We already have no say about how your health info is shared by data brokers share among 8000+ healthcare entities, ie: see how you are exploited at: thedatamap.org
It looks like Comey wasn't kidding when he said matter of factly: "Americans have no Absolute data privacy".
Happy fishbowl everyone...
WHO introduced that bill?
They need to be flogged....................
We have a lot of swamp to drain. Praying for it and fighting for it.
This is the end result when governments force employers to pay insurance premiums. Sooner or later, the payees are going to want to reduce their costs and if genetic testing helps them do it, then...
This is total BULL EXCREMENT. Something to get around the “pre-existing conditions” proviso of any Obamacare REPLACEMENT bill. This would also be like what the grocery stores, and other businesses do now by setting you up with some kind of “loyalty account” so they CAN SELL YOUR PURCHASE INFORMATION to whomever.
Privacy is under full attack for the benefit of people other than yourself.
The “good guys”, the Republicans.
The Uniparty has menaced this country for far too long.
That’s just wrong, if it’s true. The phonies who lied to get elected just can’t help themselves, trying to sneak in everything they can to appease their paymasters.
GOP Inc are a bunch of pure, smirking asshats that have to go as much as the Democrats need to go.
We need some verify here. Who exactly is Statnews?
I’m fine with this as long as the bosses have to show their DNA results to the employees.
I’m pretty sure some of my bosses were monkeys. And the slow ones at that.
(b) Collection of information.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member shall not be considered an unlawful acquisition of genetic information with respect to another family member as part of a workplace wellness program described in paragraph (1) or (2) offered by an employer (or in conjunction with an employer-sponsored health plan described in section 2705(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j))) and shall not violate title I or title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–233). For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term “family member” has the meaning given such term in section 201 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (Public Law 110–233).
(c) Rule of construction.—Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer that is offering a wellness program to an employee from requiring such employee, within 45 days from the date the employee first has an opportunity to earn a reward, to request a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard). Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer from imposing a reasonable time period, based upon all the facts and circumstances, during which the employee must complete the reasonable alternative standard. Such a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard) is provided for in section 2705(j)(3)(D) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300 gg–4(j)(3)(D)) (and any regulations promulgated with respect to such section by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary of the Treasury).
Text - H.R.1313 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313/text
Congress.gov
Sign In
Quick Search
Advanced Search
Browse
Print Subscribe Share/Save Give Feedback
H.R.1313 - Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act115th Congress (2017-2018) | Get alerts
BillHide Overview icon-hide
Sponsor: Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5] (Introduced 03/02/2017)
Committees: House - Education and the Workforce; Energy and Commerce; Ways and Means
Latest Action: 03/02/2017 Referred to House Ways and Means (All Actions)
Tracker:
This bill has the status Introduced
Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:
Introduced
Passed House
Passed Senate
To President
Became Law
CBO Cost Estimates [0]
Subject — Policy Area:
Health
View subjects
Go to:
Text: H.R.1313 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)
All Bill Information (Except Text)
There is one version of the bill.
Text available as:
XML/HTMLXML/HTML (new window)TXTPDF (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (03/02/2017)
115th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1313
To clarify rules relating to nondiscriminatory workplace wellness programs.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 2, 2017
Ms. Foxx (for herself and Mr. Walberg) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To clarify rules relating to nondiscriminatory workplace wellness programs.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act”.
SEC. 2. Findings.
Congress finds that—
(1) Congress has a strong tradition of protecting and preserving employee workplace wellness programs, including programs that utilize a health risk assessment, biometric screening, or other resources to inform and empower employees in making healthier lifestyle choices;
(2) health promotion and prevention programs are a means to reduce the burden of chronic illness, improve health, and limit the growth of health care costs;
(3) in enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), Congress intended that employers would be permitted to implement health promotion and prevention programs that provide incentives, rewards, rebates, surcharges, penalties, or other inducements related to wellness programs, including rewards of up to 50 percent off of insurance premiums for employees participating in programs designed to encourage healthier lifestyle choices; and
(4) Congress has struck an appropriate balance among employees, health care providers, and wellness plan sponsors to protect individual privacy and confidentiality in a wellness program which is designed to improve health outcomes.
SEC. 3. Nondiscriminatory workplace wellness programs.
(a) Uniformity across Federal agencies.—
(1) PROGRAMS OFFERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH PLAN.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, workplace wellness programs and programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer in conjunction with an employer-sponsored health plan that meet the requirements set forth in subparagraph (B) shall be considered to be in compliance with—
(i) the acceptable examinations and inquiries set forth in section 102(d)(4)(B) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(B));
(ii) section 2705(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(d)); and
(iii) section 202(b)(2) of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff–1(b)(2)).
(B) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.—The requirements referenced in subparagraph (A) are that—
(i) the programs described in such subparagraph comply with section 2705(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j));
(ii) any reward provided or offered by a program described in such subparagraph shall be less than or equal to the maximum reward amounts provided for by section 2705(j)(3)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)(3)(A)), regardless of whether such programs are otherwise subject to such limitations; and
(iii) the programs described in such subparagraph comply with any regulations promulgated with respect to section 2705(j) of such Act by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary of the Treasury.
(C) SAFE HARBOR.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, section 501(c)(2) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12201(c)(2)) shall apply to workplace wellness programs or programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer in conjunction with an employer-sponsored health plan.
(2) OTHER PROGRAMS OFFERING MORE FAVORABLE TREATMENT FOR ADVERSE HEALTH FACTORS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, workplace wellness programs and programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer that provide for more favorable treatment of individuals with adverse health factors as described in 45 CFR 146.121(g) (or any successor regulations) shall be considered to be in compliance with—
(A) the acceptable examinations and inquiries set forth in section 102(d)(4)(B) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(B));
(B) section 2705(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(d)); and
(C) section 202(b)(2) of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff–1(b)(2)).
(3) PROGRAMS NOT OFFERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH PLAN.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, workplace wellness programs and programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer that are not offered in conjunction with an employer-sponsored health plan that are not described in section 2705(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)) that meet the requirement set forth in subparagraph (B) shall be considered to be in compliance with—
(i) the acceptable examinations and inquiries as set forth in section 102(d)(4)(B) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(B));
(ii) section 2705(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(d)); and
(iii) section 202(b)(2) of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff–1(b)(2)).
(B) LIMITATION ON REWARDS.—The requirement referenced in subparagraph (A) is that any reward provided or offered by a program described in such subparagraph shall be less than or equal to the maximum reward amounts provided for by section 2705(j)(3)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)(3)(A)), and any regulations promulgated with respect to such section by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary of the Treasury.
(b) Collection of information.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member shall not be considered an unlawful acquisition of genetic information with respect to another family member as part of a workplace wellness program described in paragraph (1) or (2) offered by an employer (or in conjunction with an employer-sponsored health plan described in section 2705(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j))) and shall not violate title I or title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–233). For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term “family member” has the meaning given such term in section 201 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (Public Law 110–233).
(c) Rule of construction.—Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer that is offering a wellness program to an employee from requiring such employee, within 45 days from the date the employee first has an opportunity to earn a reward, to request a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard). Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer from imposing a reasonable time period, based upon all the facts and circumstances, during which the employee must complete the reasonable alternative standard. Such a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard) is provided for in section 2705(j)(3)(D) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300 gg–4(j)(3)(D)) (and any regulations promulgated with respect to such section by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary of the Treasury).
Congress.gov
Site Content
Legislation
Congressional Record
Congressional Record Index
Members
Committees
Committee Reports
Nominations
Treaty Documents
Executive Communications
Legislative Process
About Congress.gov
Rino’s need to go down worse than the liberals. They’re traitors within our party.
Uniparty fascism at its most obvious here.
Now, if they only were allowed to request it to compare with the (supposedly on the way) new biometric visa program, to make sure its directed at Non-Citizens, then MAYBE it would be marginally acceptable. If not, it's just another nationalized healthcare step towards government rules on who gets treated or not; who lives and who dies.
Sheesh! With R friends like these, who needs an enemy???
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
This is a state power issue.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
I see this from the other side. If you work for me and the law requires me to pay for your medical insurance, you can be damn sure that I want to know about all your defects.
That’s our good old GOP totalitarians. We leave the revolutionary socialist world, and step into corporate mercantile authoritarianism.
Google and Facebook will quickly offer to buy all the DNA results from employers, who can then legally require it of you. They build a giant national DNA database.
Awesome work guys./s
Just ... hell NO!
Well, the “trick” is to get the employer out of the business of defining and supplying health insurance plans for their employees, even if employers keep some commitment to making contributions paying something on the premiums of the private health insurance that the employee chooses.
That removes the risk the employer takes when they take on backing or managing a single health insurance plan just for their employees. Their risk is reduced to just whatever contribution they committed to paying for the private insurance plan the employee chose. The premiums and performance of that insurance plan are not of any risk concern to the employer, and therefor they have no need to question any employee conditions that may contribute to the costs that plan might incur.
However, that would not dispel any legitimacy of private insurance plans from asking the same questions that people think their employers should not be asking.
It is more and more being understood that genetic factors are landmarks to a range of possible medical problems as well as how well different medications do and do not work 100% the same with everyone. Why would an insurance company not want to know that information. EVERYTHING in planning for insurance risks and what it will cost IS about statistical probabilities, not anecdotal cases that don’t fit a statistical norm. No one who plots that and the dollars involved knows you personally, and because they know you personally sets your insurance premium rate. What they do know is what you represent, statistically, and it is statistics and history of claims, not you personally, that are used to determine insurance premiums.
The foundational problem here is the employer being made responsible to provide for the enployees health. The desire to know health information about the employee springs from it. Bad policy begets problems that demand more bad policy.
It should come as no surprise when Big Government genuflects before their corporate paymasters.