rate they bill to uninsured – hence the term “rack” rate, after old torture instrument.

Peter1
Guest
Peter1

Now I think I understand what’s going on. The hospital’s “billed rate” is like the “manufacturers suggested list” in the car industry. It’s a number no one expects to get but a number that exists so that dealers can advertise 30%, 40%, 50% savings to attract the buyers and get good image to the dealers so the buyers think they’re getting a deal.

When you see how much your insurance company “saved” you, you have a higher opinion of them. It’s all a con game and back scratching collusion.

archon41
Guest
archon41

I have the most profound respect for physicians, generally, but there is more than enough evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that some are “gaming the system.” “Overtreatment” (relative to the “undertreated”) and “defensive medicine” are also legitimate areas of societal concern. I have also occasionally sensed an attitude here that the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship somehow overrides the rights reserved to insurers under contracts of insurance. They can’t tell you what to do, but they certainly have the right, consistent with the language of the contract of insurance, to tell you what they will pay for. Same with… Read more »

Perry
Guest
Perry

I think most providers (physicians), especially primary care, would be willing to make less money, but have MUCH less government intrusion on the physician-patient relationship.

archon41
Guest
archon41

Single Payer=Single Paymaster, and that singular entity won’t be distributing blank checks to providers.

Bobby Gladd
Guest

We’re halfway there already. Have been for quite some time.

Perry
Guest
Perry

Medicare or Medicaid, either one brings extensive paperwork to providers which will further erode the patient-physician relationship, because then treatment will be based on the paperwork, not the patient. If we are to have Single Payor, then we need to cut back on all the onerous mandates for physicians under the current Medicare system. I don’t see this happening in this country.

archon41
Guest
archon41

“Medicare for Everyone.” Let’s see: to obtain anything like the level of coverage I enjoyed under a group plan, I have to pay the government $107 a month for Part B of Medicare, and and about $275 a month for Medicare Supplement and drug coverage. That works out to about $5,000 a year. Under “Medicare for All,” would we be requiring each individual recipient to come up with that kind of money, or would we need a “Medicare Supplement and Drug Plan for All” as well? Or maybe just require the providers to “eat” unpaid deductibles and co-pays? (And I… Read more »

Peter1
Guest
Peter1

“Or maybe just require the providers to “eat” unpaid deductibles and co-pays?”

That sounds about right. My wife had bunion surgery, 20 minutes a foot, total bill about $23k (not including the doc) – insurance paid about $21K and we owe $2k in what’s called “co-insurance”. I think hospitals could find some efficiencies to cover that, unless you believe they are the most efficient well run institutions on the planet.

Seems every time government wants to raise taxes we tell it to find “efficiencies”.

AliceH
Guest
AliceH

Looks like the conclusion “charging smokers more is good” came first, with “supporting” arguments heavier on quantity than quality. Of course everyone takes breaks during the work day. Do smokers take more breaks than non smokers? You didn’t even consider the possibility. Hourly employees who smoke are exactly as productive as non-smokers because they are paid for the exact same butt-in-chair (or behind counter) time. Salaried employees are explicitly paid for expected productivity, which generally is a combination of fixed availability (at ones desk) and delivery of product/service on time, which means they are expected to work more than 40… Read more »

Al Lewis
Guest
Al Lewis

So are you saying that all those companies that won’t hire smokers did the math wrong and all those states that took steps to prevent that were wasting their legislative time on a problem that didn’t exist?

Pat
Guest
Pat

I would just say the ones who did the studies are biased against smokers and did the math the way most politians do math .. make it go the way the want it. Just like any illness a smoker gets is put down to smoking and added in the cost of smokers even a hangnail is probably due to smoking. As for workers, everyone takes breaks and as you said most smokers are lower paid which means most are hourly workers and I was a supervisor and anyone working hourly gets so many breaks for the hours they work by… Read more »

Al Lewis
Guest
Al Lewis

here is a study on the difference in cost between smokers and nonsmokers in the workplace http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/05/25/tobaccocontrol-2012-050888

AliceH
Guest
AliceH

The study requires subscription. The abstract says they studied “absenteeism, presenteesim, smoking breaks, healthcare costs and pension benefits for smokers” and they conclude “best estimate of the annual excess cost to employ a smoker is $5816”. The original posts concedes studies on increased health care costs are nonconclusive, and then “None of the data shows that their costs are lower, but let’s say there is no impact on health spending.” The whole focus is then on cost to productivity from breaks. On that exact point, A commenter on the linked study expressed concern that there is “a tendency towards oversimplification… Read more »

Stephen Jones
Guest

The Affordable Care Act puts the USA one giant step closer to MEDICARE FOR EVERYONE, which is what the law should have been in the first place.

Brad F
Guest

I think you have nuggets of truth nested within a thesis in need of more data and flushing out.

Lots of assumptions here: market responses and firms competing for smokers and non alike, wage effects, types of plans offered, whether states adjust for smoking (some dont), and type of biz (do customers see/smell smokers, ie, desirability).

Brad

userlogin
Editor

you lost me at smoking breaks …