I remember when my healthcare facility became a non-smoking institution. Strange to say it now, but there was a time when patients could smoke in their hospital rooms. Older staff members still tell stories of cardio-thoracic surgeons finishing a cigarette outside the patient's room prior to going in. How weird that must have been to be a patient back then and smell cigarette smoke on your doctor or see it in the hallways as you walked with your IV pole to the nurse's station.
Well, nowadays, most hospitals are smoke-free, as are many other organizations and companies. Smoking bans have become a very popular strategy for companies who want to position themselves in a positive light within their community, and more importantly, their health insurance benefit providers. Less smoking means less risk assumed by the insurance company. Less risk means lower premiums. That is good for both the employee and employer.
I see published reports which state that company X reports a 95% compliance with their smoking ban, while company Y reports a 92% compliance. I always wondered if those were very accurate. I mean, after all, everybody wants high compliance so the premiums will stay down. The skeptic in me assumes the compliance rate is probably just over half of the reported, maybe two-thirds, but come on, 90+% compliance rates? No way. I'll eat my hat if those self-reporting rates are close to being realistic.
Well, pass the salt. A new study actually confirms that smoking ban compliance self-reporting is pretty dog-gone accurate. I didn't believe it either, but there it was in black and white. Now they did mention the self-reporting is slightly inflated over actual observed compliance, but not by much.
The authors go on to say that self-reporting is an excellent way to gauge compliance and should be used more frequently. This would alleviate the man hours spent in tier I or II "observation" of employees and make it much more inexpensive to monitor such activities. Hey, everybody wins when the employer saves money.
