Barb_ Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 New bill would require Americans to comply with genetic testing or face penalties. I have serious reservations about any company's ability to store or utilize the information in a way that is fair to the employee. I also wonder why they would think they need it? There is a 50% insurance rate hike associated with a refusal to comply, but as yet no penalty for "failing" the genetic test. What if I don't want to know what sorts of potential trouble is lurking in my DNA? Thoughts? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 highly disturbing 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displace Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Plus it's not in accordance with the genetic non discrimination act of 2008. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Link? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowbeltmom Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 New bill would require Americans to comply with genetic testing or face penalties. I have serious reservations about any company's ability to store or utilize the information in a way that is fair to the employee. I also wonder why they would think they need it? There is a 50% insurance rate hike associated with a refusal to comply, but as yet no penalty for "failing" the genetic test. What if I don't want to know what sorts of potential trouble is lurking in my DNA? Thoughts? Wow. This is wrong on so many levels it is mindboggling to me. I can see this info being very useful to both the employer and the insurance company: If the employer required genetic testing as part of the hiring process, the employer could simply not hire a person that they thought would have health problems down the road. Insurance companies could use this info and charge the individual more knowing that the individual was genetically pre-disposed to certain health issues later in life. This bill is a huge invasion of privacy, and I will be shocked if it passes. Unfortunately, I have been shocked quite a bit lately. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowbeltmom Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Link? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk The bill, Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act, HR 1313, was introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx, (R-N.C.), who chairs the Committee on Education and the Workforce. A committee statement said the bill provides employers “the legal certainty they need to offer employee wellness plans, helping to promote a healthy workforce and lower health care costs.†It passed on a party-line vote, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/03/11/employees-who-decline-genetic-testing-could-face-penalities-under-proposed-bill/?utm_term=.d116bc18a39f 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displace Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/03/11/employees-who-decline-genetic-testing-could-face-penalities-under-proposed-bill/ Washington post news article above. https://www.genome.gov/10002328/ Genetic nondiscrimination act of 2008 above ETA - beaten by faster people Edited March 12, 2017 by displace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted March 12, 2017 Author Share Posted March 12, 2017 Also http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/11/gop-sponsored-bill-may-help-companies-obtain-your-genetic-information.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Wow. This is wrong on so many levels it is mindboggling to me. I can see this info being very useful to both the employer and the insurance company: If the employer required genetic testing as part of the hiring process, the employer could simply not hire a person that they thought would have health problems down the road. Insurance companies could use this info and charge the individual more knowing that the individual was genetically pre-disposed to certain health issues later in life. This bill is a huge invasion of privacy, and I will be shocked if it passes. Unfortunately, I have been shocked quite a bit lately. Yeah, are we really THERE yet with genetic testing? Where we know 100% someone will get XYZ condition based on a genetic test? I don't think so. This could open up all kinds of discrimination. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displace Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 How would it work if a bill passed that was opposed to a prior bill? Doesn't the first one have to be stopped first? Can there be two opposing laws? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted March 12, 2017 Author Share Posted March 12, 2017 Plus it's not in accordance with the genetic non discrimination act of 2008. That's in the bill, but I'm having trouble understanding how they don't conflict. Why require the test if you aren't going to use the information? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted March 12, 2017 Author Share Posted March 12, 2017 How would it work if a bill passed that was opposed to a prior bill? Doesn't the first one have to be stopped first? Can there be two opposing laws? That's a great question. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowbeltmom Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 "A committee statement said the bill provides employers “the legal certainty they need to offer employee wellness plans, helping to promote a healthy workforce and lower health care costs​" In other words, the bill provides employers the "legal certainty" they need to hire only those workers without genetic markers for disease, helping the employer to ensure a healthy workforce, thereby helping to keep their health care costs as low as possible. Potential employees genetically predisposed to health issues that will cost the employer more in health care costs will have a difficult time finding a job. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monica_in_Switzerland Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Welcome to GATACA! Fun movie, terrible idea. 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 "A committee statement said the bill provides employers “the legal certainty they need to offer employee wellness plans, helping to promote a healthy workforce and lower health care costs​" In other words, the bill provides employers the "legal certainty" they need to hire only those workers without genetic markers for disease, helping the employer to ensure a healthy workforce, thereby helping to keep their health care costs as low as possible. Potential employees genetically predisposed to health issues that will cost the employer more in health care costs will have a difficult time finding a job. Yes and if we want to approach this idea from a cold bottom line economic stance what will this then mean? Someone with too many markers would be rendered disabled? And need assistance? What kind of dumb arse idea is this?! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displace Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Yeah, are we really THERE yet with genetic testing? Where we know 100% someone will get XYZ condition based on a genetic test? I don't think so. This could open up all kinds of discrimination. I would say Insurances would definitely use the info to raise premiums. If my risk of cancer is 50% or higher based on genetics (vs 10%), that's significant. If they find mutations that are genetic, they could think about my children and family members. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 I would say Insurances would definitely use the info to raise premiums. If my risk of cancer is 50% or higher based on genetics (vs 10%), that's significant. If they find mutations that are genetic, they could think about my children and family members. Yes they'd use it any which way they could to justify jacking up your share of the cost, but it's still no guarantee you'd ever get cancer. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted March 12, 2017 Author Share Posted March 12, 2017 And again, how would they store the information? They can't even keep credit card numbers safe. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monica_in_Switzerland Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Yes and if we want to approach this idea from a cold bottom line economic stance what will this then mean? Someone with too many markers would be rendered disabled? And need assistance? What kind of dumb arse idea is this?! I think this is just a tricky way of going about eugenics. We'll build the aryan race by simply making it impossible for people with any sort of bad genetic markers to function in society. We're already discriminating against people based on genetics pre-birth, why not post-birth as well? /end rant 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displace Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) That's in the bill, but I'm having trouble understanding how they don't conflict. Why require the test if you aren't going to use the information? I think the GINA law now prevents insurance from even seeing results (keeping information only for physicians). The new law would conflict with that but I'm not up on specifics. Edited March 12, 2017 by displace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joules Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 This is such a terrible idea, but I'm sure it will be pushed right through. I was wondering about pregnancy coverage this morning. If you and your spouse show the possibility of an inherited genetic problem, could they refuse to cover the pregnancy? It sure would save money to not have to cover babies with health problems, but that is just all kind of wrong! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displace Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 This is such a terrible idea, but I'm sure it will be pushed right through. I was wondering about pregnancy coverage this morning. If you and your spouse show the possibility of an inherited genetic problem, could they refuse to cover the pregnancy? It sure would save money to not have to cover babies with health problems, but that is just all kind of wrong! Not to mention everyone is a carrier of diseases that we know about. I'm all for testing to know risks of parents wrt their kids, but to have insurance know this info? Not a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 My understanding (and belief) is that at this time, the House is planning to do this with 3 different bills, because of the Rules of the House and/or the Constitution. The first Bill will only be regarding some Financial things. After that goes to the Senate, they will kick it back and forth (between the chambers?), and probably make many many changes. Then, later in the year, there will be 2 other Bills, that deal with things like what this thread brought up, which I had not heard about, until reading the first post here. I think many people are going to be surprised, because most people in the USA receive Health insurance from their employer, and those plans have had, until now, enormous tax advantages. That's a huge number of people. ObamaCare is an Entitlement and once an Entitlement has been granted, it would be incredibly unpopular to take away the Entitlement. Impossible. They cannot end the Entitlement and that is not being considered. The new plan with have Entitlement, by granting Tax Credits or something. They will probably begin including the Health Insurance benefits of people who receive insurance from their employers, or part of the value of the benefits, because those people are getting a free ride, up to now. That will slightly increase the income tax people with employer provided health insurance pay. This will involve a huge amount of anger, on both sides of the aisle, and among the people on each side of the aisle. There are no easy answers to complex issues. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted March 12, 2017 Author Share Posted March 12, 2017 I think the GINA law now prevents insurance from even seeing results (keeping information only for physicians). The new law would conflict with that but I'm not up on specifics. According to the National Law Review, GINA wouldn't apply to hr1313: "Currently, employers are prohibited and restricted from asking to collect genetic information from employees under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINAâ€), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADAâ€) and other state laws. The bill specifically states that GINA and other protections will not apply to genetic testing conducted under a workplace wellness program or a program relating to health promotion or disease prevention." http://www.natlawreview.com/article/house-committee-passes-hr-1313-allowing-employers-to-collect-genetic-information 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 I think this is just a tricky way of going about eugenics. We'll build the aryan race by simply making it impossible for people with any sort of bad genetic markers to function in society. We're already discriminating against people based on genetics pre-birth, why not post-birth as well? /end rant Ding ding ding, we have a winner. That's the only reason I can figure out for this awful, awful piece of legislation. Ugh. Double triple quadruple ugh. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted March 12, 2017 Author Share Posted March 12, 2017 Ah. Because DNA collection under this bill is technically voluntary, conflicting laws and protections don't apply. You have a choice to forgo the testing and pay the penalty, sort of like tying educational dollars to mandates a la NCLB or common core. Voluntary, but not really. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 My understanding (and belief) is that at this time, the House is planning to do this with 3 different bills, because of the Rules of the House and/or the Constitution. The first Bill will only be regarding some Financial things. After that goes to the Senate, they will kick it back and forth (between the chambers?), and probably make many many changes. Then, later in the year, there will be 2 other Bills, that deal with things like what this thread brought up, which I had not heard about, until reading the first post here. I think many people are going to be surprised, because most people in the USA receive Health insurance from their employer, and those plans have had, until now, enormous tax advantages. That's a huge number of people. ObamaCare is an Entitlement and once an Entitlement has been granted, it would be incredibly unpopular to take away the Entitlement. Impossible. They cannot end the Entitlement and that is not being considered. The new plan with have Entitlement, by granting Tax Credits or something. They will probably begin including the Health Insurance benefits of people who receive insurance from their employers, or part of the value of the benefits, because those people are getting a free ride, up to now. That will slightly increase the income tax people with employer provided health insurance pay. This will involve a huge amount of anger, on both sides of the aisle, and among the people on each side of the aisle. There are no easy answers to complex issues. The legislation being discussed in this thread isn't related (or at least not directly) to the ACA or its proposed replacement. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) It's a terrible idea, especially since genetics aren't destiny - The expression of those genes in an individual is still something we don't understanding well at all. That doesn't even get into the moral and discrimination issues. No. No no. Bad congress, no biscuit. Edited March 12, 2017 by Arctic Mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displace Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 The whole proposed bill has me stressed :(. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted March 12, 2017 Author Share Posted March 12, 2017 Here is a link to the contact form for the Ways and Means Committee where the bill is currently headed. You can voice your concerns here: https://waysandmeans.house.gov/contact/ Also, the phone contact is at the bottom. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) And this isn't even getting into how I feel about how employers shouldn't have a damn thing to do with "wellness programs" anyways. When the bleep bleep bleeping are we ever going to ditch tying healthcare to employers, whose business it is not and should not be, and have a universal healthcare program? Why the heck aren't there riots in the streets about universal healthcare already?! Edited March 12, 2017 by Murphy101 26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 That's the only reason I can figure out for this awful, awful piece of legislation. Could be. But the first thing that came to my mind was that this is typical unrestrained capitalism: the profits of employers and big business always outweigh the needs and rights of employees and little guys. That's the American way! 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 And this isn't even getting into how I feel about how employers shouldn't have a damn thing to do with "wellness programs" anyways. When the bleep bleep bleeping are we ever going to ditch tying healthcare to employers, whose business it is not and should not be, and have a universal healthcare program? Why the heck aren't their riots in the streets about universal healthcare already?! :iagree: :iagree: :iagree: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 I can not even begin to enumerate all of the objections I have to this POS legislation. So wrong, on so many different levels. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam in CT Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 It's a terrible idea, especially since genetics aren't destiny - The expression of those genes in an individual is still something we don't understanding well at all. That doesn't even get into the moral and discrimination issues. No. No no. Bad congress, no biscuit. :lol: I've yet to try that particular approach with my legislators. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 How would it work if a bill passed that was opposed to a prior bill? Doesn't the first one have to be stopped first? Can there be two opposing laws? Hasn't stopped them before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam in CT Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 The American Society for Human Genetics (non-partisan major professional organization working with genetic issues) has written to the House Subcommittee that passed the bill expressing their concerns with it: If enacted into law, however, H.R.1313 would effectively repeal the fundamental genetic and health privacy protections in GINA and the ADA. It would allow workplace wellness programs to ask employees questions about genetic tests taken by themselves or their families, and to make inquiries about the medical history of employees, their spouses, their children, and other family members. GINA’s requirement that employees’ genetic information collected as part of a wellness plan only be shared with health care professionals would no longer apply. It would further permit workplace wellness programs to penalize much more severely employees who wish to keep their genetic and health information private, allowing penalties of up to 30 percent of the total cost of an employee’s health insurance...Penalties of this magnitude would compel Americans to choose between retaining the privacy of their health and genetic information and accessing affordable health insurance. ASHG urges the committee not to move forward with consideration of H.R.1313. The Society instead encourages the committee to pursue measures that encourage workplace wellness programs and foster employee health without undermining Americans’ civil rights. The bill is now under review in three House Committees: the full House Education and the Workforce (chaired by Virginia Foxx R-NC who initiated the bill); House Energy and Commerce (chaired by Greg Walden R-OR;) and House Ways and Means (chaired by Kevin Brady R-TX). Typically when bills are sent through multiple committees simultaneously it is because their sponsors wish to "fast-track" them. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HollyDay Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 wow!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbutton Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 :scared: No words. On a side note, Lanny, are they talking about taxing employer-sponsored benefits? I assume that is what you've meant about a free ride. I am all for leveling the playing field on the tax issue with healthcare, but by making individual plans completely tax deductible, not by taxing employer plans. I think all medical costs, including premiums, should be 100% tax deductible. They already raised the threshold on how much you have to spend to get a tax break several years ago. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outdoorsy Type Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 It sounds like the employers want to take current employees and get cheaper coverage if none have certain markers. Too much to lose with that going wrong, and I agree that it shouldn't be the employers business. Boo. 👎🻠1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janeway Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 That is extremely beyond extremely disturbing. And on that note..when people started thinking it was ok for employers to require vaccinations, that was just yet another step toward taking away the freedom to control our own bodies. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) Would they be able to make your dependents volunteer for the tests with this wellness accountability crap, too? I'm usually good at the legalese, but I'm sick and can't make heads nor tails today. Edited March 12, 2017 by OKBud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 That is extremely beyond extremely disturbing. And on that note..when people started thinking it was ok for employers to require vaccinations, that was just yet another step toward taking away the freedom to control our own bodies. Vaccinations are a different issue as the refusal to vaccinate can impact more than the health of the employee. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam in CT Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Would they be able to make your dependents "volunteer" for the tests with this wellness accountability crap, too? I'm usually good at the legalese, but I'm sick and can't make heads nor tails today. No legal training here, but at face value this would appear to be the relevant bit of the text of the bill: ...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). which -- once the double negatives are netted out -- sounds to me like, yes, the medical information of family members covered by employers' insurance could indeed be "volunteered" as well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowbeltmom Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Would they be able to make your dependents volunteer for the tests with this wellness accountability crap, too? I'm usually good at the legalese, but I'm sick and can't make heads nor tails today. According to the info Pam in CT posted, the answer to your question is yes,employers would be able to require their employees' dependents to "volunteer" to have their privacy invaded. I still can wrap my head around the fact that a bill that is an obvious violation of our civil rights was even drafted, let alone approved by some of our elected officials. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 I cannot even kind of vaguely imagine how having an employee's genetic info is relevant to employee wellness programs, which generally emphasize healthy eating and exercise. Some diseases that have genetic markers (though not 100% chance of getting it) such as Alzheimer's, have no cure. Doctors often advise against getting tested even at a personal, private level because of the downsides of how people can react to the information. To require genetic testing is coo-coo. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdj2027 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 I don't have time right now to read through the links carefully but I have to wonder how this would affect federal employees and the military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butter Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 The fact that it says "manifested disease or disorder" makes me think (this bill at least) is not about genetic markers, but rather about things that people actually have been diagnosed with. As far as I can tell there is nothing about blood testing. That would be utterly terrifying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowbeltmom Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 The fact that it says "manifested disease or disorder" makes me think (this bill at least) is not about genetic markers, but rather about things that people actually have been diagnosed with. As far as I can tell there is nothing about blood testing. That would be utterly terrifying. The Washington Post article mentions employees who discover they have high cholesterol will be able to take steps to make healthy life style choices. When I have had my cholesterol checked, a blood test has always been required. It has been a few years since I have had my cholesterol checked though, is there now a way to get cholesterol numbers without a blood test? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted March 12, 2017 Author Share Posted March 12, 2017 The fact that it says "manifested disease or disorder" makes me think (this bill at least) is not about genetic markers, but rather about things that people actually have been diagnosed with. As far as I can tell there is nothing about blood testing. That would be utterly terrifying. This article explains that by writing in the exception that ALL wellness programs would automatically be in compliance with GINA, they have in effect given themselves permission to collect data in any way they desire, including blood or saliva. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/245707-new-gop-bill-lets-companies-force-take-genetic-tests-share-results 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.