Tying health costs to health habits

[jenk]

So King County is thinking of tying health costs - specifically deductibles and % covered - to a program involving an 'optional' questionnaire, commitments to 'healthy habits', and a 'personalized action plan'. Now, my hackles shoot for the sky on this sort of thing. And it's not just the privacy issue or the potential for discrimination and exploitation, or even the "Will the program actually SAVE more money than it costs to ADMINISTER?"

Nope. My immediate reaction is, "Oh, another way to dump on the FAT people and remind them that they are worthless stupid meat because, well, DUH, they're FAT."

Then I read the summary of how they're going to divide people among the various 'tiers'. To quote from the Seattle Times sidebar:

Bronze: no participation in health-risk assessment (highest cost to employees)

Silver: Employee must fill out an assessment and follow at least one healthy habit.*

Gold: Employee must fill out an assessment, complete the personalized action plan (for example, eat healthier or exercise more) and follow at least two healthy habits.* (Lowest cost to employees)

Possible examples of healthy habits:

• Driving within 5 miles of the speed limit
• Walking 30 minutes three times a week
• Using sunscreen when outside for more than 30 minutes
• Wearing a helmet when skiing or riding a bicycle or motorcycle

...and I realize: I could easily be a "silver" under this plan. I already walk 30 minutes 5 times a week. I already use sunscreen when I'm outside more than 30 minutes. I already wear a helmet when riding my bike (ok, I don't ride frequently, but I do). So it would all depend on whether I chose to participate and what would end up in my 'personalized action plan'.

And then my brain stops with a massive HUH?