Giantaxe

Heard a radio interview yesterday with an employment economist (forget from which college) who was saying that one reason unemployment for younger age cohorts has not fallen in the same proportion as older cohorts is that so many fail drug tests. If they are failing for use of "recreational" drugs such as marijuana, this is a really stupid direction for the US to be going in. Companies would be far better off testing for tobacco use as at least that has a demonstrable effect of increasing healthcare costs.

MsElui

both companies ive worked for here required them (major bank and insurance company). However i remember having to do one for a job in London too (LIFFE exchange - like stock exchange).

tom169

My wife's health insurance has two rates: Tobacco or no tobacco.

Giantaxe

All ACA policies do - hence my comment. Haven't heard of employers' group plans making that distinction.

kodokan

A previous employer (large multinational) offered health insurance at two premium rates: non tobacco users, and those who admitted to using tobacco OR refused to take the annual ‘optional’ physical to qualify for the lower rates. The physical included a test for nicotine use.

tom169

She's on an employers plan. The warning is if found lying they will invoice for previous months too.

Giantaxe

Interesting. It certainly makes a lot more sense than testing for marijuana use. And the ACA makes it perfectly legal to insure someone who uses tobacco.

TheKingOfHearts

I'm on a large multinationals plan with Aetna, although it's total sh*t, it also has tobacco user and non-user rates. Difference is around $600 per year.