Are you too fat to work at CVS?

Rummaging around the internet, I found out that CVS is making waves by (kind of) requiring employees under their health plan to disclose their weight, body fat, glucose levels, and other health information.  Those who refuse to do so will be required to pay an extra $50 per month for the plan.  So basically you could call it "fat tax" (I always imagined that was coming down the pipe at some point).

CVS justifies this action on several levels.  First, it claims to not be viewing the information itself.  Second, it claims that this policy is no different than what many other companies do (which is actually true.  For example, Whole Foods offers an increased employee discount for being skinny, while other companies invade similar areas regarding health).  Finally, the company claims its goals are to help identify health problems to benefit both the company and the workers.

Privacy groups, obviously, are not thrilled.  Patient Privacy Rights founder Dr. Deborah Peel went so far as to call it "incredibly coercive and invasive" (see above links).  And naturally, there is concern as to whether or not such a rule infringes more on the privacy rights of the poor, as those who are less able to afford the $50 "tax" will be less likely to refuse the screening process.

I'm of two minds on this issue.  The free-market libertarian in me thinks that employers should be able to ask for information like this, as it IS certainly relevant when it comes to company costs (a heartless way to look at employee health, I know).  If you don't want to give it up, the option is available to either quit your job or pay the tax.  As Alonzo Harris told Hoyt in Training Day, it ain't like someone put a gun to your head.

And then, of course, there's the "it's none of your business" side of me, which tends to fly off the handle any time someone is forced against their will to disclose information that is sensitive in nature.  And in a very real way, this is certainly forcing the hand of some people.  As a law student who is a few dollars away from eating dirt, I can testify to the power of $50 a month.  In some cases, this isn't a real choice at all, but a requirement.

At the end of the day we're stuck with a balancing act between employers' rights and something that makes us feel very, very uncomfortable.  It (as in, employers prying into their employees private lives) started years ago with smoking.  Now it's moving onto weight.  Next year is it, "do you have kids?  Yes?  You'll have to pay an extra hundo a month to work here, then."