Arizona Medicaid considers tax on smokers, obese

[Deleted]

By MARK CARLSON, Associated Press Mark Carlson, Associated Press – Fri Apr 1, 7:49 pm ET

PHOENIX – Arizona's cash-strapped Medicaid program is considering charging patients $50 a year if they smoke, have diabetes or are overweight. A spokeswoman for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System said Friday that the fee is intended to rein in health care costs by pushing patients to keep themselves healthy.

"It engages the consumer to start having a greater awareness of how they fit into the bigger health care puzzle," said Monica Coury, spokeswoman for AHCCCS. "We want to be able to provide health care to people. And we want to stretch our dollars as far as we can. Part of that is engaging people to take better care of themselves."

Some private employers and state governments have instituted higher insurance premiums for workers who are overweight or smoke, but Arizona's plan would mark the first time a state-federal health care program for low-income residents has charged people for unhealthy lifestyles.

The fee would apply only to certain childless adults.

One part of the proposal affects people with diabetes. Coury says diabetics who fail to follow their doctor's orders to lose weight would be subjected to the $50 charge.

Democratic state Sen. Kyrsten Sinema said that isn't fair to diabetics.

"This would fine people with medical conditions beyond their own power and control," Sinema said. "I just don't think it's fair to vilify someone with diabetes."

People who are obese or chronically ill, and those who smoke, would need to work with a primary-care physician to develop a plan to help them lose weight and otherwise improve their health. Patients who don't meet specified goals would be required to pay the $50 under the proposal.

The plan requires approval by the Republican-controlled Legislature, which has been considering $500 million of cuts to Arizona's Medicaid program to help eliminate a state budget deficit of nearly $1.5 billion.

A fee for Medicaid patients also would need federal authorization, and federal rules could prevent Arizona from enforcing the fee.

Coury says the $50 fee is a way of showing the federal government Arizona is serious about getting people healthy while stretching and managing dollars better.

"Part of that requires that we engage the consumer in active, healthy behaviors."

[Deleted]

haha, good luck with that one!

[april47]

The cost for overseeing it would wipe out the profit. It would be just one more thing to try to police and one more thing for people to take advantage of. Next they will charge for having unprotected sex? Will there be hidden cameras in every home to make sure we aren't engaging in unhealthful activites??

[april47]

Apr 2, 2011 18:20:30 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

In further news, shoplifting of cigarettes and twinkies skyrockets.

The illegal drugs of the future. There will be a thriving business smuggling them across the border. Overweight people will be frisked at airports for illegal gummi bears. People found in possesion of a box of candy cigarettes will be shot on sight.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

I am completely and totally in favor of this as long as they also charge that $50 fee to ...

1. People who contract sexually transmitted diseases
2. People who require medical treatment in any way related to the use of alcohol
3. People who require medical treatment in any way related to the use of illegal/recreational drugs
4. People who require medical treatment in any way related to skateboarding, skydiving, rollerblading, motorcycle riding, and any other sport or recreational activity deemed hazardous or dangerous
5. People who require medical treatment in any way related to any other lifestyle choice.

[whoisjohngalt]

Riiiiiight, bc fat people and smokers is what REALLY created a problem with our health care system.

[TD2K]

1. People who contract sexually transmitted diseases
2. People who require medical treatment in any way related to the use of alcohol
3. People who require medical treatment in any way related to the use of illegal/recreational drugs
4. People who require medical treatment in any way related to skateboarding, skydiving, rollerblading, motorcycle riding, and any other sport or recreational activity deemed hazardous or dangerous
5. People who require medical treatment in any way related to any other lifestyle choice.

Some of that is already here. I changed insurance companies, I was asked if I was a pilot, skydive or did any other extreme sports.

Bad drivers already pay higher insurance rates than good drivers and as a good driver, I doubt I would support an argument that their rates should be dropped (and mine raised) because it's otherwise discrimintory.

Life insurance is already priced if you smoke, male versus female, family past health history to some extent, etc.

I'm not sure where I fall on this. There's a reasonable element of being able to price your product to account for risk, how much of that does society want to allow?

[qofcc]

I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept, but I doubt if a $50 penalty is enough to motivate a change in behavior, even for someone on medicaid. If they're finding a way to come up with $100 for a carton of cigarettes, I doubt a $50 fine is going to make them quit. And the same with junk food addicts. $50 is less than $1/wk for a year. I'm sure they're spending at least 10x that on their vices.

[Opti]

"Some private employers and state governments have instituted higher insurance premiums for workers who are overweight or smoke, but Arizona's plan would mark the first time a state-federal health care program for low-income residents has charged people for unhealthy lifestyles.

The fee would apply only to certain childless adults."

Am I reading this correctly? You would get fined for the condition if you have no children but not get fined if you do have children?

[NastyWoman]

Apr 2, 2011 21:55:02 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

I am completely and totally in favor of this as long as they also charge that $50 fee to ...

1. People who contract sexually transmitted diseases
2. People who require medical treatment in any way related to the use of alcohol
3. People who require medical treatment in any way related to the use of illegal/recreational drugs
4. People who require medical treatment in any way related to skateboarding, skydiving, rollerblading, motorcycle riding, and any other sport or recreational activity deemed hazardous or dangerous
5. People who require medical treatment in any way related to any other lifestyle choice.

Since this is also a matter of choice: people who get pregnant? Where would this stop?

[resolution]

This message has been deleted.

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2011 2:41:26 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Apr 2, 2011 21:55:02 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

I am completely and totally in favor of this as long as they also charge that $50 fee to ...

1. People who contract sexually transmitted diseases
2. People who require medical treatment in any way related to the use of alcohol
3. People who require medical treatment in any way related to the use of illegal/recreational drugs
4. People who require medical treatment in any way related to skateboarding, skydiving, rollerblading, motorcycle riding, and any other sport or recreational activity deemed hazardous or dangerous
5. People who require medical treatment in any way related to any other lifestyle choice.

Since this is also a matter of choice: people who get pregnant? Where would this stop?

The above are choices that are dangerous and can significantly shorten one's life expectancy - last I checked, pregnancy/parenthood doesn't do those things....

[qofcc]

The above are choices that are dangerous and can significantly shorten one's life expectancy - last I checked, pregnancy/parenthood doesn't do those things....

I think the point they were making is that pregnancy is a preventable condition and if you qualify for medicaid, you shouldn't be trying to have more children until you're in a position to support them without government handouts.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Sounds good to me. When are the other states going to get on board?