Smoking and Insurance

I was particularly intrigued when the State of California chose to opt out of the option to have smoker and non-smoker rates for health insurance as allowed by the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). The law allows the insurer to charge smokers up to 50% more than the non-smoker rate.

Our state was influenced by a number of studies that indicated smokers would simply not be insured because of the price differential. With the long term goal of smoking cessation and universal coverage, the state opted for the carrot rather than the stick. Plans include benefits for smoking cessation and no additional cost to the smoker.

Full disclosure: I detest cigarette smoke. I started drawing red rings around my parents’ cigarettes in 1968. I watched my mother die from COPD, fighting air hunger, even though she had quit more than a decade before her death. When cleaning out her place, I offered her oxygen tubing to my “still smoking” siblings, with the comment, “Might as well take it now. You will need it eventually”. That didn’t make me too popular, by the way.

The behavior of big tobacco, who knew full well of the addictive properties of their product, has been no less than unconscionable. To me, this is much the same as big pharma and how they helped to create a nation of opioid addicts. (Another column.)

As a fiscal conservative (also called “cheap”) I could never justify smoking based on cost. In spring 2017 California implemented an additional $2 per pack tax, bringing the cost of a pack from $6-8. A pack-a-day smoker could be paying as much as $3000 per year.

While health insurance companies do not upcharge for smoking, other insurance products do charge according to tobacco risk. Car insurers charge about 5% more, homeowner’s charges can be up to 20% more. Disability income insurance rates increase by 25% for tobacco use.

A recent life insurance case study was of particular interest. A 63 year old male wanted $250,000 of 10 year level term life insurance. The best rate for a healthy non-smoker was in the range of $110 monthly. But as a smoker the lowest possible rate with one carrier is $512 monthly.

After one year tobacco free this gentleman might qualify for a standard life insurance rate of $188, but it would take 5 years tobacco free to get to the best rate class. This is just one carrier, but the concept is clear. Insurance companies see smoking as risky behavior and are going to charge for it.

Actuaries don’t have my prejudice. They work with numbers and statistics. There are no “alternate facts” when it comes to smoking.

If this tobacco using man were to insure his car for $800 year, home $800 year and life ($250,000) as a smoker, the additional insurance costs would be about $5000 ($40+160+4800). Then add the cost of the cheapest brand of cigarettes at $6 per pack-day or $2200 for the year, and it’s up to over $6000 in direct costs to that individual. That doesn’t include the additional costs of carpet and drapery cleaning if you are interested in removing the stench from the home.

It’s important to note that while marijuana is not legal by federal standards, its admitted use is much more common. Insurer ratings are based on a number of factors such as recreational vs. medicinal use and quantity. Much like alcohol, frequent marijuana use negatively impacts rates. Medicinal marijuana is evaluated in relation to the medical diagnosis used to obtain the prescription.

Obviously, cancer diagnoses often result in a decline for life insurance anyway. But sleep disorders, chronic pain or anxiety issues can raise other red flags. So if you have obtained a prescription for what is actually recreational use, be aware that you may find negative effects elsewhere.

California has the second lowest tobacco use rate in the country declining between 1988 and 2014, from 23.7% to 11.6%. So it looks like we must be doing something right with our “sin taxes”. Sadly the highest smoking rates are among those least able to afford it- those below 300% of the Federal Poverty Level. Travel to the Midwest or the south and it becomes glaringly apparent how different we are in California. Non-smokers are reminded of how grateful they are for the fact that California has such strict rules.

Smoking-related illness in the United States costs more than $300 billion each year, including: Nearly $170 billion for direct medical care for adults. More than $156 billion in lost productivity, including $5.6 billion in lost productivity due to secondhand smoke exposure according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In short, smoking is expensive on every level!

Margaret R. Beck
Margaret Beck  CLU, ChFC, CEBS started her insurance practice in Redding in 1978. As an insurance broker/consultant,  she represents businesses and individuals as their advocate.  She assists in choosing proper products, compliance with complex benefit laws and claims issues once coverage is placed. All information in her column is provided to the best of her knowledge, subject to final regulation by the respective agencies. Questions to be answered in this column can be submitted to info@insuranceredding.com. Beck's column is also published in the Redding Record Searchlight.
Comment Policy: We welcome your comments, with some caveats: Please keep your comments positive and civilized. If your comment is critical, please make it constructive. If your comment is rude, we will delete it. If you are constantly negative or a general pest, troll, or hater, we will ban you from the site forever. The definition of terms is left solely up to us. Comments are disabled on articles older than 90 days. Thank you. Carry on.

9 Responses

  1. Beverly Stafford says:

    I read an AARP interview with Jamie Leigh Curtis who said she thought doctors should say to smokers, “Oh, you smoke? Since you don’t care about your health, I won’t treat you.” Leave it to the wisdom of Congress to continue to subsidize tobacco growers when it’s a known killer.

  2. cheyenne says:

    A doctor here in Cheyenne, who volunteers at a free clinic, said it is hard to understand the thinking of a patient who states they can’t afford their prescriptions when they have a pack of cigarettes in their shirt pocket.

  3. Richard Christoph says:

    Thanks for another informative article. In addition to the considerable expense and deleterious effects on one’s health, another point to consider is the sheer number of cigarette butts discarded by careless smokers. They are unsightly trash, difficult to pick up, toxic to wildlife, and responsible for many avoidable wildfires. A 3 cent per butt (60 cent per pack) fully refundable deposit would do much to reverse the environmental degradation caused by their inappropriate disposal.

  4. Grammy says:

    When my Son was an age to want to experiment with smoking, I did what I thought would work to make him never want to smoke.
    And no I didn’t do what my Mother did, give me a cigarette. But in fact it worked because I never smoked.
    I told my Son to calculate the cost of him smoking throughout his lifetime at the rate of one pack a day. Told him that his uncle smoked 1 1/2 a day and his Aunt smoked two packs a day. So he could expect to smoke at least one a day.
    He left and came back a few minutes later, “DAMN do you know what kind of sports car I could buy with that!!!”
    He never smoked or wanted to and changed his friends that did (idiot friend came to our house one day and wanted him to go and buy cigarettes for him. Told him, :Dude I am younger than you are.”
    So against smoking what when I find out a business is selling cigs to underage kids, I report them to the police.
    Whatever it takes stop your kids from wanting to smoke. So disturbing to see minimum wage people outside smoking of fast food places. Or the homeless. Did not know that is the reason they go through the trash, cigarettes! and why they do not stay in shelters. No smoking allowed.

  5. Common Sense says:

    Canadian Insurance Companies do it differently….doubt this will ever happen in the good ol U.S.A….but one can hope! Moderation…that is the key!

    https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/expect-medical-marijuana-to-be-covered-by-benefits-soon-experts-say/article25714205/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

  6. K. Beck says:

    First: It is a addiction. Belittle all the poor people who smoke if you want…seems like a main pastime these days…but an addiction is an addiction. Best not to start smoking at all, but that could be said about all kinds of stuff!

    The tobacco industry is selling vaping as being a health alternative to cigarettes. People are buying it even though the tobacco industry execs lied, under oath, about tobacco in Congressional hearings in 1994 (“I believe that nicotine is not addictive.”-Andrew Tisch, Chairman and CEO, Lorillard Tobacco Company.). I had a discussion with a woman who gave up tobacco cigarettes for E-cigs because vape smoke contains no nicotine. She showed me the label, yep, no nicotine listed.

    Some of the biggest, most widely available e-cigarette brands are owned by tobacco companies. Gee, I wonder why.

    Fool me once shame on you.
    Fool me twice shame on me.

    • Common Sense says:

      Ummm the article I supplied was on Medical MJ?….you know….the one with actual health Benefits….not tobacco….you know…the one that the Government has a Patent on it for the medical benefits of the CBD Patent 6630507…Apples and Oranges…..one has health benefits…the other kills…..any guess which one the Government has a patent on?

  7. Steve Murray says:

    Quit smoking January 1st 1989, and am so grateful to have been able to have done so. I really, really appreciate living in California with our smoking bans in effect; a prime example of how effective government action can be. I quit because the price increased to $1.25 a pack. Thanks for another great article Margaret.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *