CVS presses workers for medical information

[The Big Ragu]

It's an intriguing question, Baron.

Aside from the stories in the newspapers that CVS got caught lying, which will likely lead to some of its customers deciding to shop elsewhere, and the negative effect on the stock price, which will pish off shareholders, who might decide to hold management accountable. ... oh, and the lawsuits from its employees, which will put the company at risk of a lot of civil liability and monetary damages. ... well, aside from those things, yeah, why not lie and risk the consequences of getting caught?

 

[Boom_70]

It's an intriguing question, Baron.

Aside from the stories in the newspapers that CVS got caught lying, which will likely lead to some of its customers deciding to shop elsewhere, and the negative effect on the stock price, which will pish off shareholders, who might decide to hold management accountable. ... oh, and the lawsuits from its employees, which will put the company at risk of a lot of civil liability and monetary damages. ... well, aside from those things, yeah, why worry not lie and risk the consequences of getting caught.

But just from posts on this thread the request seems more commonplace than the story let on.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I'm not following you, Boom.

 

[Boom_70]

I'm not following you, Boom.

Some folks on this thread said that their employers are doing exactly what CVS is asking their employees to do. Times article made it sound like this was something new.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I'm not following you, Boom.

Some folks on this thread said that their employers are doing exactly what CVS is asking their employees to do. Times article made it sound like this was something new.

Who said CVS was doing anything novel?

I was responding to these posts suggesting that CVS is lying when it says that it is using a third-party administrator and that it won't have access to its employees' health records.

You can't tell your employees they can have health insurance at a lower rate if they submit to these exams and pass along the results, and ensure them that the the company will never have access to the results. ... and then turn around and GET access to the results.

If you do that, and get caught:

1) You have a serious lawsuit on your hands from the employees that you defrauded.
2) A host of problems with the Federal government regarding your labor practices (at least I would imagine so).
3) A giant PR headache that is ultimately going to hurt your brand.

 

[Riptide]

I asked about CVS' reputation because I once heard someone say, in passing, that the company is despicable. But he didn't elaborate, and I didn't get the chance to follow up.

Maybe that is a limited view, though. I've never heard good or bad about CVS otherwise.

 

[deskslave]

Could CVS not reach fairly obvious conclusions from the rates charged to a given employee for health insurance, given that it's the one that has to carry out the withholdings?

 

[The Big Ragu]

Could CVS not reach fairly obvious conclusions from the rates charged to a given employee for health insurance, given that it's the one that has to carry out the withholdings?

When you administer a health insurance plan, they don't go person-by-person, try to determine that person's risk factor, and then charge a variable rate. They charge a group rate, based on the size of your group.

What CVS is facing is that the provider of their insurance is telling the company that it will charge them less if they can get employees to go through biometric health screenings, so they can take the results and devise wellness plans that might reduce the overall risk for the group.

In the past, CVS tried not to use a stick and make it into a carrot instead, by offering a discount if you went through a health screening. That didn't induce enough people. Premiums are hitting the company hard, so apparently they decided to make it into more of a stick, by turning it from a discount if you do participate to a penalty if you don't participate.

 

[Bodie_Broadus]

Not sure if you were working blue there, but private insurance has required drug testing for decades.

If they drug tested at my job, there'd be 100 people left (out of probably 500 in my dept) the next day.

 

[amraeder]

I'm not saying that's not true. But that's not the reason for it.

Hey, why care about employees' health when you can just weed out the "losers" ...

Unless they are lying (and I suppose they could be, but you'd think they wouldn't set themselves up for a backlash of bad PR by lying over something like this), CVS will have no access to the workers' personal health care records. All the data will be kept private by a third-party administrator, WebMD.

Their rationale for the tests is to light a fire under their workers to take more responsibility for being healthier and managing health costs. It seems likely that is the motivation, because it has become ridiculously costly for employers to insure their workers.

It's true that it's dicey, in that there is no way to verify that CVS doesn't really look at anybody's info, and to make certain that the program isn't about "weeding out the losers."

But does that really seem likely? And even if that is a legit fear, shouldn't there actually be evidence that they are doing that before assuming it is so?

Tell that to the baseball players whose steroid tests have leaked out.

Of course. ... there is a large fanbase out there, which follows CVS' workers intently, and is itching to get its hands on various employees triglyceride levels. ... you know, to find out the salacious details that might reveal if Joe Stockroom has been skirting the drug store league rules that prohibit Sausage McMuffins and require everyone to hit a treadmill every day.

How did I miss that obvious parallel?

Your premise was that the company would not have access to their employees' private data. I was showing that, no matter how private the data is supposed to be, it can still get leaked out.

And in this case, it wouldn't be the customers who would be interested. It would be the company, who would look for any excuse to get rid of workers who will cost them more money for health costs.

And, if the company really wants to be fair (of course, they don't), they should release their CEO's and other top executives' health records to their workers, because the workers have a vested interest that the brass is in good health and capable of running the company. Right?

It's not that "my premise is that the company would not have access."

The company has hired a third-party administrator, and has SAID it won't have access.

Of course the company could be lying. That is what my post -- the one you quoted -- said.

And I'll reiterate. ... does it seem likely that CVS is blatantly lying about its motivations and intentions, given the potential PR repercussions if it comes out that they lied?

To use a YF term, why should they worry about bad PR if it will save them money?

People in the healthcare industry take things like confidentiality AMAZINGLY seriously. For a Pharm company to breach confidentiality, that would be a HUGE blackeye for the company. Much worse than, say, if McDonalds did the same thing.

 

[Mark2010]

Up next: Mandatory drug tests for all insurance users. Hey, you might be 5-10, 160 and seemingly the picture of health. But what if you have a nasty coke habit? We must know, since it will cost more to insure you.

I'm surprised that isn't the case already. Wonder how many places do pre-employment drug testing?

 

[SpeedTchr]

Not sure if you were working blue there, but private insurance has required drug testing for decades.

If they drug tested at my job, there'd be 100 people left (out of probably 500 in my dept) the next day.

I never knew you were a cop