What have you noticed about the new medical benefits plan? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Mail | 'Wellness checkups' now getting pushed
In an e-mail about changes to Gannett's employee medical benefits, a reader writes about one of the new components:
Everyone must have a wellness checkup, or take the health risk assessment online. The checkup must be completed by August, so the company can figure the results into premium rates for 2012. If you don't do either, they're going to put an extra "premium" on rates for 2012. For those with chronic conditions, the company is going to "help" you manage them.
What have you noticed about the new medical benefits plan? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
What have you noticed about the new medical benefits plan? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
38 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Are incompetence and cluelessness chronic conditions? There are epidemic levels at the management level.
ReplyDeleteI see right through this one: anyone with a low wellness score is out the door. Don't tell them about all the layoff-time-related boozing or you will be on the list.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou pay a higher rate if you don't have a physical. Don't get melodramatic Jim.
ReplyDeleteold age = declines in health status for most people.
ReplyDeletei hope someone challenges this blatant display or ageism when the miserable company starts using normal, aging related problems to axe people.
now, i'm all for a person taking responsibility for their health and wellness. don't get me wrong. but, i knnow how gannett loathes old people.
just think about how this policy goes against any of the claims the company makes about diversity. a truly diverse workforce is blind to age, color, sexual preference and all that, and focuses on hiring and retaining competent people.
http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=indystar&sParam=34874879.story
ReplyDeleteWell, at least one group somewhere is speaking out against this practice or a similar one. Hope Gannett does the same.
Who is the vindictive and malicious s.o.b. in the Crystal Towers who comes up with the latest weekly method of screwing over Gannett employees? We are treated like worms in things like this "wellness checkup" which we are required to complete, regardless of the privacy issues involved. The company is going to "help" employees who have to disclose their chronic conditions. Sure they are. Yes, they are going to throw a lifeline to employees who are the most expensive to insure. This has to go down as the most cynical and malicious thing this company has ever done -- and that is saying a lot after the slaughter of the grayhairs.
ReplyDeleteYep, we all saw this one coming a mile away. About four years ago, the company offered $25 to any fool willing to take a similar "wellness" exam that included questions about smoking. Lo and behold, a smoker's penalty was included in health policies the following year. If you had admitted to smoking, there was no way you could retract it.
ReplyDeleteIn the short run, we will be penalized further for higher-than-acceptable cholesterol levels, higher-than-acceptable body fat ratio, high blood pressure and violations of every other common indicator of health. Longer term, Gannett will roll out gene testing to determine susceptibility to diseases. Only employees of superior gene pools and spartan lifestyles will survive Gannett's intractable HR machinery.
Lots of griping on here, but who is going to have the balls to challenge this like the IU folks did. Seems they stopped this madness. Come on boomers. Strut your stuff on this, the latest in Gannett's long history of discrimination based on age. Do something. Doesn't anyone on here have an attorney freind or spouse who would be willing to take this one on?
ReplyDelete3:48, it isn't as simple as taking a physical. People are going to be sent to "case managers" for certain conditions - this is spelled out in the letter. What we don't know is how that will take shape. What conditions will be marked for a case manager? What will the management programs consist of? What happens when a condition doesn't respond well to proper care (which happens more often than you think) and how do they document the care? Example: person with high blood pressure loses some weight, exercises regularly, and faithfully takes medication, but blood pressure remains high. This person did what they are supposed to, and haven't seen any results - do they get flagged for a premium hike? Bottom line is that we don't know how this will be implemented, and when people are already struggling, more uncertainty is never a good thing.
ReplyDeleteThis is also one sided. Let's say someone is healthy, or has been successfully managing a condition for a long time. Why shouldn't they be rewarded with a reduction in premiums?
wv: ustingus. Heh.
Your reaction to these wellness checks is similar to what some employees felt about the spring 2008 medical care audits, where Gannett asked employees to prove dependents enrolled on their medical policy were, in fact, entitled to coverage.
ReplyDelete12:39 is right, and this looks exactly like the reeducation programs the Nazis launched, and I have a lot of questions.
ReplyDeleteMy mother had hypertension, so I am sensitive to high blood pressure issues. So if I fail, will I be forced onto a course of drugs I won't want? I have seen the consequences of high pressure drugs and the early onset of senility they bring. I don't want to go through them.
So if you are uncooperative with the case manager and reject the reeducation program, is it an item listed on your annual review? Does that result in lower pay raises when pay raises resume, or worse? Who sees the reports the health manager compiles?
Are executives covered by this plan? If so, I know a certain top manager of USA Today who likes his scotch too much and could lose quite a bit of weight. Will execs with back problems be forced into physical therapy programs they don't want to take? Will programs prescribed by the health manager override what your physician says, and if not, then what are the consequences? What are the qualifications of these health managers? If they order you into the gym, what happens if you refuse?
Is this the end of the secret smokers and drinkers, who confine their vices to their homes? Will we all be restricted to no more than a half of glass of wine or a glass of beer a month, for fear of losing our jobs? Is this the end of red meat and eggs on our dinner tables? Will we all be encouraged to become vegetarians like Adolf Hitler?
This has to be the most dangerous program I have ever seen Gannett foist on its employees.
That's different, Jim. Sending in a copy of a report card to show your kid's in school isn't the same as an unknown health "manager" that you didn't select poking around your personal health information. Whatever happened to privacy laws?
ReplyDeleteThere is a limit to the amount of personal information Gannett can collect on its employees, and I think this mandatory program crosses the line. I am boycotting the form, and suggest others send a message to management by doing the same.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there are HIPPA laws that cover this sort of thing. I also would question the qualifications of a health manager and if they plan to practice medicine without a license.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know if us laid-off employees need to do anything about this to keep our insurance.
ReplyDeleteMy COBRA expires early next year, but I would still have at least four weeks of coverage in 2011.
Thanks.
This is such horse-shit! We cannot allow this company or any other to invade our private lives and dictate our lifestyles. I agree with 4:27pm, everyone must boycott this wellness crap and send the clear message that we're not chattle and will not standby silently while corporations chip, chip, chip away at our privacy and civil liberties. WTF is going on in this company?! Managed care is about healthcare companies and corporations managing NOT to give it to you. These moves are designed for two reasons, to charge more and to weed-out the problem children, you know, the ones who might be genetically unlucky enough to have inherited genes with a propensity to become diseases. The mapping of that damn gene pool has ramifications we haven't even begun to comprehend. So, who is the Gannett genious behind this latest turd?! Un-fucking believable!!!
ReplyDeleteI agree with 4:27, but what about sending messages to the board? Aren't they ultimately responsible for everything that goes on? Isn't it high time to attach some responsibility to the authority of the board of directors?
ReplyDelete4;27 is so smart. Boycott the form in 2011 and pay a higher premium in 2013. With smart thinking like that you must be a Teamster.
ReplyDeleteUp 2:11 it won't impact you. It impacts anyone covered in 2012. Ya Gotta love all the hand ringing. They want me to be healthy so the health care costs won't skyrocket. Bad company. They want me to stop smoking so health care costs won't skyrocket. Bad company. They want me to stop eating like a freaking pig so health care costs won't skyrocket. Bad company. They want me to....wait for it.....gulp EXERCISE! Bad company. This isn't about bad genes it's about bad lifestyles. Where do you think the money comes from in a public company to pay for health plans? Costs go up, revenues are down, people get laid off. Wake up people , stop bitching and go take a freaking walk! I know I must beca troll because I disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteYes, I am fully aware of the penalty. As Thomas More learned, there are costs to maintaining principle. I am not wrong in preserving my right of privacy, and I'm willing to fight for that and not be cowed by these fascists.
ReplyDeleteUm....if this is a part of the health care bill, aren't you rallying against the wrong group of people? I'm sure other employers are imposing the same tests since this is a part of the health care bill.
ReplyDeleteRemember: ELECTIONS ARE NEXT WEEK. Show your disapproval of this law that way, not by a boycott that will ultimately end up costing you more.
Did I just defend Gannet????? GAH, I gotta get a new job soon.....
Something is going on in corporate America, and it makes me very nervous. We have just been treated to a brouhaha over what Juan Williams said when he wasn't on his company's premises and was on his own time. But NPR fired him. Now we have Gannett imposing a mandatory health wellness program largely involving how their employees conduct their lives off premises and when they are not working.
ReplyDelete10:59 thinks this is great and a reflexion of how caring Gannett is of its employee's welfare. I don't. I find this a gross intrusion into my life by a company that has demonstrated absolutely no interest in its employees' welfare in the past. Zip. Nada. Could care less.
Something very strange is happening here. U.S. corporations are extending their authority over the private lives of their employees. Yes, the reason is probably economic: NPR is worried Congress will cut its subsidy if it is seen as being overtly political, and Gannett is looking to cut health costs and perhaps identify employees who likely will be drains on health care budgets.
But whatever the reason, I don't like it. There are no grounds for corporations to do this, and I won't just lie down and let it happen.
Every year folks complain about the rising cost of our medical insurance. Someone or on this case the company has to pay for it. It's economics. What ate you going to day when companies opt out completely, take the government penalty and you are on the government plan and your premiums are even more expensive? It's ok to be pissed but what's your answer? Exercise and stop smoking or get ready to pay a lot more. People I work with who are healthy have. Been complaining for years that they pay the same as the obese smoker they sit next to and they were pissed. Well now they don't have to.
ReplyDelete12:22 10:58 never said they thought this was a move because the company CARED. Get your facts right. This is about a proactive action to hit at a controllable element of health care, unhealthy people. Ever tried to get a life insurance policy? Five pounds overweight, a little high blood pressure... Pay through the nose.
ReplyDeleteJust a note to those laid off who are on COBRA in case you aren't aware: The benefit lasts 18 months, but the extra federal subsidy you may be getting only lasts 15 months. You might want to go shopping for your own private coverage before those last, surprisingly expensive, three months kick in.
ReplyDelete@10:59: Thanks for checking in, Craig. How's the back?
ReplyDeleteOne thing that's interesting is that when you get a pay raise (anyone out there remember those things?) you end up giving a chunk of it back to the company in the form of higher insurance premiums.
ReplyDeleteWhen you add on the higher co-pays, you're left with an insignificant fraction of your "raise," and if there happened to be any inflation that year, you've essentially fallen behind once again.
I see nothing wrong with higher premiums for smokers. They should pay more because they're more likely to suffer from self-inflicted illnesses. Dealing with weight-related issues is a lot tricker. I mean what are we going to have, the flab police?
The company better not try to discard workers with "pre-existing" conditions unless of course, it's willing to dump executives like Craig, who I'm sure cost the company a fortune with his back surgery and extended leave, as well as other chiefs with health issues.
Gannett simply has to stop laying all of its cost-saving measures on the backs of its front-line workers. What about Gracia? Does she like her fries with plenty of melted cheese? When she travels to the Cape, does she savor her lobster rolls drenched with mayo? Or is she a vegan seeking to spread the word?
Whiners need to read the news more. Case managers have been rolling into company health care plans for several years. They are also becoming common in federal and state programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
ReplyDeleteSince Gannett is so fascinated with our health status, perhaps it's time to think about how much hypertension, alcoholism and loss of free time(that could be used to exercise) have been caused by the company's moves of the last few years. Remember: Shitty companies treat people in shitty ways.
ReplyDeleteIf they are interested in making a more healthful workforce at USA Today, they will shut down that subsidized cafeteria and leave it to employees to walk to restaurants nearby for their lunches.
ReplyDeleteFor all who are smug enough to consider themselves superior to their overweight co-workers or those who smoke, that's not what this is about. Charging premiums for unhealthy lifestyles is just the beginning. What happens when the case worker sees you've refused to take some pharmaceutical because of concerns about side affects? Have you ever listened to how quickly those side affects are rattled off in tv commercials? It's all a racket, healthcare companies, drug companies, an FDA that has ceased being an advocate for the public and instead has become shills for the drug industry, or corporations whose only interest is to cut costs. Sounds fair doesn't it, that your unhealthy co-workers should have to pay a premium? Well, it's just un-American. It's the slippery-slope leading to more mandates, and far less freedom to decide for yourself what medical treatments, drugs, doctors, etc. are preferred, for whatever reason. That should be your prerogative, and mine and I'm not willing to debate or negotiate that right away with a bunch of greedy bastards whose only interest is to snatch that last penny from my pocket. Do whatever you wish but there's no way I'm volunteering for this intrusion on my privacy, no way. I'm over 50 and fit as a fiddle, lol. It's the principle.
ReplyDeleteWell, the Indiana University people fought this and won the right not to have to do this. This is ageism at its finest, not to mention an invasion of privacy.
ReplyDeleteIt would be smart leadership for HR chief Roxanne Horning and other members of the Gannett Management Committee -- the group that runs the company -- to announce that they, too, were subject to these assessments. But they are covered under better medical plans.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall you posting some numbers gleaned from regulatory filings about Gannett's healthcare costs, and how much was paid by the company and by employees. (I think I remember a $170 million figure in there.) You showed the year over year costs and how much was shifted to employees. Can you repost those figures if you remember where they are? It might add a new focus to this discussion, particularly with the continued shifting of costs to the employees.
Here are the relevant figures from my original April 2010 post:
ReplyDeleteGannett is self-insured, which means it pays for all medical claims beyond the monthly premiums paid by current and former employees. In 2008, when it employed about 42,000 workers, the company paid out $172.2 million in benefits, up from $166.5 million in 2007, the report says. However, it only collected $70 million in employee premiums vs. $64.8 million in 2007.
Jim, I think you should move this item up to the top position on your blog. This is really a kick in the ass. We need to start figuring out what can be done against it. Could you start an online petition?
ReplyDeleteAlso, this is an example of how it's not Obamacare that's pushing into our private lives. It's an indictment of CorporateCare.
I work for WKYC in Cleveland. The NABET-CWA represented staff got an 18% pay cut a couple of years ago, while our GM got a big raise and a bonus. I'm still pissed about that, and I'm expecting my blood pressure to be off the charts!!! I'm wondering if they are factoring in the stress that THEY caused!
ReplyDelete