(15 votes)
In the state Recruit Management System (RMS) add a field that asks whether you are a smoker or non-smoker. If indicated yes, for smoking, Ask if candidate would be willing to participate in a smoking cessation program if ultimately hired. Exposing new employees that smoke to the free cessation programs provided by the Commonwealth would allow them to make a health decision that could benefit them and the Commonwealth. On average 19% of americans smoke, if this average holds to the "incoming" workforce, then the Commonwealth could save millions of dollars in future heath care costs and in improved productivity.
Thanks its really great
Thanks its really great nope information
Too Many Studies to cite them all
The premise is anything but false, the problem is choosing any one particular study to cite. I challenge you to cite a true peer evaluated empirical study that does not support my assumptions.
Some studies that support this idea:
-Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine 1998: vol 40; pages 843-854(The relationship between modifiable health risks and health care expenditures)
-American Journal Health Promotion 2000: vol 18; pages 45-52 (The Relationship beween modifiable health risks and group-level health care expenditures)
-Journal Occupational Med 2005: vol 47(8); pages 769-777 (The association of health risks with on-the-job productivity)
-J Occup Environ Med 2005: vol 47; pages 838-846 ( illness absence patterns among employees in a petrochemical facility: impact of selected health risk factors)
-J Occup Environ Med 2006: vol 48; pages 1099-1108 (Effect of smoking status on productivity loss)
False premise
I don't really understand why folks think that smokers cost more. Almost all people have end of life health care costs. Smokers die of heart attacks, cancer and strokes. Coincidentally (?) nonsmokers die of heart attacks, cancer and strokes. Smokers just have them earlier and actually have lower rates of Alzheimers so those very high costs are avoided. The taxes on cigarettes more than cover those costs plus every other thing that the government wants to use the money for. I think the latest was for children's health insurance since it was not important enough for the whole citizenry to pay for it. Smokers collect less in Social Security benefits because they die earlier. It is very popular to try to save people from themselves. Be honest though and base it on your self righteous attitude, not on some belief that it will save the taxpayers money. That is absolutely wrong. Smokers are profitable for government and the more they smoke the better it is for the rest of us.
Response
The Code of Virginia prohibits requiring state employees to either 1) smoke or 2) not smoke as a condition of employment. This idea would target smokers for cessation opportunities, not exclude smokers from consideration of employment.
A good thought but...
What's the next step? What if a smoker says "no", they do not want to participate in a smoking cessation program. Does that mean that they can't work for the state of VA?
Do we also screen overweight new hires and ask them if they would be willing to participate in a diet/excercise program.
I can agree that employees who voluntarially put themselves at a higher health risk (i.e. smokers) may have to pay a higher insurance premium, but I don't think it should be linked to if they are hired or not.
Do Electronic Cigarettes Count?
Im curious if this pertains to all types of nicotine products, or just to smoking cigarettes. I smoke electronic cigarettes which do contain nicotine, and Im wndering if Im still able to be employed.
Also for others that may have interest, does this also apply to chewing tobacco, snuff, etc?
Thanks in advance...
Johnny Blaze
http://www.halocigs.com