Insurance Company Rewards Thinner Customers

I'd be happier with a BMI discount than with a body fat one, personally. Cause everytime they use the Tanita or the handheld Tanita-like device, it says I'm morbidly obese. It may be just denial, but I refuse to believe that with my stats and the results from other body fat measuring methods that I have body fat higher now than I did when I was actually morbidly obese.

The BMI has never been an accurate measure of health for me, but I am comforted to see that they've set a minimum BMI, as well as a maximum.

I agree with Jan, though, the Tanita-like scales don't seem to provide consistenly accurate results. I had my body fat percentage calculated using skinfold calipers, and those results were much lower than the Tanita. What gives?

I think they need a more accurate measure of health before they can start rewarding people for being healthy.

I went as far as having the water test done, and I vary from 19% to 22%. With the Tanita type devices, it is always 38% or so. When I weighed 100lb more, with calipers, it was 36%, so yeah, I'm gonna believe I *gained* body fat by losing 100lb and lifting weights.

Anything that allows anybody to pay less is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, with trial, the plan will be modified and improved. I do not like to see improvements argued out of existence by people saying it doesn't do enough. Even baby steps are progress.

Well if it has to be doctor approved anyway I don't see why they don't take it a step further and do a whole fitness assessment. It can be age dependent and based on averages and those in the top whatever percent can get discounts. Then it could include blood pressure, cholesterol, heart rate after exercise, weight, body fat, and whatever else they see as appropriate. I mean it would be a lot more stuff to collect but with all the computer programs out there I don't see how it would be all that difficult to keep track of. And more importantly, maybe it would encourage people to actually get the stuff tested so they can be allerted to areas where they need work. With a possibility of insurance savings I can see people actually getting out and doing it. Despite its current limitations, I like how they are presenting it as a bonus for the healthy rather than a penalty for the overwieght. However if they neglect to add in the other stuff it will definitely be unfair, particularly against males. Of course I guess it could just be seen as reverse sexism to make up for the many policies sexist in the other direction. Or maybe attonement for that whole men getting paid more than women for the same job argument.

I have to agree with Dr. J.

Hopefully, this may help someone decide that it's finally time to lose weight and get fit. When the company I work for changed the health insurance premiums so that smokers had to pay more, it motivated me to quit a 3 pack a day habit. That helped me to go on and change my life.

Brian

I'm 5'9", so I'd need to be under 169 lbs to get a BMI under 25. I could not attain this, even going down into essential fat, without losing muscle weight.

Drug companies prey on insurance. I think the cost of all the mass marketed drugs, advising people to go ask the doctor, is breaking them. Maybe a fitness incentive will cut the use of drugs.

Natalia said:
Well if it has to be doctor approved anyway I don't see why they don't take it a step further and do a whole fitness assessment. It can be age dependent and based on averages and those in the top whatever percent can get discounts. Then it could include blood pressure, cholesterol, heart rate after exercise, weight, body fat, and whatever else they[...]

In fact, life insurance companies already do all of this when anyone applies. To give you the best rate, they not only consider age and sex, smoker or not, but they have a nurse come to you (home or workplace, at your convenience) and give you a full physical, including blood and other tests, EKG, plus take your weight and height, and ask you lots of medical questions related to your own health and that of your family. They already take all these things into account, and base your life insurance premiums on the results.

So this BMI thing isn't really all that significant, just one more item in the overall exam for life insurance.

I think this is a step in the right direction, but I also think that it's the first step on a long, long road.

There are so many factors to consider in the cost of healthcare and insurance coverage - the cost of those who need serious care weighed against the healthier ones, the exorbinant (sp?) cost of medication (especially in a world where we MUST have the newest, when the old standbys often work better), and the fact that we, as consumers, really have NO CLUE what our healthcare actually costs, because even if we DO get a bill, we rarely look beyond the cost of our copay.

So, if the insurance companies really ARE looking to lower costs and make insurance make sense, I think this is a step in the right direction, and I commend them for it. But I would like to see them follow it up with other common-sense actions, as well.

BMI has never been an indicator of good health. All it means is that you are in a weight range. A pound over or under does not affect your over all health. 10 lbs doesn't either for most people. And one does not need to be in good health to have a "healthy" BMI.

If they want to reward lifestyle, then reward lifestyle. Give discounts to those who go to those who exercise for 30 minutes 5x/week. Give discounts to those who's grocery bills are less than 30% processed foods. Give discounts for using stress management techniques, ensuring you have adequate hydration and get Omega3 fatty acids in your diet.

But height/weight ratios are useless.

Natalia said:
Well if it has to be doctor approved anyway I don't see why they don't take it a step further and do a whole fitness assessment. It can be age dependent and based on averages and those in the top whatever percent can get discounts. Then it could include blood pressure, cholesterol, heart rate after exercise, weight, body fat, and whatever else they[...]

Actually, insurance companies already do all of these things as part of the process for getting you the best rate if you're in good health. Besides looking at your age/sex, and smoker/non-smoker, they have someone give you a complete physical -- blood pressure, weight, height, take blood for several tests including cholestorol, even an EKG. So this extra item about the BMI really isn't that big a deal, just one more item in the overall physical they already do for life insurance quotes.

Those people in the healthy probably still eat junk food/fizzy drink/ sweets like obese and overweight, so why should they get a discount for living an unhealthy lifestyle but being fortunate enough to not show on the outside?

Zabietta, thin people who are 25 or older who eat junk all the time and do not exercise are so rare. They are a statistical anomaly. The only thin people I know older than that either eat healthy (not fanatical or on a diet, but not packaged food either), exercise (on purpose or incidentally, like a friend of mine who is a computer tech and walks to all his appointments, so he walks all day), or do both - or they've had a gastric bypass, so they eat tiny morsels of junk. And since young people are unlikely to have health problems even if they sit on the couch eating chips all day, simply because they are young, it works out great for the health insurance company.

I think another thing that would help would be an employer credit given to employees that work out. The company I used to work for actually paid us to work out. If you worked out for 2 hours or more per week, you could work a 38 hour week and get paid for a 40 hour week. It was pretty sweet...lots of us there worked out. Considering that physical fitness is probably a better indicator of actual health than just BMI or even body fat, I think it's a pretty good idea.

Can I get a body fat test or (better yet!) a fitness test instead? I'll even pay the dr for the full physical!

BMI doesn't tell how fat one is, but only how thick they are overall.

Not everyone is made up of the same stuff. People with muscle won't get the discount, while the smaller, mush-bodies who never exercise would.

This is bad practice.

The discount should be based on body fat percentage - measured by calipers, immersion or Bod Pod.

Here in Canada it's one of the factors insurance companies use to determine risk as well, there was a big discussion about it recently. I work out and do heavy weight training regularly, so I know it's not the most accurate thing - if you're big with lots of muscle but not totally without fat, your BMI jumps up like hell. Personally, I advise my clients to get their health a bit up in shape before doing the screenings so they get more beneficial policy costs. Check back in a bit on my site, I'll have a fresh article soon for term life Canada and another one as well which touches this topic.