I've read a lot of benefits stories over the years - including ones involving employees sexting with company phones or gaming the system through loopholes in the Family and Medical Leave Act - where I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry.
An email I received recently from a colleague falls into the same category. After reading a story in EBN's e-newsletter inBrief about government anti-smoking incentives, he wrote to ironically point out:
"My cousin from England receives a monthly enhanced 'smoker's' pension ... a higher pension than a non-smoker. The actuaries in England figure that a person can be paid a higher pension since the person won't be living as long - true actuarial mathematical logic! From time to time, they ask him to confirm that he's still smoking. I'm sure that would go over just peachy here in the USA!"
I did some digging, and in fact, it's true: Brits who smoke - as well as those who are overweight, have high blood pressure, high cholesterol and other health risks - receive anywhere from a 7% to 16% higher annuity in retirement income than those with good health.
The reason is just as my colleague explained it: Insurers are betting those people will die sooner. In fact, according to a BBC article on the topic, married pensioners could see their overall annuity decrease if one spouse smokes and the other is in good health, thus encouraging couples to hook up then light up. And if you beat the odds by smoking and live to old age - ka-ching!
Un. Be. Lieveable.
I dismissed the notion as just Brits being backward when it comes to wellness. That is, until I read Associate Editor Tristan Lejeune's report that made me think we have it a bit backward ourselves here at home. In his story, "Smoke free? Not so fast" (page 10), legal and health experts tell EBN that in some states, legislation elevates smokers to protected status - similar to protections offered to gender, pregnancy and ethnicity that prohibit employment discrimination.
Some 29 states, in fact, have so-called "lifestyle laws" that protect smokers' rights. As Chris Bostic, deputy director for policy at Action on Smoking and Health, tells EBN, "You can [legally opt to] not hire someone because they're blonde in most places ... [but] you can't take smoking into account with promotions, hiring and firing. They have specifically legislated to raise smokers to that same level of protection."
What the ... ? Guess I need to get off my high horse about judging British pension policy now.
Send letters, queries and story ideas to Editor-in-Chief Kelley M. Butler at
