Thursday, January 15, 2009

Theater Night Update 1-14-09

Hello Everyone,

 

 

I received this from the Taxpayers League of Minnesota (Taxpayers League of Minnesota) and  of coarse I had to share my opinion with Speaker Kelliher. All you have to do is click on the "here" text below and submit your opinion. My opinion is copied below in red.

 

 

From the Taxpayers League

"Share your NO NEW TAXES Ideas with Speaker Anderson Kelliher

Now that you’re riled up because of our tax-and-spend liberals leading the state House and Senate, let Speaker Anderson Kelliher know how you feel about the $4.8 billion state budget deficit problem.  She’s set up a website here for Minnesotans to voice their opinions."

 

 

              

Sheila's opinion submitted to Speaker Kelliher.
First of all, thank-you for the opportunity to voice my opinion. This year, I will not be getting a wage increase since 3M has mandated no wage increases this year....I can live with that if it saves other peoples jobs. What I find extremely frustrating is the "pet" projects that continually come out of the legislature and are paid for with our tax payer money. To name just one of my "frustrations", last year, over 2 million was allocated in my area (White Bear Lake) to connect 2 bike trails and then an additional allocation to build a new play center in the Tamarack Nature Center. How can this spending be justified when we are facing a deficit??? You don't spend money you don't have on unnecessary projects. These projects should be done when we are not facing a deficit. If I ran my household like that I would be in big trouble! There are people out there that need help with surviving day to day and connecting 2 bike trails and building a new play center certainly are not going to help them. Please be responsible and tighten the belt where needed just like I have to do.
 
How about some incentives to keep good paying businesses here...they are all leaving town or have already left. How about cracking down on employers that hire illegal immigrants...those are jobs that could go to our citizens. Have you tried to find a job lately? It is darn hard and we need all the jobs we can get. Not to mention, the expense that illegal's cost the taxpayer in terms of healthcare and subsidies.
 
Our charitable gambling is way down since the smoking ban went into effect and this money is used to help people...why not amend the ban to provide some shelter for smokers or some "hardship" waivers to the small bar businesses and clubs that are suffering. This would provide more sales tax revenue for the budget. New York has hardship waivers, Atlantic City Casino also repealed their smoking ban recently to name a few. Since the smoking ban went into effect our business went from 2 bartenders, 2 waitresses and a cook and kitchen helper down to 2 bartenders/waitresses and a cook....so we basically cut our staff in half....this doesn't help the budget any now does it.
 
Lastly, remember that I am not receiving any pay increase this year like a lot of other people and therefore any increases in taxes will strap my budget even further. Please, some fiscal responsibility is needed here...we cannot continue to keep spending money that we do not have and we cannot keep driving businesses out of this state!

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Theater Night Update 1-14-09

Hello Everyone,

Well it's that time of year of again when you step outside for a smoke....you freeze your "buns" off.  Below is an e-mail (with articles) that Sue Jeffers sent to "At Issue" and Senator Kathy Sheran. Perhaps we should do the same! It is time that they hear from us again.......because we are not going away! A couple of other news items:
 
1) Mark Benjamin has filed the appeal in the Tom Marino case and is waiting to hear back about the court date for oral arguments.
2) On February 7th, Mark Benjamin and Cynthia will be at Barnacle's Resort for the first anniversary of Theater Nights.
3) Theater Nights are NOT dead!
4) The state elections went well. Tshumper was ousted ...the one that wanted to ban smoking on farms. Shelly Madore was ousted...she had made the remark to a friend of mine,"Why weren't the fees increased more...they will never know". The fees she was talking about were license tabs. And there were more people THAT were voted out of office....I say GOOD RIDDENCE!!
5) SCHIP (Federal Tax Hike on Tobacco) is back on the table and look at the increases.
 
An increase in the federal tobacco tax was proposed as the funding source as follows:

        Cigars from 20.719% to 53% with a $3 per cigar cap (+156%); 
        Little cigars from 4.0 cents to $1.00 per pack (+2,500%);
        Cigarettes from 39 cents to $1 per 20 (+156%); 
        Cigarette papers from 1.22 cents to 3.13 cents per 50 (+256%); 
        Cigarette tubes from 2.44 cents to 6.26 cents per 50 (+256%); 
        Snuff from 58.5 cents to $1.50 (+156%); 
        Chewing tobacco from 19.5 cents to 50 cents (+156%); 
        Pipe tobacco from $1.0969 to $2.8126 (+156%); and 
        Roll-your-own tobacco from $1.0969 to $8.8889 (+814%).
 
(See www.freedomtoact.com and www.banthebanminnesota.com  websites for more detail on SCHIP.)
 
 
On with the Show!
 
Sheila
 
 
 
 
 E-Mail sent to "At Issue" and Senator Kathy Sheran from Sue Jeffers. (Both articles below sent with it.)
 
Tom and Kathy,
I believe I mentioned this very prediction (see below) on At Issue not too long ago. Also predicted, before the ban was passed, was the lost revenues from hundreds of closed businesses and the thousands of lost jobs attributed to the smoking ban adding to the current financial mess facing the state with the $5.2 Billion deficit. MRP reported 300 closed businesses which we all know is on the low side.
 
Sure wish we had those jobs and revenues now huh? I believe I also mentioned the hospitality industry used to be able to help people with a paycheck between jobs. Keep the businesses fat and happy and you can tax the heck out of them. Destroy their businesses and you end up with nothing when they close.
 
Hummm, options on the table include tax increases which will drive more people and businesses out (think Delta), gambling expansion (or asking the Tribes to pony up) or maybe we could line up behind the other states for a federal bailout. This might be a good time to look at zero based budgeting (not to be confused with priority based budgeting) and hardship waivers. Let me know how I can help!
 
Sue
 
PS I copied a bar owner, Sheila, she would be happy to discuss her losses and hardship waivers since the smoking ban took effect.
 
 
 
 

Youth smoking up despite ban

The number of young people smoking in Scotland has risen sharply, despite the ban in pubs. Nearly a third of 16 to 24 year-olds are smokers, an official health report showed. The percentage - 31 per cent - is a substantial rise on the number of young smokers in 2004, which stood at 25 per cent. The smoking ban was imposed in March 2006. Public health minister Shona Robison said: "We are committed to doing all we can to reducing smoking rates in Scotland - both by encouraging more smokers to quit and discouraging young people from starting in the first place. "Significant progress has been made in recent years to shift cultural attitudes to smoking, but this report clearly demonstrates that firm action needs to continue if we are to succeed in our desire to make Scotland smoke-free." The findings will disappoint anti-smoking campaigners. Even though some of the demographic are too young to go to pubs, several experts predicted the ban would have a freezing effect on society, where smoking lost some of its charm to the young. But David Gordon of NHS Health Scotland said smoking figures did not always yield reliable results. "Smoking rates have fluctuated without showing any sustained trend between 1999 and 2007," he said. The figures show women are more likely to smoke than men between ages 16 to 19 while men become more likely to smoke between 20 and 24. Half of young adult smokers in 2006 were in employment, while 30 per cent were not in education, employment or training.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1095784/Smoking-ban-fails-curb-habit-Figures-reveal-men-smoking-MORE.html#

Smoking ban fails to curb the habit: Figures reveal men are smoking MORE

By Daniel Martin
Last updated at 11:42 PM on 16th December 2008

The ban on smoking in public has failed to increase the number of people quitting, a report revealed yesterday.

The proportion of men who smoke has actually risen since the ban in July last year while there was no change at all among women.

The figures, coming after years of declining smoking rates, are a massive blow to Labour's public heath policy.

According to the report, the average number of cigarettes smoked each day did not fall significantly

A survey of almost 7,000 across all age groups found on average there was no change in the number of cigarettes that smokers said they had.

But in men aged 16 to 34, the number rose, by one and a half cigarettes a day.

It had been hoped the ban would help reduce smoking rates among the poor in particular, but instead the number of cigarettes smoked by working class men has gone up.

Off the shelf: Other anti-smoking plans include selling cigarettes under the counter to cut smoking rates among children

The Health Survey for England, carried out by the NHS for ministers, has raised fears that smokers are simply lighting up at home rather than in pubs and restaurants  -  potentially putting children at risk.

Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb said: 'These are pretty stark figures which demonstrate forcefully that the Government's strategy on smoking has not been successful.

'It's yet another case of the Government pursuing tough eye-catching initiatives which in the end don't succeed in tackling the real problem.'

Pro-smoking groups called the smoking ban 'an unmitigated failure'

The smoking ban was introduced in England on July 1, 2007, to improve the health of those working in bars, restaurants and other workplaces through passive smoking.

However, ministers also hoped it would help them meet targets to reduce smoking rates, particularly among those from more deprived backgrounds.

When she introduced the ban, the then health secretary Patricia Hewitt said: 'This is an enormous step forward for public health. It is going to make it easier for people who want to give up smoking to do so. Over time it will save thousands of lives.'

Enlarge   Smoking graphic

But polls carried out before and after the ban show it has not had that impact.

The number of cigarettes smoked by men aged 16 to 34 has increased by one and a half cigarettes a day, from an average of 10.9 to 12.5 a day.

The percentage of females who smoke remained constant at 21 per cent, while male smokers rose from 23 per cent to 24 per cent.

One in three smokers said the ban had encouraged them to stay at home, where they could still smoke. The numbers saying the ban would encourage them to quit dramatically fell after it came into force.

A spokesman for the pro-smoking pressure group Forest said: 'These figures show that the smoking ban has been an unmitigated failure.'

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: 'Smokefree laws were introduced to protect employees and the public from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.

'The legislation was never intended to be a measure to reduce smoking prevalence.'

 

 

 

 

 


  1 Attached Images

article-1095784-02D372D4000005DC-161_468x311.jpg

Monday, January 12, 2009

Proposed Federal Tax Hike on Tobacco (SCHIP).

Hey Greg,
 
Could you post this on the website. Some pretty steep prices. Shawn and I signed the petition under the banthebanminnesota organization.
 
Thanks
Sheila
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 1:39 AM
Subject: Sign on to a Press Release on SCHIP

Dear Friends,
 
Please forgive the impersonal greeting due to this message being distributed to many at once.
 
This request is in regard to a Federal Tax Hike on Tobacco (SCHIP).
 
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a program that already exists but which needs reauthorization upon a sunset date but also can be revised each time.  Back in Sept. 2007 a revision to raise tobacco taxes to cover funding was proposed.  At that time it was only because of a presidential veto that it failed to survive.  It's back.  And the players in office today are making all the difference in the world -- promising to have it signed, sealed and delivered to the president on his first day in office -- only 12 short days to January 20th!
 
An increase in the federal tobacco tax was proposed as the funding source as follows:

        Cigars from 20.719% to 53% with a $3 per cigar cap (+156%); 
        Little cigars from 4.0 cents to $1.00 per pack (+2,500%);
        Cigarettes from 39 cents to $1 per 20 (+156%); 
        Cigarette papers from 1.22 cents to 3.13 cents per 50 (+256%); 
        Cigarette tubes from 2.44 cents to 6.26 cents per 50 (+256%); 
        Snuff from 58.5 cents to $1.50 (+156%); 
        Chewing tobacco from 19.5 cents to 50 cents (+156%); 
        Pipe tobacco from $1.0969 to $2.8126 (+156%); and 
        Roll-your-own tobacco from $1.0969 to $8.8889 (+814%).
 
The economic arguments have been beaten to death.  Groups like the Heartland Institute and Americans for Tax Reform have done another wonderful job of covering that ground with their own press releases and letters to Congress just a day or so ago.
 
It's certainly welcomed assistance but despite it I've reached this conclusion:  There is nothing -- in any form of lobbying -- we, as smokers' rights and other civil liberty organizations, can do that will be effective.  No emails, no calls, no petitions asking members of Congress to consider voting against it.  In that form we would be like throwing a pebble to knock down the State Capitol.  I've concluded we are powerless to change anything approaching it from that direction considering the climate and make-up of our federal lawmaking bodies.
 
And so I offer one last Hail Mary suggestion.  Playing it with the same (lack of) "dignity" as those that chance to use the race card.  Or, for us, as the Abused and Oppressed.  Call it emotional blackmail if you like.  The plea to the public ear via press release that we have no voice.  We are not heard.  Taxation without representation.  No one speaks for us.  Not the anti-smokers and not the tobacco industry (a la our argument in the Kessler letter in the Rico suit). We take our case to the public (actually I mean in public) instead of the lawmakers as a backdoor pressure tactic to have lawmakers to respond.  To open a dialogue in public (and by public I mean from John on the corner to editors and program managers) and to alert the unsuspecting smokers and sympathizers.  It's all that's left to try in my opinion.  At the very least we will be able to claim We Spoke.
 
I cannot guarantee this press release will even be picked up.  But it can't hurt to try. And we're not going to convince this Congress through one-on-one interaction to vote otherwise in the majority.  I will be relying a bit on my own personal relationships I have with members of the AP and other press. 
 
In all likelihood, I (CLASH) will be issuing a statement -- with the above sentiments and some economic argument too -- hopefully by Monday.  What I'd like to have are signatories to it -- other smokers' rights groups, etc.  If you want in and/or know of others to ask let me know.  We had a very healthy and respectable signatory list for the ACS/ALA/AHA Boycott.  I'd like to see the same. 
 
When the Associated Press took interest in the CLASH release on the boycott and called to do an article which was then carried by over 300 news outlets around the country and world, it in fact was written this way:
 
"Smoking rights' groups, tavern owners and libertarian political parties in nine states are calling for a boycott of donations to major charities, saying their support of smoking bans is a threat to small businesses and civil rights.
 
...Smokers' and libertarian groups from Minnesota to Massachusetts are targeting the nonprofits for their political activities.
 
...The boycott effort is supported by Silk's CLASH, the national Smokers Club Inc., Illinois Smokers' Rights group, Indiana Amusement & Music Operators Association, the Kentucky Licensed Beverage Association, the Metro Louisville Hospitality Coalition, the Cambridge Citizens For Smokers' Rights in Massachusetts, the Smoke Out Gary group based in Minneapolis, Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans, the Fight City Hall group of Minnesota, Taverners United for Fairness New York, the American Arborist of New York, the Madison County Chapter of the Independence Party Ohio, the Lakewood Hospitality Association of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Smokers Action Network and Tennessee's Yes S.I.R. group."
 
 
If you'd like to be included, please provide:
 
Your name
The name of your group
What state/city you represent or if you're national
Your web site address if you have one (In lieu of web addresses an email address will have to suffice).
Your email address. 
 
Certainly no press release with your group's name on it will be issued until your organization approves the copy.  Upon your review you can ask to opt out. Though non-responses will be treated as approval.
 
Respectfully,
Audrey
 
 
Audrey Silk
Founder, NYC C.L.A.S.H. (Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment)
P.O. Box 1036
Brooklyn, NY 11234
(917) 888-9317
www.nycclash.com

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Third-Hand Smoke Debate Reveals Dangerous Lack of Common Sense Fueled by Tainted Studies

"It is interesting to note that the study sets out with the statement "there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke." This creates a common ground that is hard to refute. Moreover, the publication next cites a variety of studies that prove the existence of what it terms "thirdhand smoke."  http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1363667/thirdhand_smoke_debate_reveals_dangerous.html?singlepage=true&cat=5

Redrant: I occasionally get newsletters from the Enviormental Protection Agency.  There is an Superfund arsenic remediation programs near my South Minneapolis house.  There was an arsenic pesticide plant just North of Lake Street and Hiawatha Av.  The EPA admits that arsenic dust from the former facility spread over a very wide area but the EPA claims that the arsenic are low enough so they don't pose a threat.  Arsenic is well proven as a carcinogen.

The "safe level" rationale is based one seemingly practical economic and practical reasons.  First the economic reasoning.  Remediation consists of digging up the top four to six inches of soil, replacing the soil and re sodding.  Obviously a costly operation.  For the practical reasons, I am  a mile south east of the former plant site so I would logically have relatively low arsenic dust "fallout" and test samples in the area have confirmed this.  

That said, there is above normal arsenic levels.  An arbitrary decision was made on "acceptable risk" of cancer and other health problems.  Having researched out arsenic a bit, I feel relatively comfortable with the situation.  I try to wait until after a light rain to mow the lawn, to avoid kicking up up too much dust but otherwise don't worry very much.

For the EPA the "safe level" rationale has a practical side.  If the EPA took a position of "no safe level of arsenic dust from the old pesticide plant"  the cleanup area might extend from I 35W to the Mississippi River.  It could further extend as detection technologies improve.  Chemicals now be detected in the parts per billion or sometimes parts per trillion.  If there is "no safe dose" the "risk" would expand and detection technology increases.  For a somewhat comical example of there were headline earlier this year about caffeine being found in the Minneapolis water supply.  The concentration was so small that a typical cup of coffee has 50,000 times the caffeine as the tested drinking water.  
This is comical because the wild roses in my yard probably contain caffeine in their leaves as do a number of other leaves.  The caffeine was probably from natural vegetation runoff, not upstream pollution.  

The widely discredited EPA report on Secondhand Smoke made the claim,  "there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke."  This "no safe level" claim contradicts the EPA risk criteria philosophy.  It is also a "bear trap" because of steadily improving detection technology.  The EPA secondhand smoke report seemed to severely "cherry pick" data.  The EPA report, over 700 pages made no mention of the Framingham Heart study, which found no detectable additional risk with non-smoking spouses of smokers versus spouses of smokers.  The Framingham study was large, starting out with close to 5000 participants in 1948 and it is 60 years "longitudinal", tracking up to four generations.  

The "third-hand smoke" concept is not new.  When my parents were out of town I had to check on their house and do some work on it.  These were not "bar clothes" but the had a smoke smell when I got home.  If you wash the inside windows of a smokers house or car you defintely notice the smoke.  Someone once borrowed my pickup for moving and smoked in it.  It was summer and I could smell it for several weeks in the truck.  

These are all examples of "third hand smoke".  It exists but the "no safe level" claim is scientifically invalid.  With science, you need to prove your claim rather than try to make the other side prove that your claim isn't true.  As the old saying goes, "the burden of proof is on the accuser".  You cannot prove something by deductive logic.  As an example, you can argue that with billions of stars in the universe it only stands to reason that some of these stars contain planets with intelligent life.  Perhaps there is, it cannot be proved that life does not exist on other planets outside of our solar system but no one has found any "little green men" or other signs of extra terrestial intelligent life that can be verified.  The same is true of "third hand smoke".  

Please read he source article linked and pasted below.  Greg Lang


Thirdhand Smoke Boosts Cause of Anti Smoking Groups and May Lead to More Smoking Bans

Third hand smoke is in the news, and unless you have lived under a rock, you know that cigarette smoking is bad for you, and second hand smoke has been indicated in a host of undes
Third-Hand Smoke Debate Reveals Dangerous Lack of Common Sense Fueled by Tainted Studies
irable health effects, such as lung cancer. Third hand smoke, on the other hand, is a relatively new term. Is it time to get familiar with the idea of 3rd hand smoke?

What is Third Hand Smoke?

The New York Times is warning parents that cracking a window and aiming a fan to get rid of their cigarette smoke might not be enough to keep kids safe from health hazards associated with cigarette smoking and nicotine. The paper refers to it as a "toxic brew," and while this sounds a lot like the verbiage used by anti smoking groups, there might be something deeper here.

The Difference between Second Hand Smoke and Third Hand Smoke

Secondhand smoke is generally defined as tobacco smoke that is involuntarily inhaled by individuals other than the smoker. Since second hand smoke contains the same carcinogens as the smoke inhaled by the one smoking, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2002 that "second hand smoke ... is carcinogenic to humans."

Once secondhand smoke leaves the area, the venue is thought to reset to a smoke free locale and without any cigarette smoke present, the air is supposed to be healthy again. Although this might be true of the air, it apparently does not hold true of the materials which the cigarette smoke touched.

The Nitti Gritty of Thirdhand Smoke

It stands to reason that the heavy metals -- and other carcinogens which are airborne in the smoke -- at some point will land on terra firma, creating a cancerous patina. This assumption has been proven and reported on as far back as 2004! Tobacco Control published a researcher paper in which it termed third hand smoke as "environmental tobacco smoke;" a term that just never caught on.

The study proved that the dust found in the homes of smokers - just like other household surfaces - contains nicotine. Infants notorious for sticking virtually anything into their mouths or touching surfaces and then placing their hands into their mouths, get a steady diet of nicotine and whatever other carcinogens have attached themselves to the furniture, rugs, and other areas of the home.

Is 3rd Hand Smoke for Real? The American Academy of Pediatrics Says Yes!

It matters little how you "feel" about the issue of smoking in your home, whether or not the government should tell you to quit, or if the latest California smoking ban - when you are driving with minors in the care - is your nanny state at work. It is hard to argue with scientific evidence, and it appears that the American Academy of Pediatrics has the goods.

It is interesting to note that the study sets out with the statement "there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke." This creates a common ground that is hard to refute. Moreover, the publication next cites a variety of studies that prove the existence of what it terms "thirdhand smoke."

What Do American Consumers Say?

The study sampled 1,510 households of which 273 self identified as smoking households. 84.1% of the smokers agreed that second hand smoke held dangers for the health of children but only 43.3% felt the same way about third hand smoke, showing a rather glaring disconnect.

What is more, of the nonsmokers, 95.4% agreed with the statement that secondhand smoke was bad for kids' health, but only 65.2% felt the same way about thirdhand smoke. The study concludes with the statement that further education in the matter "may be an important element in encouraging home smoking bans."

Consumer Gullibility versus Real Life against the Backdrop of Tainted Studies

Having grown up in a smoke filled home, I can attest first hand to the yellowish patina that forms over time on thewallpaper and household surfaces, even with regular cleaning. Common sense and the laws of gravity dictate that what goes up must come down, and heavy metals in the smoke of tobacco are no exception.

In stark contrast to common sense and the obvious stand medical studies, such as the 2003 one by James Enstrom, which concludes that "results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect." Too bad the bill for this study was footed by tobacco giant Philip Morris, as proven by the University of California, San Francisco.

At the end of the day, you have to make up your own mind with respect to second or third hand cigarette smoke. Suffice to say, living smoke free will be a lot healthier for your children and for yourself.

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?ref=health;http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/29?ijkey=7cdc2d9a55d6798eda2ea0214b95ab08cb30ae27&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha;http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol83/02-involuntary.html;http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/123/1/e74;http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7398/1057;http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dfk37d00/pdf;jsessionid=5733B05BB6A1FD317D4596889F7936F1

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

U of MN ethics standard panel conflict of interest.

Redrant:  I have been following the U of MN story for the last few days to see what happened.  I commented previously on s study of paying doctors $100 per patient to steer patients to the Minnesota "no cost" stop smoking program".  Since it's free to the patient and much of the advice isn't bad (though obvious) this should be a "no brainier" for doctors.  Like mechanical repair, in a situation that is not time critical you try the cheapest "fix" first.  I recently talked with a woman who got involved with quit plan.  I considered the advice they gave here to be generally good but they seemed to quick to push the pharmaceuticals.  She was on disability so she got these on very low co-pay but they were "top shelf" pharms.  I suspect the programs are set up to "gin" sales of these smoking cessation pharms.  Her counseling was very light on avoiding smoking situations.  That was critical to me when I quit.

The very well written Star Tribune story, has someone on the U of MN panel on ethics guidelines not stating the serious ethics charges against against one panel member because the the past ethics guidelines were deemed "not important".  

Hello!  The key to ethics is that "sunlight is the best disinfectant".  An accusation is not proof of guilt but all information (which can usually be googled anyway) should be put "on the table" and an opportunity for rebuttal offered.  From the Star Tribune story, it looks like the U of MN medical department is at the very least "dysfunctional" in several ways.  This same department is the recipient of many of the grants from the Minnesota tobacco settlement.

Again, this seems a well done article.  The Star Tribune tends to do a good job when they are not "political".  Please read the article and give the Star Tribune credit when it is due. http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/36500989.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvDE7aL_V_BD77:DiiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU




Monday, December 15, 2008

Update from Shelia and Sunday Star Tribune article.

Hello Everyone -
 
It has been a long time since I sent anything out but I'm still here and am in for the long haul. Greg has been doing a great job of posts on the www.freedomtoact website and Shawn as well on the www.banthebanminnesota.com website. Please make sure you visits the sites for updates. Enjoy the article below and I guess I am just not "smart" enough to keep my mouth shut! More updates will follow!
 
Have a Merry Christmas!
 
Sheila
 
 
StarTribune.com

Whose life is it anyway? Workers pay price for unhealthy ways

December 13, 2008

Sheila Kromer doesn't want any help.

She enjoys smoking and she doesn't want to quit.

Nor does she want advice on how to eat right. Or how to exercise. "I'm smart enough to take care of myself," she says.

As a chemist at 3M, she's had plenty of chances to join health and fitness programs on the job. But like many Minnesotans, she's simply chosen not to.

Now, that choice is starting to get costly.

At a growing number of workplaces, employees are paying a price for refusing to take part in wellness programs. Some face hundreds of dollars a year in higher costs for health insurance. Some are missing out on cash and gifts used to reward their colleagues -- not for their work, but for the way they eat, exercise and conduct their lives.

Once, on-site gyms and Weight Watchers classes were viewed as perks. But now, many employers see wellness programs as their best weapon in the war on health costs.

"I think everyone is collectively beginning to understand that the 400-pound gorilla in the room is health and wellness," said Dr. Ted Loftness, a vice president at Medica Health Plans. "We can't dance around it anymore. We have to do something about it."

Experts say that upwards of 40 percent of U.S. medical costs are linked to obesity, smoking and other lifestyle factors -- a statistic not lost on the nation's employers. As a result, more than half of large corporations now use incentives to get employees to shape up, a 2008 survey found.

But in the process, employers are pushing the boundary between work life and private life.

At 3M, General Mills and many other Twin Cities worksites, employees can earn up to $100 in cash or shave hundreds of dollars off their health insurance if they (and sometimes their spouses) take a "health risk assessment" -- a detailed survey of their personal health habits.

Some companies are tying payments to medical test results. This year, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota is offering $200 insurance rebates to its own employees who can maintain "healthy levels" of blood pressure, cholesterol and other risk factors -- or show they're making an effort to improve them.

In other parts of the country, employers have gotten even tougher. Alabama announced plans to charge what some call a "fat tax," a $25 monthly surcharge on insurance for state employees who are clinically obese.

This can be troubling news to people who simply want to do their jobs and be left alone.

"I really think it's an encroachment on our freedoms and our choices in life," said Kromer, 50, of White Bear Lake. "They should not be able to tell me what I can and cannot do off of work time."

Last month, she turned down the $100 incentive at 3M to fill out a health survey.

Like many companies nationwide, 3M is promoting the health risk assessments as a tool to encourage people to modify their behavior.

"I would never fill one out," says Kromer, who admits she's a contrarian. (She cochairs a committee to repeal the state's smoking ban.) As a smoker, she worries that the information might be used against her. "If I ever had to fill one out, I'm going to be real honest with you," she confesses. "I would lie."

David Bornus, who works for the Minnesota Department of Corrections, also refused to take a health assessment last year. He said he found the questions silly and patronizing: Do you have a smoke detector? Exercise? Eat vegetables? Drink to excess? Own a gun and keep it locked? He drew the line, he said, when he learned that his wife also would have to fill it out to get the incentive: $5 off copays for doctor visits.

"At this point, I decided that I did not like the incremental intrusion into my and my family's private matters," he said. "It's not worth it."

This year he changed his mind after the spousal requirement was dropped and some questions became optional. Still, he says, "the whole approach is a bad idea."

To some, employers are crossing the line in their zeal to contain health costs.

"When you have your employer kind of dictating how to live your life, it's kind of a scary thing," said Shawn Gertken, 35, a government worker in Wabasha County. "Where does it all end? Pretty soon they're going to be after you if you choose to ride a motorcycle after work."

Good reason to worry

But health and wellness experts say businesses have good reason to worry about what employees do in their off hours -- if it jeopardizes their health. "That's because employers are paying about $10,000 a year [per person] for employee health care costs," says Don Powell, president of the American Institute for Preventive Medicine in Michigan. "Companies are clearly tired of paying increases [of up to 10 percent] each year."

The drive to change behavior has been fueled by some alarming trends: Nearly two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, according to federal statistics. Diabetes has soared at the same time. While smoking rates have dropped, they're still one of the biggest factors in heart disease, strokes and, of course, lung cancer.

"The cost trend is not sustainable. We all know that," said Loftness of Medica. "We're going to bankrupt the country on the backs of diabetes, obesity and tobacco.''

It's no surprise, then, that, many businesses are losing patience footing the bill for preventable diseases, says Susan Relland, a Washington, D.C., attorney who specializes in health law. "Just running the math, they realize that the health of their employees is having a very direct financial impact on the company."

"They've offered wellness programs for a long time, but they're having a hard time getting employees engaged," Relland added. Now "they've gotten a lot more serious about it."

General Mills at forefront

Few have pushed employee health more vigorously than General Mills, with its state-of-the-art fitness center, outdoor running paths and even a medical clinic at its Golden Valley headquarters. But after 20 years of wellness programs, it's still an uphill battle to draw in every employee, says Dr. Timothy Crimmins, the company's medical director.

So the company has added financial incentives to the mix as it tries to overcome people's natural affinity for donuts and a sedentary life. "We've had to work harder to fight the tide of American culture," says Crimmins.

Today, employees can eat at a "gently subsidized" salad bar, while burgers are full price, and collect $10 monthly nonsmoking bonuses. At sales meetings, staffers can meet with health coaches and get free blood pressure and cholesterol tests. There's a $50 bonus for filling out a health risk assessment (double if a spouse fills one out, too). In January, a $60 exercise credit makes its debut.

To Pamela Matovich, a systems analyst at General Mills, the payoff was more personal. She lost 75 pounds through the company's fitness and weight-loss programs, which she was able to fit into her workday.

"It's made a huge lifestyle difference for me," says Matovich, a Cottage Grove mother of two small children. Before, she was on insulin for diabetes and faced surgery for back pain. The weight loss made both unnecessary. "I think companies have the right to be able to say we'd like you to be healthier," she said. No one forced her to change, she adds; when she was ready, the company gave her the help to do it.

Crimmins wouldn't say how much General Mills spends on wellness, but he's confident it's worth it. Company surveys show that the rate of obesity has dropped from 23 percent to 12 percent among its sales force since 2005. In general, experts estimate that every $1 spent on health and wellness saves $3 in medical costs.

At some point, even supporters say companies may tire of paying people to help themselves, especially in a tightening economy.

Behind the scenes, there's growing talk of a tough love approach -- making some health programs mandatory. "It is a controversy right now," says Dr. David Plocher, chief medical officer at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota. "No one has really agreed on the direction."

But some predict that will never fly, for legal and practical reasons.

"The coercion thing just doesn't work," says Crimmins, of General Mills.

Loftness of Medica agrees. "People don't change their behavior when they're threatened," he said. "I really believe you have to help them."

Maura Lerner • 612-673-7384

Health care costs and insurer/employer intrusion.

Redrant: The basic premise is the "settled science" that says that since something has been "proved" the costs are "proved". Junkscience.com calls this "chasing numbers": IE lower cholesterol numbers or lower weight directly translate to lower medical costs. The link isn't really there.
At Hennepin County the "single" health insurance costs tended to rise at single digit rates while the family coverage rose at double digit rates. You might argue that a lot of single people are young but Hennepin County has a very low turnover and relatively few "starter job" young hires. We subcontracted out a lot, 3M probably did in the last decade. The workforces at major employers is aging.
Katherine Kerstine of the Strib recently had an article about how legislated mandates add more than 20% to Minnesota Health care/insurance costs. They basically need a "boogieman" to try to blame the costs on.
On a personal level: On Friday I got "Shanghaied" into Health Partners for a physical under threat of not renewing my prescription for generic blood pressure medications. Seems I haven't been in there in three years. I am significantly overweight but no health problems. The doctor told me to lose weight and keep taking the meds but otherwise OK. I tend to believe that "sugar" is the big culprit nowadays. One pound of sugar can last me years at home. The only time I drink "sugar pop" is at a bar when I don't want to drive beer. I usually eat cereal that it unsweetened and drink only "skim milk". It's amazing the number of people who seem to live on a sugar based diet! I had one of those little disposable salt shakers I brought from work a year ago. It still isn't empty. I have "religiously" taken at least one aspirin a day for my entire adult life (always those little aches and pains). It's amazing how few people do this and keep doing it. I tell them to get a big bottle of cheap generic aspirin, it's all USP anyway. I try to lose weight but it's mostly for "quality of life" reasons.
Relatively few "office workers" in major corporations now smoke. The Hennepin Government Center has a daytime population of probably 10,000 people but I see only a handful smoking outside. Sedentary work and smoking are a more "toxic" combination but most smokers are in the "trades" where the work is more physical or in smaller employers.
One little "secret" is that in any Health Plan group a very small portion of the people use the vast majority of the services. It can be as high as 10% using 90%. It would probably be "un-PC" to profile these "frequent fliers". They have the accounting to easily do this. I didn't get a letter detailing costs when I got a flu shot at a HP flu shot "event" but they send me cost details for other things. If they can do that they can do a detailed analysis of who really costs the insurance in each subcategory. For example, the rise in rates for those with single coverage rises a lot less than those with family coverage. They could easily factor age in there. They can use these cost figures like an accounting spreadsheet where they can look at any factors they want.
HP didn't charge me the copay because this was an annual physical. I would predict that I will get a statement that this visit and the blood work cost HP $200, all done by HP in-house. The costs to insurers by smokers is probably lower than they say because smokers usually "tough out" colds and flue rather than go to the doctor for every sniffle


Greg Lang