Hotel owner dumps health insurance and starts his own onsite medical clinic for employees..

http://www.azfamily.com/news/health/Hotel-owner-cuts-health-insurance-costs-with-onsite-medical-clinic-for-employees-73740887.html

At the Rosen Hotels Health Clinic in Orlando, Fla., there's no such thing as “No vacancy.” It's located inside a hotel and run by the hotel's owner, Harris Rosen, who started the clinic 18 years ago to see if he could cover all of his employees and save money.

“There is an apprehension, a fear, an anxiety on the part of most employers to step into an area they know very little about,” Rosen said. “But we did it, and at a cost that's a fraction of what the national averages are. Why? We emphasize wellness.”

Rosen dumped his insurance company, hired his own doctors, nurses and support staff -- all of it at little cost to his employees. But there's a catch.

“If you smoke, you can't work for me,” Rosen said.

The employees have to follow Rosen's rules or risk losing their coverage. Smokers have to quit, heavy-set workers have to go on weight loss programs, and so on.

“So, there is a bit of Big Brother looking over to make sure that you're following the regimen,” Rosen added. “I don't like that very much because I'm not much of a fan of Big Brother -- any Big Brother. But I am .”

Chris Teague -- the assistant manager at one of Rosen's hotels -- lost a hundred pounds with the clinic's help.

“It's changed my life dramatically,” he said.

The clinic's approach does have its critics who say it's an invasion of privacy.

“The idea of providing wellness care is wonderful,” said trial attorney Jeffrey Bloom. “But, if I choose not to go to follow up care with a doctor, that's my decision.”

But it's not the critics who worry Rosen; it's Congress. You'd think with the system Harris Rosen has put in place he'd be a big fan of Democratic plans for health care reform. But the message at this health care hotel is quite the opposite; it’s” Do not disturb.”

Under the Democratic proposals in Congress, Rosen says he'd save money by shutting down his clinic, forcing his employees into a public plan, and paying a government imposed penalty.

“I'd hate to close this facility down,” Rosen said. “It means so much to all of us.”

Including Rosen, who seems to enjoy providing health care more than he likes running the fanciest of his seven hotels.

“Some of my friends will probably not be happy with what I'm about to say,” Rosen said, “but I do believe that it's a right.”

Rosen pays $2,400 per employee every year -- less than the national average. He also has an umbrella insurance policy and contracts with specialists and hospitals to provide catastrophic medical care that the clinic can't handle.

his private health care clinic and placing his employees to use the public option.

What he is doing is, in essence, he started his own health care insurance "company", offers his employees a "plan" that only has this one company on it, and it has a very limited number of "in network" providers. And it costs him about $200/month per employee to cover all his employees. He doesn't mention dependents or prescription coverage or expensive (non plan covered) tests, only a "umbrella catastrophic medical care coverage".

But absolutely nothing in any HCIR bill that I've read precludes what he is doing.

It's one thing to have an on-site doctor or nurse for routine or emergency situations (to check for strep, to fix a cut you got on the job). But to replace health insurance (whether private or public) with this has a number of unpleasant side effects:

(1) The privacy issue is real: if a doctor at your workplace clinic determines (rightly or wrongly) that you have a terminal condition, will your boss be told? Ditto for pregnancy, drug problem, cancer or whatever. Job security is at issue here.
(2) Who knows the quality of the medical staff hired, and what is the range of their expertise? Need a pap smear or ob gyn exam? Many women don't want that from a male internist, who is probably not fully qualified in these areas anyway.
(3) If you're overweight, your job should not be at risk. Frankly, neither should it be if you smoke, as long as you don't do it on the job.
(4) Picking your own doctor is a valued perk in this country.

and getting back to paying you to perform a task, the better we will all be..

"(1) The privacy issue is real: if a doctor at your workplace clinic determines (rightly or wrongly) that you have a terminal condition, will your boss be told? Ditto for pregnancy, drug problem, cancer or whatever. Job security is at issue here."

The owner chose an independent way of handling costs with many side benefits as well. Employees made/make a choice of working their or not.


"(2) Who knows the quality of the medical staff hired, and what is the range of their expertise? Need a pap smear or ob gyn exam? Many women don't want that from a male internist, who is probably not fully qualified in these areas anyway."

Nearly all OPs and Gyn=ists were male until the last couple of decades. It is crazy to say they are not qualified. The quality aspect is totally arbitrary - anywhere.


"(3) If you're overweight, your job should not be at risk. Frankly, neither should it be if you smoke, as long as you don't do it on the job."

Again, they chose to work there - they agreed to a stipulation, it's a private business. Airlines have written age, weight, height, etc. regulations into their contracts - for decades and paid employees have the job of enforcing it.

"(4) Picking your own doctor is a valued perk in this country."

They did pick their own doctor - by choosing to work there. I'm sure that the conditions of employment were not told to them after they were hired. They could have had time to check out the reputation of the clinic, it's standing within the laws governing clinics and specific doctors and nurses. Most likely, friends and previous employees provided input as well.

Not all voters choose Repubs or Dems. Some are independents.

The employer chose independency.
The employees chose to go along with it.
It's probably not the only hotel in town. (That's a joke, if it's Orlando).

This is an example of freedom the way I see it.

Perhaps you are looking at it from the firing point of view. All employers have rules. I would assume that a significant and appropriate amount of time is spent teaching the employee prospect about the rules, including their monetary contribution, pros and cons, etc.

(1) According to you, employees "make a choice of working their or not." (Well, you would not be working for me at all, since I would refuse to hire anyone who misuses the word "their" for "there.")
With this logic, there would have been no advances in labor standards over the last century: employees would have "chosen" to work at unsafe sweatshops, for 60-hour weeks, in hazardous conditions, with no negotiating powers. Children would have "chosen" to labor in grape fields, where there were no bathrooms or breaks. Chicken farm employees would be getting their hands cut off at will. Seamstresses would be working untold hours in unheated, unsanitary lofts.

I don't THINK so. Workers absolutely should have a say in their working environment, which includes their benefits.

(2) I in no way said there were not qualified male ob-gyns. I said it is doubtful that this company even hired an ob-gyn. And if someone wants to chose a woman doctor, that should be her right.

(3) If your weight or height has no relationship to the job you perform (flight attendants need to get down narrow aisles; accountants, for example, are not impaired in the work they do by being overweight), it should not be a determiner of employment. Even airlines have dropped many of the age, weight restrictions they once placed on their employees, because it was found to be discriminatory.

(4) This is just bullshit.

This is a board for people who hold progressive views, especially on things like labor. Yours is the most shockingly anti-labor post I've ever seen.

I can't follow your rant in #1 at all.

In relation to the core of the op......\

Employers, no matter what their size, get to choose their own rules which are subject to city, county, state, federal laws. If what he is doing is lawful, he has used his freedom and free thinking to create a clinic for his employees.

He should be subject to the same rules as businesses that use a third party insurer for both hiring/firing. Perhaps there is even a higher level of laws that apply to what he is doing.

Based on what was included in the op -

can you think of any laws he may be breaking by owning his own clinic?

Are you concerned that some employer other than him could get around laws or labor principles by owning their own clinic?

I protest against the destruction of unions in DU often - mostly listed in my rants about our being ratcheted down to a second rate country as far as poverty and control including everything related to working. I go ballistic about shipping our jobs, our factories, and the unfair immigration policies that allow a flood of cheaper labor in the IT and medical fields that they try to keep under the radar. I go ballistic about hate shown Mexicans who have come here for decades by the unspoken desire of small to big businesses. This hate first leaped to the recent front because it centered on health - the first rants of the haters was about the high cost of health care because these (inferior) people were being given free health care because they had no insurance and that is why they were paying more. Haters look to their left and right at the workers and not up to the politicians and mega companies that found ways to get rich in the health industry. The stories coming out now about pre-existing condition exclusions and rate increases are not coming from the businesses that use third party insurers - they are coming from third party insurers who created a giant money sucking system for themselves with possible incentives to employers.

I cannot conceive of anything wrong with alternative programs if laws are not being broken.

I don't see discrimination if it is done right. A story on DU a few months ago was about a man who bought out a hotel and introduced and revised policies that demeaned the workers and made their jobs unaffordable. It backfired on him. They walked. With support from the public.

I don't see what the employer in the op is doing wrong.

I replied to your message with opinions and a stance. I didn't insult you. Please leave off your put-downs of me if you choose to reply to this message. The part about the hiring was over the top and sneaked in a superior and insulting way.

'i can't buy into all your saying'- the correct form of the word would be 'you're'.

apparently you don't read too many posts on this board, then.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:nopity: :eyes: :nopity: :eyes:

sheesh...

That takes care of your 1st issue. The article says he also provides insurance for specialists and catastrophic care. Do you have any evidence that male internists are not as qualified as female internists for pap smears or ob gyn exams? Being overweight does put some peoples jobs at risk. No one is stopping his employees from buying private insurance and picking their own physician.

There was a group of doctors who stopped taking insurance and started offering their own payment plan to their patients. I forget where it was but it was wildly popular. But the Department of Insurance said they had to stop because it was a form of insurance and wasn't properly registered and capitalized.

insurance per se does not give health care at all. clinics and doctors do.

Single payer even.

He is paying the nurses and doctors directly. And he has his "pool" of insured, namely his employees. And he is (possibly in violation of discrimination laws) "cherry picking" his pool of those covered by requiring that his employees not smoke and not be overweight. Just like the big guys do.

It's a very small step from what he is doing to him getting a medical checkup and history as a condition of employment (and coverage) and excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions.

Single Payer is like Medicare. There is one payer for all health related services. Medicare is insurance. You can have your doctor or hospital bill Medicare. Medicare is government single payer. You could have someone else be the single payer.

The VA is government run health care. The government hires doctors, nurses, administrators, janitors, lab techs, builds hospitals and clinics and runs everything.

A "VA" for all plan. Paid through income tax (or some other tax base).

Single payer insurance is when independent doctors and hospitals compete for the "single payer's" business (in this case, the government). But they certainly have other patients where some are self insured, some doctors go into the "boutique" medical biz, seeking out patients that want higher quality care than what the single payer plan provides.

Another way to say "single payer" is to say "Medicare for all" EXCEPT that most people that talk about Medicare for all (Thom Hartmann's Medicare part E) what they really mean is Medicare buys the service but the patient pays a premium based on ability to pay, and taxpayers pick up the rest. The old "single payer" was completely tax revenue based. One could argue that the sliding scale premium is really just a new tax instead of increasing the tax rate for the income tax. It's nit-picky at this point, given than neither the old "single payer" nor the new "Medicare part-E" are likely to ever get a vote in the Senate or the House.

What happens if one of his employees needs to be hospitalized? What about chemotherapy? :shrug:

I guess I didn't read carefully. :hi:

"He also has an umbrella insurance policy and contracts with specialists and hospitals to provide catastrophic medical care that the clinic can't handle."