[Rail Paul]

Whole Foods Corporation, which has created more than its share of uproar, has managed to antagonize another constituency. The company has announced a program which gives greater discounts on health insurance costs for employees who have lower cholesterol, maintain a company set body mass index, and hit certain other medical targets.

Many companies offer discounts on employee medical insurance premiums for employees who quit smoking, lose weight, etc. This is a much more robust effort, and has a 30% reduction for employees who hit the mark.

The food site Eater characterizes this as "Fatties Need Not Apply" which doesn't appear to be the case, based on the article to which they link. Both the Eater article and the Daily News article which it cites have drawn an unusually large number of comments.

Medical costs are often split between an employer and an employee. The standard Whole Foods plan of 80% employer cost / 20% employee cost is fairly typical, although some plans go up to 100% employer paid. The % often vary by industry to maintain competitive balance in hiring and retention.

Eater

NY Daily News:

Weigh more. Pay more.

That's the message behind Whole Foods' drive to cut its health care costs by offering fatter employee discounts to workers who are in tip-top shape.

The pricey grocery chain will give 30% discounts to those who don't smoke and have low blood pressure, cholesterol and body mass index (BMI) rates, says CEO John Mackey.

Workers who sign up for the voluntary plan are given free health screenings, he explained in a letter sent to all stores.

Employees will fall into four categories: bronze, silver, gold and platinum.

Those showing "platinum" health will earn 30% discounts; "gold" gets 27% and silver 25%, while "bronze" wins 22% off.

All employees will continue to get 20% discounts whether they sign up or not, but management is hoping the discounts will convince the workforce to trim down

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/healt...l#ixzz0e7sGd1xg

NYDN

[PatDC]

Whole Foods Corporation, which has created more than its share of uproar, has managed to antagonize another constituency. The company has announced a program which gives greater discounts on health insurance costs for employees who have lower cholesterol, maintain a company set body mass index, and hit certain other medical targets.

I'm sure having employees with healthier vitals helps corporate health insurance costs, but I thought this was about the basic employee discount on purchases made in the store. People with better numbers get a higher discount on frozen organic pizzas. Did I completely misunderstand this?

[Rail Paul]

I believe all employees get the house discount on grocery purchases, but it seems they're giving an additional discount on the employee share of medical care costs to the more fit group of employees.

[Suzanne F]

Let's see: if WF gave higher discounts to all employees on healthier groceries . . . wouldn't that promote better health among them, and result in lower overall insurance costs and thus lower employer contribution toward health insurance? Or maybe they might give higher discounts on LESS healthy foods, so that more employees would have health problems and have to pay a higher proportion of their insurance?

I dunno: I was in my local WF last week, and walked out without buying any vegetables as I'd hoped to because the prices were so damn high. I can't imagine how anyone who works there can afford anything but beer, discount or no.

[ghostrider]

The Jezebel website has, apparently, the original WF documents, which make it clear that this new program only has to do with employees' discounts on WF groceries. It doesn't affect their individual health insurance premiums.

[Rail Paul]

The Jezebel website has, apparently, the original WF documents, which make it clear that this new program only has to do with employees' discounts on WF groceries. It doesn't affect their individual health insurance premiums.

Thanks for that update, and the letter itself. I'm surprised they haven't tackled the health insurance part. My former employer made the healthy lifestyle (no smoking, lose weight, have favorable metrics, etc) a cornerstone of their health insurance discount. It's a big deal, about $3,000 a year for people with all favorable signs.

[Ron Johnson]

In other news, automobile liability insurance carriers are considering a measure whereby they charge higher premiums to drives who speed and have frequent accidents.

[Wilfrid]

Without having read all the background info here, isn't the difference that factors beyond the employee's control influence BMI? In other words, some employees are being rewarded for being genetically lucky?

[Ron Johnson]

I attribute every one of my automobile accidents to being unlucky.

[Orik]

Without having read all the background info here, isn't the difference that factors beyond the employee's control influence BMI? In other words, some employees are being rewarded for being genetically lucky?

Just as they might be promoted to become customer service managers if they have a genetic predisposition towards doing their jobs.

Btw, the total BMI contribution from all known genetic factors is an astounding 2.08 BMI points. I'm sure there are many more, but at this point it's hard to blame much on genes.

RSID
rs3751812 0.33 for each T
rs10871777 0.2 for each G
rs13130484 0.19 for each T
rs4788102 0.15 for each A
rs10838738 0.07 for each G
rs3101336 0.1 for each C

[Wilfrid]

Ah, so when we consider managerial aptitude it's a matter of genetic predisposition, but when we consider factors affecting BMI, genes play a trivial role?

I should have thought you'd be committed to the position that over-eating and lethargy were genetically conditioned.

[Orik]

Ah, so when we consider managerial aptitude it's a matter of genetic predisposition, but when we consider factors affecting BMI, genes play a trivial role?

Not at all, genetic predisposition plays a significant role in both managerial aptitude and BMI (even without taking my extremist view of the world I don't think you can argue with that)

If most people do not find it strange that an employee gets more $$$ for being good at what they do, they should not find it strange that yet another trait that is influenced by genetics should affect the number of $$$s.

Of course I do not personally subscribe to the protestant meritocratic perspective, and therefore I do not believe WF is acting here in a way that benefits its chubby, lethargic employees, but that's besides the point.

I should have thought you'd be committed to the position that over-eating and lethargy were genetically conditioned.

Absolutely.

[Wilfrid]

They should reward employees for being attractive. That would get them some press coverage.

[Orik]

They should reward employees for being attractive. That would get them some press coverage.

Pwecisely. People can make themselves more attractive so the discriminatory argument is moot.

[Rail Paul]

They should reward employees for being attractive. That would get them some press coverage.

Pwecisely. People can make themselves more attractive so the discriminatory argument is moot.

wasn't that part of what got the Hawaiian Tropic Zone into so much trouble?