Posted on 03/10/2017 8:10:21 AM PST by MarchonDC09122009
House GOP would let employers demand workers' genetic test results
https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/10/workplace-wellness-genetic-testing/
House Republicans would let employers demand workers’ genetic test results
By Sharon Begley @sxbegle
March 10, 2017
A little-noticed bill moving through Congress would allow companies to require employees to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars, and would let employers see that genetic and other health information.
Giving employers such power is now prohibited by legislation including the 2008 genetic privacy and nondiscrimination law known as GINA. The new bill gets around that landmark law by stating explicitly that GINA and other protections do not apply when genetic tests are part of a “workplace wellness” program.
The bill, HR 1313, was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.
“What this bill would do is completely take away the protections of existing laws,” said Jennifer Mathis, director of policy and legal advocacy at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, a civil rights group. In particular, privacy and other protections for genetic and health information in GINA and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act “would be pretty much eviscerated,” she said.
Employers say they need the changes because those two landmark laws are “not aligned in a consistent manner” with laws about workplace wellness programs, as an employer group said in congressional testimony last week.
Top wellness award goes to workplace where many health measures got worse
Employers got virtually everything they wanted for their workplace wellness programs during the Obama administration. The ACA allowed them to charge employees 30 percent, and possibly 50 percent, more for health insurance if they declined to participate in the “voluntary” programs, which typically include cholesterol and other screenings; health questionnaires that ask about personal habits, including plans to get pregnant; and sometimes weight loss and smoking cessation classes. And in rules that Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued last year, a workplace wellness program counts as “voluntary” even if workers have to pay thousands of dollars more in premiums and deductibles if they don’t participate.
Despite those wins, the business community chafed at what it saw as the last obstacles to unfettered implementation of wellness programs: the genetic information and the disabilities laws. Both measures, according to congressional testimony last week by the American Benefits Council, “put at risk the availability and effectiveness of workplace wellness programs,” depriving employees of benefits like “improved health and productivity.” The council represents Fortune 500 companies and other large employers that provide employee benefits. It did not immediately respond to questions about how lack of access to genetic information hampers wellness programs.
Rigorous studies by researchers not tied to the $8 billion wellness industry have shown that the programs improve employee health little if at all. An industry group recently concluded that they save so little on medical costs that, on average, the programs lose money. But employers continue to embrace them, partly as a way to shift more health care costs to workers, including by penalizing them financially.
Do workplace wellness programs improve employees’ health?
The 2008 genetic law prohibits a group health plan — the kind employers have — from asking, let alone requiring, someone to undergo a genetic test. It also prohibits that specifically for “underwriting purposes,” which is where wellness programs come in. “Underwriting purposes” includes basing insurance deductibles, rebates, rewards, or other financial incentives on completing a health risk assessment or health screenings. In addition, any genetic information can be provided to the employer only in a de-identified, aggregated form, rather than in a way that reveals which individual has which genetic profile.
There is a big exception, however: As long as employers make providing genetic information “voluntary,” they can ask employees for it. Under the House bill, none of the protections for health and genetic information provided by GINA or the disabilities law would apply to workplace wellness programs as long as they complied with the ACA’s very limited requirements for the programs. As a result, employers could demand that employees undergo genetic testing and health screenings.
While the information returned to employers would not include workers’ names, it’s not difficult, especially in a small company, to match a genetic profile with the individual.
That “would undermine fundamentally the privacy provisions” of those laws,” said Nancy Cox, president of the American Society of Human Genetics, in a letter to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce the day before it approved the bill. “It would allow employers to ask employees invasive questions about … genetic tests they and their families have undergone” and “to impose stiff financial penalties on employees who choose to keep such information private, thus empowering employers to coerce their employees” into providing their genetic information.
If an employer has a wellness program but does not sponsor health insurance, rather than increasing insurance premiums, the employer could dock the paychecks of workers who don’t participate.
The privacy concerns also arise from how workplace wellness programs work. Employers, especially large ones, generally hire outside companies to run them. These companies are largely unregulated, and they are allowed to see genetic test results with employee names.
They sometimes sell the health information they collect from employees. As a result, employees get unexpected pitches for everything from weight-loss programs to running shoes, thanks to countless strangers poring over their health and genetic information.
Sharon Begley can be reached at sharon.begley@statnews.com Follow Sharon on Twitter @sxbegle
Privacy Policy | Comment Policy Steve March 10, 2017 at 8:18 am I’m sorry, but why do we need someone’s genetic information in order to execute a workplace wellness program? What if the employee is screened and determined to have a variant that has a high likelihood of causing cancer in the near future.
The employer would know that would increase their payouts, so they could find a way to terminate the employee.
There are all sorts of ethical dilemmas that could play out if employers have the genetic information of their employees.
What the hell?
Anyone who cares about freedom would come to work for me with their medical insurance and related issues already in order, without relying on me to pay for them.
You are correct but some genetic traits are so prominent it doesn’t even matter what lifestyle choices you make,you are genetically predisposed to any number of diseases and in fact have those diseases, such as cardiovascular disease.
Do you not understand the concept, that has been what most companies have done for years, where they cover part of your insurance, while taking money out of your check, as part of your benefits package?
You stated that as an employer you would want to know people’s genetic information. Disgusting.
No one has a right to your DNA. Where did you get that idea? I am not giving mine up to anyone. But private persons as either employers or employees can decide that on their own without government intrusion.
I don’t want anyone’s DNA. But I don’t want the government to compel me to pay for their medical insurance, either. If the government forced me to buy an empoyee’s car insurance, don’t you think it would reasonable for me to demand access to their state driving records?
The Hey Moe’s are the real ones behind this. The Kennedy Hey Moe Act should be repealed and the companies put out of business. Take our nation back to true private insurance rather than the Health Care Rationing Hey Moes. But in DC they always have gotten their way due to corruption in both parties.
Really ..!!!
I would never work for someone who made such a demand; a security clearance is bad enough.
No employers can’t. Because they cannot discriminate and withhold benefits based on someone’s race. Therefore they cannot discriminate based on your DNA.
So you think Obamacare should have had this amendment already. Very telling. It’s amazing to me the number of people who claim to be conservative, and are anything but. You can’t withhold benefits based on someone’s race, therefore you cannot discriminate and withhold benefits based on DNA.
Basing your argument on car insurance is ridiculous. I worked in Hospice for years. I had to get a background check and I, not the company, was required to keep insurance. They did check my driving record. They don’t want people who have DUI’s working with patients, which is understandable, because drinking and driving is within my control. My DNA is not.
This also goes against HIPAA. I couldn’t leave nurse notes, or anything else with a pts name on it visible in my car. I kept it turned over/covered because someone can walk by and look into your car. If you accidentally fax that pt A takes laxatives to the wrong fax number you had to write up a report on yourself because you violated HIPAA. And you think employers knowing your DNA is ok? You don’t understand what your saying. I saw where someone else posted that there DNA was perfect. Laughable.
1. Do you think the government should have the power to force me to offer any benefits to my employees?
2. If you answer "Yes," then are YOU really a conservative?
Anyone who cares about freedom would come to work for me with their medical insurance and related issues already in order, without relying on me to pay for them.
~~ I did not see that you answered my questions listed post #101 to your post #27 (For what purpose do you “damn sure” want to know? From what I read, the information is supposed to be limited to use in wellness plans...Would you be using it for termination purposes? ~~
So, I will ask you to answer these regarding your post #122:
Are you actually a business owner charged with hiring a large number of employees?
How exactly would it happen that ‘Anyone who cares about freedom would come to work for you with their medical insurance and related issues already in order without relying on you to pay for them.’ Seriously, exactly what do you mean by this?? How would they accomplish this?
For now, it is impossible to buy individual policies at a reasonable cost. So, are you planning on paying substantially more in wages to provide for the increased cost of “Anyone who cares about freedom would come to work for me with their medical insurance and related issues already in order the employee caring about freedom???” If you support freedom loving people, perhaps you should. That is done with consultants—they make a much higher hourly wage than regular employees because they don’t have the benefits...
Or perhaps are you thinking some other employer will pick up the tab of your employee through a spouse?? Or parents policy will pick up the cost for their children’s insurance.
It is easy to say “Anyone who cares about freedom” would do this or that. The reality is far different.
With all due respect, it sounds to me like you would be hiring a lot of temps/consulting employees, H-1B or H-2B visa holders because they are the only ones who would be able to meet your stipulation “would come to work for me with their medical insurance and related issues already in order.”
How does that help Freedom loving US citizens? It doesn’t.
Nor does insisting that “Anyone who cares about freedom would come to work for me with their medical insurance and related issues already in order, without relying on me to pay for them” address the problem that this thread was focusing on—mandatory genetic testing of employees—and if you think it will stop with employees, you are not thinking ahead—employers will want the DNA of spouses and children of employees, doctors will want DNA samples to suggest preemptive lifestyle changes, schools will want DNA to ward off those susceptible to latent conditions, etc. We are heading down a dangerous road not limited to employers.
NO ONE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO ANYONE’S DNA.
No I do not. I don’t think the government should be involved at all. That’s why I hate Ryancare, which is fixing to be Trumpcare if he agrees with this bill, and it sounds like he does. That’s my whole reason for being so angry over this amendment! Republican assholes who think anyone other than you and you Dr have a right to this information. YOU were the one who said if you were an employer you felt you had a right to it. People were managing just fine getting insurance, and paying for it, as part of their benefits package with an employer.
They need to completely repeal Obamacare, allow insurance sales across state lines, and maybe some oversight or law regarding medical professionals, hospitals, etc that charge insurance companies $300 for a Dr visit but charge an individual who self pays $125 for the same visit. I’ll admit I’m not exactly sure the best way to do that because as I said I don’t want government involved. But I do believe insurance companies should be charged the same as self payers, because that contributes to the rising cost of insurance.
http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news/2017/03/08/atlasmd-founder-featured-on-fox-news-program.html
From the article (more at site):
Sean Hannity has talked about this exemplary medical practice in Kansas City. It is part of what is called the “Direct Care Movement.” Makes me want to move there! Why President Trump is not consulting this guy is beyond me!
Dr. Josh Umbehr continues to garner national attention for his insurance-free approach to medicine.
Umbehr, the founder of Wichita-based AtlasMD, was a guest on the Fox News program The Sean Hannity Show Tuesday evening to discuss the business and how it can be used to drive change within health care.
Umbehr said direct primary care provides real solutions that could be enacted to help Americans and drive down health care costs.
“We don’t take insurance,” Umbehr said on the program.” “We don’t need insurance for the common things.”
At Atlas, patients pay a monthly membership fee — from $10 to $100 per month. Members have access to doctors in person, by phone or through social media channels.
Patients don’t pay co-pays and aren’t charged extra for office visits. Medications typically cost “pennies on the pill,” Umbehr told Hannity.
Imaging often is done at a lower cost through the Atlas model as well.
Umbehr said an X-ray, for example, might cost an Atlas member $20 to $40 including radiology reads versus $100 or so at other clinics. Similar services might cost $500 to $1,000 through a hospital emergency room, Umbehr said.
Hannity, who long has been a supporter of Umbehr and his business, said the doctor is a person whom everyone in Congress should know.
Yes, it is insane.
> Time to alter or abolish fedgov.
I rather destroy the organizations that have a stranglehold on our governments - the Democrat and Republican parties are our mortal enemies. Too many are caught up in the my-team-your-team nonsense to realize D & R have a common agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.