DEL.ICIO.USWAR ON OBESITY
Extra pounds may be costly for Ala. workers
Alabama No. 2 in national obesity rankings behind Mississippi
Associated Press
Friday, August 22, 2008
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama, pushed to second in national obesity rankings by deep-fried Southern favorites, is cracking down on state workers who are too fat.
[Post comments below.]
The state has given its 37,527 employees a year to start getting fit — or they’ll pay $25 a month for insurance that otherwise is free.
Alabama will be the first state to charge overweight state workers who don’t work on slimming down, while a handful of other states reward employees who adopt healthy behaviors.
Alabama already charges workers who smoke — and has seen some success in getting them to quit — but now has turned its attention to a problem that plagues many in the Deep South: obesity.
The State Employees’ Insurance Board this week approved a plan to charge state workers starting in January 2010 if they don’t have free health screenings.
If the screenings turn up serious problems with blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose or obesity, employees will have a year to see a doctor at no cost, enroll in a wellness program, or take steps on their own to improve their health. If they show progress in a follow-up screening, they won’t be charged. But if they don’t, they must pay starting in January 2011.
“We are trying to get individuals to become more aware of their health,” said state worker Robert Wagstaff, who serves on the insurance board.
Not all state employees see it that way.
“It’s terrible,” said health department employee Chequla Motley. “Some people come into this world big.”
Computer technician Tim Colley already pays $24 a month for being a smoker and doesn’t like the idea of another charge.
“It’s too Big Brotherish,” he said.
The board will apply the obesity charge to anyone with a body mass index of 35 or higher who is not making progress. A person 5 feet 6 inches tall weighing 220 pounds, for example, would have a BMI of 35.5. A BMI of 30 is considered the threshold for obesity.
The board has not yet determined how much progress a person would have to show and is uncertain how many people might be affected because everyone could avoid the charge by working to lose weight.
But that’s unlikely — government statistics show Alabamians have a big weight problem. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 30.3 percent are now obese, ranking the state behind only Mississippi.
E-K. Daufin of Montgomery, a college professor and founder of Love Your Body, Love Yourself, which holds body acceptance workshops, said the new policy will be stressful for people like her.
“I’m big and beautiful and doing my best to keep my stress levels down so I can stay healthy,” Daufin said. “That’s big, not lazy, not a glutton and certainly not deserving of the pompous, poisonous disrespect served up daily to those of us with more bounce to the ounce.”
A recent study suggested that about half of overweight people and nearly a third of obese people have normal blood pressure and cholesterol levels, while about a quarter of people considered to be normal weight suffer from the ills associated with obesity.
Walter Lindstrom, founder of the Obesity Law and Advocacy Center in California, said he’s concerned that all overweight Alabama employees will get is advice to walk more and broil their chicken.
“The state will feel good about itself for offering something and the person of size will end up paying $300 a year for the bad luck of having a chronic disease his/her state-sponsored insurance program failed to cover in an appropriate and meaningful fashion,” he said.
William Ashmore, executive director of the State Employees’ Insurance Board, said the state will spend an extra $1.6 million next year on screenings and wellness programs, but should see significant long-term savings.
Ashmore said research shows someone with a body mass index of 35 to 39 generates $1,748 more in annual medical expenses than someone with a BMI less than 25, considered normal.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a few states offer one-time financial incentives for pursuing healthy lifestyles. Ohio workers, for instance, get $50 for having health assessments and another $50 for following through with the advice.
Arkansas and Missouri go a step further, offering monthly discounts on premiums for employees who take health risk assessments and participate in wellness programs to reduce obesity, stress and other health problems.
Alabama’s new policy is drawing no objection from the lobbying group representing state workers.
Mac McArthur, executive director of Alabama State Employees Association, said the plan is not designed to punish employees.
“It’s a positive,” he said.
Services »
Comments
By RK
Nov 13, 2008 7:49 PM | Link to this
Does no one out there see that this plan should be opposed to be cause some people cannot help being fat, but that people have the right to be fat? Moreover, isn't anyone creeped out by this latest step toward a nanny state the U.S. has taken?
By marco
Sep 18, 2008 2:25 AM | Link to this
in my recent stay in the US I noticed the number of people in trouble with obesity is quite larger than in Europe (even though we are facing a dramatic increase in children obesity in the last few years mainly due to parental loose education).
the second thing that I noticed different in US is quantity. a single normal size course was enough for my family of four.
indeed eating junk food is not the healthiest way to feed yourself but there aren't much more calories in it than in biological grown fine food, in many cases there are less.
as far as obesity is concerned we all should focus on quantity first and the devastating "eat as much as you can" advertising education and parental laissez-faire.
stomach is elastic, it doesn't take that long to get it bloated and getting it full of low fat food is just like putting a chunk of whale fat in a normal size stomach
eat only as necessary
eat regularly at given times
eat and drink better, if possible
this should be the right approach to healthier nourishment, imho.
By Shannon
Aug 24, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this
that is an absolutly disgusting proposal. What about people who can't help their weight? Diseases and illnesses such as cancer can render people helpess to their obesity. One of my best friends gained 100 pounds after chemo, eats healthy and desperatly tries to lose weight and can't because of the destruction the chemo did to her pituitary gland. Should she have to prove to the state that she's excersizing and eating right in order to not have to pay them money? Even if their is an exception for this, you know people like her are going to have to go through beaurucratic ********* and to even have to explain your situation is embarassing. what a dehumanizing , humiliating proposal.
By elsparko
Aug 24, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this
I lost 46 pounds and feel great. That is the only reward I need. No more aching joints, back trouble or double chins! I should get a discount for my insurance.
By r dowe
Aug 24, 2008 3:11 AM | Link to this
People love to dislike people for one reason or another. Alabama has a history of pitting one group against another(ie blacks vs whites)now they have worked their way to obese workers. There's no place for ideas that limit people's freedom to live as they wish. Forcing people does not always work-ask ex Gov. Wallace.
By SPQR
Aug 24, 2008 12:06 AM | Link to this
In response to James:
James,
The problem is that there are MANY MORE people who are obese that do NOT have a medical condition. The small percentage of those who do have a medical cause for their obesity would likewise contribute to a small percentage in the increase of healthcare costs in general. The state is not going at these people, it's going at the larger problem of the majority of overweight people who are overweight because of poor lifestyle choices.
You can give me as many anecdotes as you like, but there are overwhelmingly, substantially more obese people that are obese because of their own choices than people who are obese because of a medical condition.
This is just like car insurance, if you have more moving violations and a history of accidents, your premiums increase so other people don't have to pay for your bad habits.
By Anon
Aug 23, 2008 11:46 PM | Link to this
S's comments are spot on. Enough profit for the blasted insurance companies. However, I'm sick of the fatness of my fellow Americans. If you travel abroad nowhere will you see fatness on the scale that we have here. The "it's a complex problem...genetics..." is garbage. You cannot believe that American's are a race that are more apt to be fat. Turn off American Idol and go do something. Noone's forcing you to eat McDonalds' food.
By denisepeace
Aug 23, 2008 11:21 PM | Link to this
I am saddened to read so many shameful, hateful comments! Obviously, obesity is a complex health issue which involves alterable risks, including food intake and choices, and activity levels, but there are so many other genetic and related factors to consider. Research continues to uncover different causative and contributory factors to the obesity epidemic. Obesity is not a simple "choice" that a person makes. And yes--what constitutes "obese"? BMI is an overly simplified measurement, as others have pointed out; fitness is not merely a matter of a number on the scales. I am all for PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE: in fact, it is the cornerstone of ANY successful health care system. Incentives to work toward one's OWN level of fitness are great--stigmatizing and penalizing people for things beyond their control is NOT.
By Eric
Aug 23, 2008 11:08 PM | Link to this
Taking $25 out of your paycheck per month is NOT a positive. This is weight discrimination that should be outlawed.
By denisepeace
Aug 23, 2008 10:58 PM | Link to this
I am saddened to read so many shameful, hateful comments! Obviously, obesity is a complex health issue which involves alterable risks, including food intake and choices, and activity levels, but there are so many other genetic and related factors to consider. Research continues to uncover different causative and contributory factors to the obesity epidemic. Obesity is not a simple "choice" that a person makes. And yes--what constitutes "obese"? BMI is an overly simplified measurement, as others have pointed out; fitness is not merely a matter of a number on the scales. I am all for PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE: in fact, it is the cornerstone of ANY successful health care system. Incentives to work toward one's OWN level of fitness are great--stigmatizing and penalizing people for things beyond their control is NOT.
[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] next
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F, except on Tuesday when it's open until 9 p.m.
Post a comment
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.
Request a comment be removed