45crittergitter
Member
APS Healthcare, the contracted provider for certain health insurance services provided by the State of Mississippi to its employees, requires that participants complete an online survey concerning their health and lifestyle issues in order to reap the maximum financial benefits from the policy. The survey contains several bogus firearm questions falsely stipulating that possession of firearms makes one more prone to injuries. My letter was as follows:
Mississippi State Firearm Owners Association
“We are the NRA”
October 2, 2007
HealthMedia/APS Healthcare
130 South First St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing in my capacity as Vice President of the Mississippi State Firearm Owners Association and on behalf of all Mississippi residents. It has come to our attention that your company, which is contracted to the State of Mississippi’s employee health care program through Blue Cross/Blue Shield, requires that Mississippi employees complete a “Health Risk Assessment” in order to receive the State’s wellness benefit. One question of the assessment reads as follows:
"Are ALL of the following statements TRUE for you?
I do not possess any firearms.
I do not drink and drive or ride with anyone who has been drinking.
I always wear a seatbelt whenever I am driving or riding in a car.
I drive within 5 mph of the speed limit, or I don't drive at all.
Yes
No"
The electronic assessment will not let one proceed further without answering the question.
The implications of this question are clear, but I will state them for the record:
1)Possession of firearms increases one’s risk of injury
2)Drinking and driving increases one’s risk of injury
3)Wearing a seatbelt when driving or riding in a car decreases one’s risk of injury
4)Driving at any speed other than the posted speed limit + 5 mph increases one’s risk of injury
Also for the record, I will state the errors in the above implications:
1)This is simply a false implication. ALL data on the subject indicates that possession of firearms is associated with LOWER risk of injury or death than nonpossession.
2)At best, this statement is poorly worded, as it does not mention what kind of drink. If apple juice increases risk, so does eating, etc., yet that is not mentioned.
3)Again, this statement is poorly worded. There are off-road and special circumstances which dictate that one unbuckle for safety. Further, it only discusses cars, not vans, SUVs, trucks, etc.
4)False implication. The posted speed limit is a politically dictated rule, sometimes having nothing to do with risk or safety. The logical conclusion of this statement is that driving more than 5 mph below the posted limit during poor driving conditions, such as icy roads, hailstorms, dense fog, heavy slow traffic etc., is somehow more risky than blindly flying down the road at the posted 70 mph (+5 mph) limit.
I am only going to address item (1) above. Sources can be provided. The presumption posed by this question is provably false, as well as addressing an insignificant risk relative to other risks not questioned. Gun ownership is always statistically associated with lower rates of injury and death. For instance, from 1945 to 1990, the number of firearms was up 353%, yet fatal accidents were down 41%. Gun carrying is also so associated, to the tune of some 8.5% fewer murders, 5% fewer rapes and 7% fewer aggravated assaults, with no attendant increase in accidental deaths (less than one more annual death nationwide), when gun carrying is made legal.
There were 900 firearms related accidental fatalities in the U.S. in 1998, (less than 0.4 per 100,000) the lowest number since 1903. This is about the same as for cycling and boating, and about half that of swimming or auto accidents. Accidental poisonings accounted for 9,000 deaths, or ten times that of firearms. However, I found no questions on your assessment about cycles, swimming, boats or poison. Interestingly, the firearms fatality count is less than 1% of the 98,000 Americans who die yearly from medical mistakes made by health care professionals (YOUR BUSINESS), or the 106,000 who similarly die from adverse drug reactions. I didn’t see those questions on the risk assessment either.
Finally and most importantly, the question itself is egregious, offensive and prejudicial. It is what is known in the medical and legal professions as a “boundary violation,” or “off-limits,” as it is no more your (or the State’s) business than what church one attends or what books one reads. To require such information as ransom from State employees while holding hostage their paid-for health care benefits is unconscionable, and we expect that question to be removed prior to the next assessment period beginning on January 1, 2008.
Sincerely,
Vice President
Mississippi State Firearm Owners Association
cc: Governor Haley Barbour
BCBSM State Health Plan
MS DFA
AHS State Network
NRA-ILA
Their response, received this week, included the following statements:
"Thank you for your very passionate and explicit feedback concerning our Health Risk Assessment tool..."
"As such, in the coming year, you and your members will see more flexibility in the ability to respond to questions on sections of the assessment. In regards to your specific concern regarding guns and their link to injury, the State of Mississippi Motivating Mississippi Keys to Healthy Living program has removed those questions from the assessment."
The lesson here is don't take this stuff lying down. Always object, and call a spade a spade. Sometimes we win.
Mississippi State Firearm Owners Association
“We are the NRA”
October 2, 2007
HealthMedia/APS Healthcare
130 South First St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing in my capacity as Vice President of the Mississippi State Firearm Owners Association and on behalf of all Mississippi residents. It has come to our attention that your company, which is contracted to the State of Mississippi’s employee health care program through Blue Cross/Blue Shield, requires that Mississippi employees complete a “Health Risk Assessment” in order to receive the State’s wellness benefit. One question of the assessment reads as follows:
"Are ALL of the following statements TRUE for you?
I do not possess any firearms.
I do not drink and drive or ride with anyone who has been drinking.
I always wear a seatbelt whenever I am driving or riding in a car.
I drive within 5 mph of the speed limit, or I don't drive at all.
Yes
No"
The electronic assessment will not let one proceed further without answering the question.
The implications of this question are clear, but I will state them for the record:
1)Possession of firearms increases one’s risk of injury
2)Drinking and driving increases one’s risk of injury
3)Wearing a seatbelt when driving or riding in a car decreases one’s risk of injury
4)Driving at any speed other than the posted speed limit + 5 mph increases one’s risk of injury
Also for the record, I will state the errors in the above implications:
1)This is simply a false implication. ALL data on the subject indicates that possession of firearms is associated with LOWER risk of injury or death than nonpossession.
2)At best, this statement is poorly worded, as it does not mention what kind of drink. If apple juice increases risk, so does eating, etc., yet that is not mentioned.
3)Again, this statement is poorly worded. There are off-road and special circumstances which dictate that one unbuckle for safety. Further, it only discusses cars, not vans, SUVs, trucks, etc.
4)False implication. The posted speed limit is a politically dictated rule, sometimes having nothing to do with risk or safety. The logical conclusion of this statement is that driving more than 5 mph below the posted limit during poor driving conditions, such as icy roads, hailstorms, dense fog, heavy slow traffic etc., is somehow more risky than blindly flying down the road at the posted 70 mph (+5 mph) limit.
I am only going to address item (1) above. Sources can be provided. The presumption posed by this question is provably false, as well as addressing an insignificant risk relative to other risks not questioned. Gun ownership is always statistically associated with lower rates of injury and death. For instance, from 1945 to 1990, the number of firearms was up 353%, yet fatal accidents were down 41%. Gun carrying is also so associated, to the tune of some 8.5% fewer murders, 5% fewer rapes and 7% fewer aggravated assaults, with no attendant increase in accidental deaths (less than one more annual death nationwide), when gun carrying is made legal.
There were 900 firearms related accidental fatalities in the U.S. in 1998, (less than 0.4 per 100,000) the lowest number since 1903. This is about the same as for cycling and boating, and about half that of swimming or auto accidents. Accidental poisonings accounted for 9,000 deaths, or ten times that of firearms. However, I found no questions on your assessment about cycles, swimming, boats or poison. Interestingly, the firearms fatality count is less than 1% of the 98,000 Americans who die yearly from medical mistakes made by health care professionals (YOUR BUSINESS), or the 106,000 who similarly die from adverse drug reactions. I didn’t see those questions on the risk assessment either.
Finally and most importantly, the question itself is egregious, offensive and prejudicial. It is what is known in the medical and legal professions as a “boundary violation,” or “off-limits,” as it is no more your (or the State’s) business than what church one attends or what books one reads. To require such information as ransom from State employees while holding hostage their paid-for health care benefits is unconscionable, and we expect that question to be removed prior to the next assessment period beginning on January 1, 2008.
Sincerely,
Vice President
Mississippi State Firearm Owners Association
cc: Governor Haley Barbour
BCBSM State Health Plan
MS DFA
AHS State Network
NRA-ILA
Their response, received this week, included the following statements:
"Thank you for your very passionate and explicit feedback concerning our Health Risk Assessment tool..."
"As such, in the coming year, you and your members will see more flexibility in the ability to respond to questions on sections of the assessment. In regards to your specific concern regarding guns and their link to injury, the State of Mississippi Motivating Mississippi Keys to Healthy Living program has removed those questions from the assessment."
The lesson here is don't take this stuff lying down. Always object, and call a spade a spade. Sometimes we win.
