Obese workers' pay lower -- Stanford U.. Study

Public release date: 9-May-2005
The paper is available to download at http://papers.nber.org/papers/w11303

Contact: Sara Selis
650-723-0759
Stanford University Medical Center
Obese workers' pay lower due to health costs, Stanford study finds
STANFORD, Calif. - Studies have consistently shown that obese employees
are paid less than normal-weight employees doing similar jobs, leading
many people to attribute the gap to prejudice against workers based on
their appearance.

But new research from Stanford University health economists adds another
wrinkle to understanding these pay differentials: obese workers are paid
less only when they have employer-sponsored health insurance.

These findings, just published in a working paper on the Web site of the
National Bureau of Economic Research, suggest that employers-recognizing
that obese workers are likely to have higher medical costs-compensate
with lower pay for them. Given that employment-based health insurance
requires that employees in the same plan make the same contributions to
premiums, the employers adjust wages to account for the greater expense
for obese workers' health care, according to the paper.

"A self-correcting mechanism is at work in the labor market," explained
study co-author Kate Bundorf, MPH, PhD, assistant professor of health
research and policy at Stanford and a fellow at the university's Center
for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research. The
study doesn't address whether the wage disparity is fair, she noted; it
simply demonstrates that there are strong economic incentives for
employers to adjust for the varying costs of providing medical benefits
to different types of workers. "Our findings reinforce that these market
forces are powerful," she said.

The findings also shed light on the question of who bears the cost of
obesity-related health care. While it is often assumed that obese
workers' medical expenses are passed on to their employers and
normal-weight co-workers, the Stanford study indicates that obese
workers are paying for it themselves through lower wages.

Understanding who bears the cost of obesity-related medical expenses has
become more pressing, with a significant increase in the number of obese
Americans. The proportion of American adults classified as obese rose
from 12 percent in 1991 to 20.9 percent in 2001. Obese individuals are
at much higher risk of chronic - and often costly - conditions such as
heart disease, diabetes and hypertension. Annual medical expenditures
are $732 higher on average for obese adults than for normal-weight
adults, according to a recent study published in Health Affairs.

Bundorf and co-author Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of
medicine at the Center for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and
Outcomes Research, designed their study to find out who bears the brunt
of obese workers' higher medical costs. In doing so, they also examined
a broader, unsettled question in health economics: Who actually bears
the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance-employers or employees?
While many health economists assert that the costs of employer-sponsored
health insurance are passed on to workers in the form of lower wages,
the research findings on this question have been inconclusive.

To study both questions, the researchers compared the hourly wages of
obese and non-obese workers with health insurance, adjusting for several
factors including education, experience and job type. They found that
obese insured workers earned significantly less per hour than non-obese
insured workers - $3.41 less in 1998. When analyzing the wages in
greater detail, they found that the gap is modest when these workers are
young, but widens over time, meaning that this set of obese workers' pay
rises more slowly than that of non-obese workers with employment-based
health insurance.

The researchers then compared the hourly wages of obese and non-obese
workers without on-the-job health insurance. This time, they found no
significant difference in pay. This finding - that an obesity-related
wage difference existed only for those with employer-sponsored health
insurance - signaled that the obese workers' lower pay could be
explained by their higher expected medical costs instead of outright
prejudice.

To further test this hypothesis, the researchers examined whether a wage
gap existed between obese and non-obese workers receiving other kinds of
benefits, such as retirement plans or life insurance. They found no wage
difference in those instances, thus reinforcing the idea that the pay
adjustment results from greater health-care costs.

Bundorf noted that the study did not reach any conclusions about how the
obesity-related disparity in pay comes about. "We don't think this is a
conscious process where the employer says, 'OK, Jane is obese, and we're
paying for her health coverage, so let's pay her this much less in
wages,'" Bundorf said. But she added that the finding that the pay for
obese insured workers rises more slowly than that of their normal-weight
counterparts suggests that obese workers may be getting smaller and less
frequent raises.

Aside from providing insight into the costs of obesity among workers,
the study provides perhaps the strongest evidence to date that the costs
of employer-sponsored health insurance are, in fact, passed on to
workers through lower wages. By implication, insured workers should be
just as alarmed by rising health-care costs as their employers are.

"When employers give you health insurance, they're not giving you
something for nothing," Bhattacharya said. "It's coming out of your
paycheck."

###

The paper is available to download at http://papers.nber.org/papers/w11303

Stanford University Medical Center integrates research, medical
education and patient care at its three institutions - Stanford
University School of Medicine, Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile
Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford. For more information, please
visit the Web site of the medical center's Office of Communication &
Public Affairs at http://mednews.stanford.edu.

PRINT MEDIA CONTACT: Sara Selis at (650) 723-0759 )
BROADCAST MEDIA CONTACT: M.A. Malone at (650) 723-6912
)


[ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ]

X-No-Archive: Yes

Interesting stuff. I haven't read the paper itself but I have some
general comments. (1) I'm wondering if they control for self-selection
bias - "obese" and unhealthy workers would choose to work for employers
with healthcare insurance whereas "obese" and healthy workers wouldn't
care, so the former becomes a bit like the "lemmons" in the used-cars
market. The authors might have overestimated the amount of healthcare
costs associated pay discrimination. (2) I put inverted commas around
the word obese because from what I heard, most health econ studies
catergorise people as being obese by their BMI figures as the body fat
ratio data aren't collected. I did a brief scan through the paper and
it seems that both of my guesses are correct. I'm going to give it a
better read sometime later.

Thanks for posting.

:-)


jbuch wrote:

Public release date: 9-May-2005
The paper is available to download at http://papers.nber.org/papers/w11303

Contact: Sara Selis
650-723-0759
Stanford University Medical Center
Obese workers' pay lower due to health costs, Stanford study finds
STANFORD, Calif. - Studies have consistently shown that obese employees
are paid less than normal-weight employees doing similar jobs, leading
many people to attribute the gap to prejudice against workers based on
their appearance.

But new research from Stanford University health economists adds another
wrinkle to understanding these pay differentials: obese workers are paid
less only when they have employer-sponsored health insurance.

These findings, just published in a working paper on the Web site of the
National Bureau of Economic Research, suggest that employers-recognizing
that obese workers are likely to have higher medical costs-compensate
with lower pay for them. Given that employment-based health insurance
requires that employees in the same plan make the same contributions to
premiums, the employers adjust wages to account for the greater expense
for obese workers' health care, according to the paper.

"A self-correcting mechanism is at work in the labor market," explained
study co-author Kate Bundorf, MPH, PhD, assistant professor of health
research and policy at Stanford and a fellow at the university's Center
for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research. The
study doesn't address whether the wage disparity is fair, she noted; it
simply demonstrates that there are strong economic incentives for
employers to adjust for the varying costs of providing medical benefits
to different types of workers. "Our findings reinforce that these market
forces are powerful," she said.

The findings also shed light on the question of who bears the cost of
obesity-related health care. While it is often assumed that obese
workers' medical expenses are passed on to their employers and
normal-weight co-workers, the Stanford study indicates that obese
workers are paying for it themselves through lower wages.

Understanding who bears the cost of obesity-related medical expenses has
become more pressing, with a significant increase in the number of obese
Americans. The proportion of American adults classified as obese rose
from 12 percent in 1991 to 20.9 percent in 2001. Obese individuals are
at much higher risk of chronic - and often costly - conditions such as
heart disease, diabetes and hypertension. Annual medical expenditures
are $732 higher on average for obese adults than for normal-weight
adults, according to a recent study published in Health Affairs.

Bundorf and co-author Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of
medicine at the Center for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and
Outcomes Research, designed their study to find out who bears the brunt
of obese workers' higher medical costs. In doing so, they also examined
a broader, unsettled question in health economics: Who actually bears
the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance-employers or employees?
While many health economists assert that the costs of employer-sponsored
health insurance are passed on to workers in the form of lower wages,
the research findings on this question have been inconclusive.

To study both questions, the researchers compared the hourly wages of
obese and non-obese workers with health insurance, adjusting for several
factors including education, experience and job type. They found that
obese insured workers earned significantly less per hour than non-obese
insured workers - $3.41 less in 1998. When analyzing the wages in
greater detail, they found that the gap is modest when these workers are
young, but widens over time, meaning that this set of obese workers' pay
rises more slowly than that of non-obese workers with employment-based
health insurance.

The researchers then compared the hourly wages of obese and non-obese
workers without on-the-job health insurance. This time, they found no
significant difference in pay. This finding - that an obesity-related
wage difference existed only for those with employer-sponsored health
insurance - signaled that the obese workers' lower pay could be
explained by their higher expected medical costs instead of outright
prejudice.

To further test this hypothesis, the researchers examined whether a wage
gap existed between obese and non-obese workers receiving other kinds of
benefits, such as retirement plans or life insurance. They found no wage
difference in those instances, thus reinforcing the idea that the pay
adjustment results from greater health-care costs.

Bundorf noted that the study did not reach any conclusions about how the
obesity-related disparity in pay comes about. "We don't think this is a
conscious process where the employer says, 'OK, Jane is obese, and we're
paying for her health coverage, so let's pay her this much less in
wages,'" Bundorf said. But she added that the finding that the pay for
obese insured workers rises more slowly than that of their normal-weight
counterparts suggests that obese workers may be getting smaller and less
frequent raises.

Aside from providing insight into the costs of obesity among workers,
the study provides perhaps the strongest evidence to date that the costs
of employer-sponsored health insurance are, in fact, passed on to
workers through lower wages. By implication, insured workers should be
just as alarmed by rising health-care costs as their employers are.

"When employers give you health insurance, they're not giving you
something for nothing," Bhattacharya said. "It's coming out of your
paycheck."

###

The paper is available to download at http://papers.nber.org/papers/w11303

Stanford University Medical Center integrates research, medical
education and patient care at its three institutions - Stanford
University School of Medicine, Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile
Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford. For more information, please
visit the Web site of the medical center's Office of Communication &
Public Affairs at http://mednews.stanford.edu.

PRINT MEDIA CONTACT: Sara Selis at (650) 723-0759 )
BROADCAST MEDIA CONTACT: M.A. Malone at (650) 723-6912
)

[ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ]

A_M wrote:
: X-No-Archive: Yes
:
: Interesting stuff. I haven't read the paper itself but I have some
: general comments. (1) I'm wondering if they control for
: self-selection bias - "obese" and unhealthy workers would choose to
: work for employers with healthcare insurance whereas "obese" and
: healthy workers wouldn't care,

Why would "obese" and healthy workers not care about having an employer that
provides healthcare insurance?

so the former becomes a bit like the
: "lemmons" in the used-cars market. The authors might have
: overestimated the amount of healthcare costs associated pay
: discrimination. (2) I put inverted commas around
: the word obese because from what I heard, most health econ studies
: catergorise people as being obese by their BMI figures as the body
: fat ratio data aren't collected. I did a brief scan through the
: paper and
: it seems that both of my guesses are correct. I'm going to give it a
: better read sometime later.
:
: Thanks for posting.
:
: :-)
:
:
: jbuch wrote:
:
: Public release date: 9-May-2005
: The paper is available to download at
: http://papers.nber.org/papers/w11303
:
: Contact: Sara Selis
: 650-723-0759
: Stanford University Medical Center
: Obese workers' pay lower due to health costs, Stanford study finds
: STANFORD, Calif. - Studies have consistently shown that obese
: employees are paid less than normal-weight employees doing similar
: jobs, leading many people to attribute the gap to prejudice
: against workers based on their appearance.
:
: But new research from Stanford University health economists adds
: another wrinkle to understanding these pay differentials: obese
: workers are paid less only when they have employer-sponsored
: health insurance.
:
: These findings, just published in a working paper on the Web site
: of the National Bureau of Economic Research, suggest that
: employers-recognizing that obese workers are likely to have higher
: medical costs-compensate with lower pay for them. Given that
: employment-based health insurance requires that employees in the
: same plan make the same contributions to premiums, the employers
: adjust wages to account for the greater expense for obese workers'
: health care, according to the paper.
:
: "A self-correcting mechanism is at work in the labor market,"
: explained study co-author Kate Bundorf, MPH, PhD, assistant
: professor of health research and policy at Stanford and a fellow
: at the university's Center for Health Policy/Center for Primary
: Care and Outcomes Research. The study doesn't address whether the
: wage disparity is fair, she noted; it simply demonstrates that
: there are strong economic incentives for employers to adjust for
: the varying costs of providing medical benefits to different types
: of workers. "Our findings reinforce that these market forces are
: powerful," she said.
:
: The findings also shed light on the question of who bears the cost
: of obesity-related health care. While it is often assumed that
: obese workers' medical expenses are passed on to their employers
: and normal-weight co-workers, the Stanford study indicates that
: obese
: workers are paying for it themselves through lower wages.
:
: Understanding who bears the cost of obesity-related medical
: expenses has become more pressing, with a significant increase in
: the number of obese Americans. The proportion of American adults
: classified as obese rose from 12 percent in 1991 to 20.9 percent
: in 2001. Obese individuals are
: at much higher risk of chronic - and often costly - conditions
: such as heart disease, diabetes and hypertension. Annual medical
: expenditures
: are $732 higher on average for obese adults than for normal-weight
: adults, according to a recent study published in Health Affairs.
:
: Bundorf and co-author Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, assistant
: professor of medicine at the Center for Health Policy/Center for
: Primary Care and Outcomes Research, designed their study to find
: out who bears the brunt of obese workers' higher medical costs. In
: doing so, they also examined
: a broader, unsettled question in health economics: Who actually
: bears
: the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance-employers or
: employees? While many health economists assert that the costs of
: employer-sponsored health insurance are passed on to workers in
: the form of lower wages,
: the research findings on this question have been inconclusive.
:
: To study both questions, the researchers compared the hourly wages
: of obese and non-obese workers with health insurance, adjusting
: for several factors including education, experience and job type.
: They found that obese insured workers earned significantly less
: per hour than non-obese insured workers - $3.41 less in 1998. When
: analyzing the wages in
: greater detail, they found that the gap is modest when these
: workers are young, but widens over time, meaning that this set of
: obese workers' pay rises more slowly than that of non-obese
: workers with employment-based health insurance.
:
: The researchers then compared the hourly wages of obese and
: non-obese workers without on-the-job health insurance. This time,
: they found no significant difference in pay. This finding - that
: an obesity-related wage difference existed only for those with
: employer-sponsored health insurance - signaled that the obese
: workers' lower pay could be
: explained by their higher expected medical costs instead of
: outright prejudice.
:
: To further test this hypothesis, the researchers examined whether
: a wage gap existed between obese and non-obese workers receiving
: other kinds of benefits, such as retirement plans or life
: insurance. They found no wage difference in those instances, thus
: reinforcing the idea that the pay adjustment results from greater
: health-care costs.
:
: Bundorf noted that the study did not reach any conclusions about
: how the obesity-related disparity in pay comes about. "We don't
: think this is a conscious process where the employer says, 'OK,
: Jane is obese, and we're paying for her health coverage, so let's
: pay her this much less in wages,'" Bundorf said. But she added
: that the finding that the pay for obese insured workers rises more
: slowly than that of their normal-weight counterparts suggests that
: obese workers may be getting smaller and less frequent raises.
:
: Aside from providing insight into the costs of obesity among
: workers,
: the study provides perhaps the strongest evidence to date that the
: costs of employer-sponsored health insurance are, in fact, passed
: on to
: workers through lower wages. By implication, insured workers
: should be just as alarmed by rising health-care costs as their
: employers are.
:
: "When employers give you health insurance, they're not giving you
: something for nothing," Bhattacharya said. "It's coming out of your
: paycheck."
:
: ###
:
: The paper is available to download at
: http://papers.nber.org/papers/w11303
:
: Stanford University Medical Center integrates research, medical
: education and patient care at its three institutions - Stanford
: University School of Medicine, Stanford Hospital & Clinics and
: Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford. For more
: information, please visit the Web site of the medical center's
: Office of Communication & Public Affairs at
: http://mednews.stanford.edu.
:
: PRINT MEDIA CONTACT: Sara Selis at (650) 723-0759
: ) BROADCAST MEDIA CONTACT: M.A. Malone at (650)
: 723-6912 )
:
: [ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ]

Roger Zoul wrote:

A_M wrote:
: X-No-Archive: Yes
:
: Interesting stuff. I haven't read the paper itself but I have some
: general comments. (1) I'm wondering if they control for
: self-selection bias - "obese" and unhealthy workers would choose to
: work for employers with healthcare insurance whereas "obese" and
: healthy workers wouldn't care,

Why would "obese" and healthy workers not care about having an employer that
provides healthcare insurance?


My grasp on the healthcare insurance system in US is rather poor so my
guess can be wrong, please correct me if I am wrong... My take is that
people who are having health problems would prefer to work for employers
with healthcare insurance so that the treatment for some or all of their
existing health problems would be paid for by the employers' insurers.
For a healthy worker, the difference in healthcare expenses in working
for the two types of employers is not as big as for the unhealthy
workers. Although the healthy workers may become inflicted with health
problems in the future, they are healthy now and they wouldn't have to
start paying for medical expenses even if they switch from a
with-insurance to a without-insurance employer.

Such effects can be adjusted for if they have some information on
absence rates, medical expenses, that sort of thing, to identify the
healthy obese from the unhealthy obese...

Off swimming... ttyl!

A_M wrote:
: Roger Zoul wrote:
:
: A_M wrote:
: : X-No-Archive: Yes
: :
: : Interesting stuff. I haven't read the paper itself but I have
: : some general comments. (1) I'm wondering if they control for
: : self-selection bias - "obese" and unhealthy workers would
: : choose to
: : work for employers with healthcare insurance whereas "obese" and
: : healthy workers wouldn't care,
:
: Why would "obese" and healthy workers not care about having an
: employer that provides healthcare insurance?
:
:
: My grasp on the healthcare insurance system in US is rather poor so
: my
: guess can be wrong, please correct me if I am wrong... My take is
: that people who are having health problems would prefer to work for
: employers
: with healthcare insurance so that the treatment for some or all of
: their existing health problems would be paid for by the employers'
: insurers.

That's the case for everyone, obese or not, healthy or not.

: For a healthy worker, the difference in healthcare expenses in
: working
: for the two types of employers is not as big as for the unhealthy
: workers.

:Although the healthy workers may become inflicted with
: health problems in the future, they are healthy now and they
: wouldn't have to
: start paying for medical expenses even if they switch from a
: with-insurance to a without-insurance employer.

??? The entire point of insurance is to take care of the unexpected. You
must be from a country where insurance is provided by the state to everyone.

:
: Such effects can be adjusted for if they have some information on
: absence rates, medical expenses, that sort of thing, to identify the
: healthy obese from the unhealthy obese...

My...

Roger Zoul wrote:

??? The entire point of insurance is to take care of the unexpected. You
must be from a country where insurance is provided by the state to everyone.


Well I am in UK. Healthcare is almost free at the point of delivery.
Unless you have something pretty serious, then you "pay" in terms of
waiting, waiting, waiting...

Anyway back to the US case, I have some questions to ask: Say someone
with diabetes changed jobs. He used to work for an employer with health
insurance but now he works for an employer without health insurance.
Does it mean that he will have to start paying for his own health
insurance? And how about his on-going medical prescriptions - will the
old employer's insurer continue to pay for them because the conditions
were diagnosed while he was working for the old employer?

If a person was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 40, if he goes to
get health insurances when he's 45, will the insurer pay for the
diabetes associated medical treatments?

I am of the impression that the insurer of the employers may pay for
medical treatments that are associated with pre-existing conditions...
I have read it somewhere that in some cases a woman, who was already
diagnosed with PCOS at the time she started working for her current
employer, can get her fertility treatment paid for even though she
needed fertility treatment because of her PCOS.



: Such effects can be adjusted for if they have some information on
: absence rates, medical expenses, that sort of thing, to identify the
: healthy obese from the unhealthy obese...

My...

I think they call it identification problem...

A_M wrote:
: Roger Zoul wrote:
:
: ??? The entire point of insurance is to take care of the
: unexpected. You must be from a country where insurance is
: provided by the state to everyone.
:
:
: Well I am in UK. Healthcare is almost free at the point of delivery.
: Unless you have something pretty serious, then you "pay" in terms of
: waiting, waiting, waiting...
:
: Anyway back to the US case, I have some questions to ask: Say
: someone
: with diabetes changed jobs. He used to work for an employer with
: health insurance but now he works for an employer without health
: insurance.
: Does it mean that he will have to start paying for his own health
: insurance?

Yes, if he made no other plans...

And how about his on-going medical prescriptions - will
: the
: old employer's insurer continue to pay for them because the
: conditions
: were diagnosed while he was working for the old employer?

No...the medical package is part of the compensation for the employee.

:
: If a person was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 40, if he goes
: to
: get health insurances when he's 45, will the insurer pay for the
: diabetes associated medical treatments?

Likely, but there are clauses for pre-existing conditions...in some cases...

:
: I am of the impression that the insurer of the employers may pay for
: medical treatments that are associated with pre-existing
: conditions...
: I have read it somewhere that in some cases a woman, who was already
: diagnosed with PCOS at the time she started working for her current
: employer, can get her fertility treatment paid for even though she
: needed fertility treatment because of her PCOS.

Well, I know nothing about that...
:
:
:
: : Such effects can be adjusted for if they have some information
: : on absence rates, medical expenses, that sort of thing, to
: : identify the healthy obese from the unhealthy obese...
:
: My...
:
: I think they call it identification problem...

"A_M" wrote in message
news:4280FC31.BBAD0F54@donotspammeyoueejithotmail. com...
Roger Zoul wrote:

??? The entire point of insurance is to take care of the unexpected.
You
must be from a country where insurance is provided by the state to
everyone.


Well I am in UK. Healthcare is almost free at the point of delivery.
Unless you have something pretty serious, then you "pay" in terms of
waiting, waiting, waiting...

Anyway back to the US case, I have some questions to ask: Say someone
with diabetes changed jobs. He used to work for an employer with health
insurance but now he works for an employer without health insurance.

The law requires any employer who has 15 employees or more to carry/offer
Health Insurance. So unless they go to work for a very small mom & pop
place, more then likely they'll have insurance through the new employer.

Does it mean that he will have to start paying for his own health
insurance?

That's one way to get insurance. To bad, diabetes in the US is considered
almost uninsurable. In the diabetic newsgroup we often tell folks to get
life insurance and health insurance before they get an official diagnosis
otherwise
its almost impossible to find a company to carry you unless it costs you an
arm & leg. (no pun intended)

And how about his on-going medical prescriptions - will the
old employer's insurer continue to pay for them because the conditions
were diagnosed while he was working for the old employer?

Most companies whether you are fired or quit have whats call COBRA.
Not sure what it stands for, but you can continue with the same health ins.
after you leave employment, but you now pay the premimums on it instead
of your employer. Most COBRA's cost $500 and upward. My husband
kept ours after he got a better job, but we had to wait 90days for new
insurance to be active. Our COBRA payments were $784 a month. That
was for three people and we still had a $500 deductible and our co-pays
applied as well.


If a person was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 40, if he goes to
get health insurances when he's 45, will the insurer pay for the
diabetes associated medical treatments?

Only way most diabetics get insurance is to find gainful employment.
The law prohibits a group policy from excluding pre-existing conditions such
as diabetes from their policies. But if you lapse having insurance for
12mons or longer, you can be made to wait another 12mons before
insurance is active for you, but you still must continue paying monthyly
even though you aren't covered because of a pre-existing condition.


I am of the impression that the insurer of the employers may pay for
medical treatments that are associated with pre-existing conditions...
I have read it somewhere that in some cases a woman, who was already
diagnosed with PCOS at the time she started working for her current
employer, can get her fertility treatment paid for even though she
needed fertility treatment because of her PCOS.

Fertility treatment is considered "Optional" in the US. I've never seen
health coverage cover this. Unless there is another condition that needs
to be medically dealt with and a benefit is fertility treatment.
-(I'm assuming fertility treatment is help with getting pregnant?)

Same as no insurance policy will cover cosmetic plastic surgery. Only
in the past 5-10yrs have insurances began to cover reconstruction plastic
surgery for women who've had a mastecomy. Before you were on your
own.




: Such effects can be adjusted for if they have some information on
: absence rates, medical expenses, that sort of thing, to identify the
: healthy obese from the unhealthy obese...

My...

I think they call it identification problem...

"RK" wrote in message
...

The law requires any employer who has 15 employees or more to carry/offer
Health Insurance. So unless they go to work for a very small mom & pop
place, more then likely they'll have insurance through the new employer.



That leaves out contract workers, temps, and part-timers

--
No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes

Thanks for the answers. The devil is in the details kind of thing... I
need time to digest the info, but thanks.

Roger Zoul wrote:

A_M wrote:
: Roger Zoul wrote:
:
: ??? The entire point of insurance is to take care of the
: unexpected. You must be from a country where insurance is
: provided by the state to everyone.
:
:
: Well I am in UK. Healthcare is almost free at the point of delivery.
: Unless you have something pretty serious, then you "pay" in terms of
: waiting, waiting, waiting...
:
: Anyway back to the US case, I have some questions to ask: Say
: someone
: with diabetes changed jobs. He used to work for an employer with
: health insurance but now he works for an employer without health
: insurance.
: Does it mean that he will have to start paying for his own health
: insurance?

Yes, if he made no other plans...

And how about his on-going medical prescriptions - will
: the
: old employer's insurer continue to pay for them because the
: conditions
: were diagnosed while he was working for the old employer?

No...the medical package is part of the compensation for the employee.

:
: If a person was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 40, if he goes
: to
: get health insurances when he's 45, will the insurer pay for the
: diabetes associated medical treatments?

Likely, but there are clauses for pre-existing conditions...in some cases...

:
: I am of the impression that the insurer of the employers may pay for
: medical treatments that are associated with pre-existing
: conditions...
: I have read it somewhere that in some cases a woman, who was already
: diagnosed with PCOS at the time she started working for her current
: employer, can get her fertility treatment paid for even though she
: needed fertility treatment because of her PCOS.

Well, I know nothing about that...
:
:
:
: : Such effects can be adjusted for if they have some information
: : on absence rates, medical expenses, that sort of thing, to
: : identify the healthy obese from the unhealthy obese...
:
: My...
:
: I think they call it identification problem...