Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Leading Health Reform Bill Allows Higher Premiums for Smokers, Not Other Drug Users
October 30, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

Health insurers would be allowed to charge smokers higher rates under the Senate Finance Committee's healthcare reform bill, but no such provisions are in place for users of illicit drugs, CNS News reported Oct. 28.

Smokers have long paid higher premiums on life insurance due to higher mortality rates and shorter lifespans, and the health-reform bill applies similar logic, allowing insurers to charge smokers up to 50 percent more than nonsmokers.

However, the measure contains no such provisions for illicit drug users, such as individuals who smoke marijuana or crack cocaine.

Tobacco use, age, and family composition are the only criteria that insurers would be allowed to use to vary premiums, the bill says. "To the extent that tobacco use is known to be an unhealthy behavior and to lead to higher medical expenses on average in the future, you would definitely want individuals to be able to be charged more because if they're going to be taking more out of the health care insurance, then they should pay more," said economist Earl Grinols of Baylor University.

On the other hand, he asked, "Why are they talking about tobacco use only, not drug abusers? What about people who choose to do hang gliding and technical rock climbing without ropes? They're going to have higher medical expenses as well. To the extent that cocaine users and drug abusers also have higher costs, there's no question that it's favoring those types of medical abusers with respect to tobacco."

Allen St. Pierre, director of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws, said that tobacco was far more deadly than marijuana. "As much as other drugs are problematic, tobacco kills -- according to the (federal) CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) -- anywhere between 350,000 and 450,000 people a year. So at least from a public-health point of view, if there was going to be one single drug that people were going to interact less with, one could make the argument that tobacco would be that drug," he said.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Bill Godshall on 02 Nov 09 10:30 AM EST
Once again (as now occurs in most research, reports and news articles about smoking), the terms "cigarettes" and "tobacco" and/or "smoking" and "tobacco use" are inaccurately equated. In fact, cigarette smoking (not tobacco or nicotine use) is the leading cause of disease, disability and death in America. Cigarettes are 100 times deadlier than smokefree tobacco products, while smokefree nicotine products are even less hazardous alternatives. Claiming that tobacco is the leading killer confuses cigarette smokers (and the public) to inaccurately believe that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are just as hazardous as cigarettes. So why do health agencies, organizations, researchers and advocates continue misleading the public about the vastly different comparable health risks of different tobacco/nicotine products?

Posted by Ralph Edgington on 02 Nov 09 11:23 AM EST
Looks like alcohol gets a free ride again. Its the most widely used and destructive drug out there. I've seen stats. indicating that alcoholics use 100 times the healthcare dollars as non-alcoholics...and that doesn't include the cost of accidents of non-alcoholics under the influence. It would be impossible to determine who should pay the higher premiums but we could tax the alcohol industry or consumers and use that money to support the healthcare program.

Posted by Arnie on 02 Nov 09 11:32 AM EST
Yeah, yeah, but why? Money. That's why.

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 02 Nov 09 04:09 PM EST
If anyone needed any evidence of how crazy the power of the antismoking movement has become, this is it. They can't charge you more if you smoke crack in your pipe, but if Santa left you some cherry pipe tobacco (You know, the stuff that kids smoke all the time, right?) your premiums can double. . . . . Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Posted by Carol on 02 Nov 09 06:46 PM EST
And it's all nothing but a Hitler Big Lie in the first place! Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure. PHM van Baal, JJ Polder, GA de Wit, RT Hoogenveen, TL Feenstra, HC Boshuizen, PM Engelfriet, WBF Brouwer. PLoS Medicine 2008 Feb;5(2):e29. "In this study we have shown that, although obese people induce high medical costs during their lives, their lifetime health-care costs are lower than those of healthy-living people but higher than those of smokers. Obesity increases the risk of diseases such as diabetes and coronary heart disease, thereby increasing health-care utilization but decreasing life expectancy. Successful prevention of obesity, in turn, increases life expectancy. Unfortunately, these life-years gained are not lived in full health and come at a price: people suffer from other diseases, which increases health-care costs. Obesity prevention, just like smoking prevention, will not stem the tide of increasing health-care expenditures. The underlying mechanism is that there is a substitution of inexpensive, lethal diseases toward less lethal, and therefore more costly, diseases." Table 1 gives the bottom line: At age 20, smokers' lifetime costs will total 220k Euros, obese peoples' costs will total 250k Euros, and the "Healthy Living" will cost 281k Euros. http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

Posted by maxwood on 02 Nov 09 07:23 PM EST
I think the answer to Bill's question is: the fix is in to protect the $igarette industry; the taxes it pays are a bribe. I'm not sure I trust McFadden's approach-- why doesn't he make the distinction Bill does (smoke vs. smoke-free), or that other distinction, between hot burning overdose inhale ($igarettes) vs. non-inhale (many pipe and cigar tobacco users)?

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 06 Nov 09 12:35 AM EST
Maxwood wrote, " I'm not sure I trust McFadden's approach-- why doesn't he make the distinction Bill does (smoke vs. smoke-free), or that other distinction, between hot burning overdose inhale ($igarettes) vs. non-inhale (many pipe and cigar tobacco users)?" . . . . Maxwood, both those distinctions are perfectly reasonable, but they were simply different from the point I was making: that it's insane to be charging people higher health premiums for smoking tobacco in a pipe than for smoking crystal meth in the same pipe. - MJM

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines