Employers requiring genetic testing

[Barb_]

Here are a few more points I hadn't thought of:

 

"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."

 

From this piece:

 

https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/10/workplace-wellness-genetic-testing/

Edited March 12, 2017 by Barb_

[snowbeltmom]

This bill has zilch to do with improving employee wellness, and people are idiots, or worse, if they actually believe it. Look at the path these people are on, the motives are obvious.

Small government? Individual privacy?

:iagree:   Furthermore, employees don't need their employers to dispense advice on healthy lifestyle choices - that's why we all have doctors.

[Butter]

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?

 

You'd have to tell them.  Our insurance company has a wellness thing where we are supposed to answer questions to earn points that are basically meaningless (and so I haven't bothered) and it's supposed to give you ideas on how to improve your health based on your answers to the questions.  I personally fail to see where that sort of thing is remotely useful myself.  I mean, if you have high cholesterol, diagnosed by your doctor, shouldn't your doctor have given you ideas on steps to take?

[Barb_]

Guys, call, mail, fax or email your senators and your congressional reps. Bonus points if you're a registered Republican because right now your opinions will carry greater weight, so be sure to mention that fact.

 

You can find your Rep's info here:

 

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

 

And your Senators:

 

https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state

[displace]

Guys, call, mail, fax or email your senators and your congressional reps. Bonus points if you're a registered Republican because right now your opinions will carry greater weight, so be sure to mention that fact.

 

You can find your Rep's info here:

 

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

 

And your Senators:

 

https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state

What does one say when calling? I'm concerned about bill 123? Do you just leave a voice mail?

[Barb_]

What does one say when calling? I'm concerned about bill 123? Do you just leave a voice mail?

A staffer may answer, or you may get a voicemail. I say, "I'm Barbara Lastname from zip code 12345. ( Here is where i'd make a point of being a registered republican and having voted for this person, if applicable.) I have an opinion on Hr1313 (or such and such other thing). They are always very nice, even when I feel strongly about something and my voice quavers or I horrifyingly burst into tears. That's embarrassing, but they've never made me feel stupid.

 

I usually have notes jotted down. I would say something like "I would like Senator and so to know my family is strongly against hr1313. My employer has no right to my health information. That belongs between my doctor and myself. The bill is a serious blow to privacy rights and favors corporations over the rights of the individual. I want senator xyz to vocally oppose hr1313.

 

Something like that. What you oppose, why, what you want them to do.

[Barb_]

Oh and if the voicemail is full, you can use jot down a postcard. I keep them stamped and addesssed and ready to go. Or fax. Or email. They used to say email is least favored, but they are paying attention to everything now that voicemails are so often clogged.

[Pam in CT]

You'd have to tell them.  Our insurance company has a wellness thing where we are supposed to answer questions to earn points that are basically meaningless (and so I haven't bothered) and it's supposed to give you ideas on how to improve your health based on your answers to the questions.  I personally fail to see where that sort of thing is remotely useful myself.  I mean, if you have high cholesterol, diagnosed by your doctor, shouldn't your doctor have given you ideas on steps to take?

 

 

The difference is that HR 1313 would allow employers to establish penalties (insurance premium increases) upon employees or covered family members who "choose" to ignore the questionnaire.  At which point it is not any longer meaningless.

 

A "script" for legislators might include something like,

 

I am calling because I am concerned about HR 1313 currently under committee review.  I am significantly troubled about both the implications of the bill on patient privacy and also on its potential to significantly increase premiums for employees and family members under employee-sponsored plans.  I urge Sen/Rep ______ to oppose this bill.

 

You will almost certainly either end up leaving a voicemail message, or speaking to a staffer.  The staffers are 20-something interns who are trained to be courteous and take a message.  

[Farrar]

Is *anyone* for this? That's a semi-serious question. Is there anyone who wants to argue this on a pro-business or pro-freedom of businesses to do whatever they like angle? I'm honestly a little astounded that even the Republicans on the committee voted for it. It seems like a no brainer for an issue that people will get pretty ticked about. Or maybe they thought they'd sneak it in? Claim that it doesn't basically circumvent the current law keeping employers from asking for this information?

[displace]

I hope asking for advice on what happens when you call representatives isn't too political! But I really appreciate it.

Edited March 13, 2017 by displace

[displace]

Is *anyone* for this? That's a semi-serious question. Is there anyone who wants to argue this on a pro-business or pro-freedom of businesses to do whatever they like angle? I'm honestly a little astounded that even the Republicans on the committee voted for it. It seems like a no brainer for an issue that people will get pretty ticked about. Or maybe they thought they'd sneak it in? Claim that it doesn't basically circumvent the current law keeping employers from asking for this information?

I guess finding out who introduced the bill would lead one to be able to possibly investigate why it may have been introduced in the first place.

[displace]

Here is a link to the actual bill:

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313/text

 

I think someone may have posted it already, or even the news articles, but I'm super unsure and can't check ATM.

[displace]

So, a bill can just say it doesn't violate previous laws and, presto bam-o, it doesn't? It creates its own exceptions? I feel so ignorant now. Just reading the bill makes me feel confused.

[displace]

And, how can the committee claim it's bipartisan when only one party voted for it? I don't understand claiming bipartisan support even with a token vote or two, but there were no votes from the other party. Wondering thoughts...

[snowbeltmom]

I guess finding out who introduced the bill would lead one to be able to possibly investigate why it may have been introduced in the first place.

 

:iagree:

AND finding out who contributed to the sponsors' campaigns will probably shed more light on the matter.  My guess is that the health insurance industry is heavily invested in this bill.

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Is *anyone* for this? That's a semi-serious question. Is there anyone who wants to argue this on a pro-business or pro-freedom of businesses to do whatever they like angle? I'm honestly a little astounded that even the Republicans on the committee voted for it. It seems like a no brainer for an issue that people will get pretty ticked about. Or maybe they thought they'd sneak it in? Claim that it doesn't basically circumvent the current law keeping employers from asking for this information?

 

I am too.  Reputable news outlets are talking about it, but I'm still wondering if it is somehow not true or has been twisted.  It's so ridiculous.

[Pam in CT]

I don't *think* it's against board rules to relay the general process of how bills move through the  legislative process, or link to government sources that indicate where bills are.  Shout out to moderators if it is, and I'll take it to PM.

 

 

And, how can the committee claim it's bipartisan when only one party voted for it? I don't understand claiming bipartisan support even with a token vote or two, but there were no votes from the other party. Wondering thoughts...

You linked above to congress.gov, which is the basic site, searchable by bill #, legislator, topic or committee to find legislation or see where it is in the legislative process.  One of the tabs on your link for this specific bill is the "Cosponsors," where you can find -- other than the original bill sponsor who's named on your link, all other legislators who've signed it thus far.  For this bill, there are 3 other sponsors.

 

Another tab shows what committee/s are reviewing (or have already cleared) the bill.  For this bill, it is in review in 3 committees simultaneously, which typically is a signal that the sponsors are trying to "fast-track" it by getting a sufficient quorum of legislators already on board so that it will quickly pass when it reaches the full House (in this case; some bills start in the Senate) floor.

 

 

 

:iagree:

AND finding out who contributed to the sponsors' campaigns will probably shed more light on the matter.  My guess is that the health insurance industry is heavily invested in this bill.
 

 

 

 

 

Open Secrets is a good searchable site that aggregates all public information about campaign donations, searchable by individual donor, by legislator and by PAC.  (There are ways to funnel donations that are not public, but they try to follow the money as far as the public trail goes.)

[MomatHWTK]

Here's a link someone shared on Twitter that explains the bill and the employee wellness program regulations in more detail:

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/preserving-wellness-programs-by-infringing-on-privacy/

 

 

[MomatHWTK]

A new bill can create a carve-out. So, "notwithstanding what X law said, we now say Y." As long as it doesn't violate the Constitution, the new phrasing then becomes the new law.

A private example would be if you write a new will. You would say, notwithstanding anything in my last will, I now declare Y. That signals that if there is a conflict, the new will is the one that governs. But I agree, I tried to read the new bill and really couldn't fully understand it (despite, as usual, this being a topic I cover in my research and writing).  I've had to rely on third parties' interpretation. 

 

The gist, I *think* is that the employer can solicit the information to use for the wellness program. The program is "voluntary" but those who don't participate may be financially penalized. I'm not 100% sure if they can be fined or just deprived of rewards. So it is *possible* that an employee might be charged higher insurance premiums if they don't participate. Again, I am not sure on that part. Clearly, there is some method to encourage/coerce participation. I've just not looked that deeply into the new information.

 

Here's an article that explains employee wellness programs:

https://hbr.org/2010/12/whats-the-hard-return-on-employee-wellness-programs

 

This website has lots of additional information, several related definitions, etc.

https://www.workplacetesting.com/definition/318/wellness-and-health-promotion-program 

Edited March 13, 2017 by MomatHWTK

[Bluegoat]

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

 

I think we've been heading in the direction of eugenics for a few years now, it's disguised as personal decisions and economic necessity rather than an authoritarian state-demanded approach.  But it comes down to the same thing - ideas about what kind of human life is worth our money and care.

[Matryoshka]

You'd have to tell them.  Our insurance company has a wellness thing where we are supposed to answer questions to earn points that are basically meaningless (and so I haven't bothered) and it's supposed to give you ideas on how to improve your health based on your answers to the questions.  I personally fail to see where that sort of thing is remotely useful myself.  I mean, if you have high cholesterol, diagnosed by your doctor, shouldn't your doctor have given you ideas on steps to take?

 

Dh's company has the exact same thing ... except that we basically get a $600 penalty if we don't answer the stupid questions and earn the stupid points ... so through the hoops we jump.

 

It's only 'voluntary' if you can afford to to pay literally hundreds more in health care premiums (and that's now - it's only going to get exponentially worse...)

[Barb_]

Is *anyone* for this? That's a semi-serious question. Is there anyone who wants to argue this on a pro-business or pro-freedom of businesses to do whatever they like angle? I'm honestly a little astounded that even the Republicans on the committee voted for it. It seems like a no brainer for an issue that people will get pretty ticked about. Or maybe they thought they'd sneak it in? Claim that it doesn't basically circumvent the current law keeping employers from asking for this information?

That's exactly it. They obfuscated the true intent with language about GINA and buried it. STATNEWS broke the story first--the site is for medical types so they caught it when other news sites didn't.

[Barb_]

Dh's company has the exact same thing ... except that we basically get a $600 penalty if we don't answer the stupid questions and earn the stupid points ... so through the hoops we jump.

 

It's only 'voluntary' if you can afford to to pay literally hundreds more in health care premiums (and that's now - it's only going to get exponentially worse...)

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.

 

 

From the STATNEWS article:

"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."

 

And

 

"“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."

[Barb_]

I guess finding out who introduced the bill would lead one to be able to possibly investigate why it may have been introduced in the first place.

Her name is Virgini Foxx. She is something else. Asked for a statement regarding hr1313:

 

"Foxx's office referred a request for comment on the bill to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce when contacted by CNBC. Foxx is chairwoman of that committee.

 

A committee spokeswoman said, "Those who are opposed to the bill **are spreading false information in a desperate attempt to deny employees the choice to participate in a voluntary program** that can reduce health insurance costs and encourage healthy lifestyle choices."

 

"We believe families should be empowered with that choice, and so did the Obama administration. It is another sad reminder of just how extreme the Democrat party and their liberal allies are becoming," the spokeswoman said."

 

Full article here:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/03/10/employers-could-demand-genetic-testing-under-congressional-bill.html

[Jen500]

Her name is Virgini Foxx. She is something else. Asked for a statement regarding hr1313:

 

"Foxx's office referred a request for comment on the bill to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce when contacted by CNBC. Foxx is chairwoman of that committee.

 

A committee spokeswoman said, "Those who are opposed to the bill **are spreading false information in a desperate attempt to deny employees the choice to participate in a voluntary program** that can reduce health insurance costs and encourage healthy lifestyle choices."

 

"We believe families should be empowered with that choice, and so did the Obama administration. It is another sad reminder of just how extreme the Democrat party and their liberal allies are becoming," the spokeswoman said."

 

Full article here:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/03/10/employers-could-demand-genetic-testing-under-congressional-bill.html

There's that CHOICE word again. Hmph. It's not like we have the choice or ability to pick and choose our genetics.

[Barb_]

:iagree:

AND finding out who contributed to the sponsors' campaigns will probably shed more light on the matter. My guess is that the health insurance industry is heavily invested in this bill.

 

It's all about business interests. This is a way of shifting costs that business don't like into the employees. Some will surely decline this voluntary program, so boom--they pay more of the cost share.

 

There is a chunk of congress who consistently votes for pro-business legislation and sells it as "help" or "freedom" for the American people.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Barb_

[Barb_]

There's that CHOICE word again. Hmph. It's not like we have the choice or ability to pick and choose our genetics.

Oh yeah, choice. That's another one. Here is how the bill is being spun:

 

[Barb_]

I called my Senator this morning and his staffer had never even heard of the bill. McCain's voicemail is perpetually full, so he gets a postcard. I don't do much social media, but maybe those of you who do can spread it around?

[MomatHWTK]

Mainstream media has picked it up on Twitter. The link I shared is from my Twitter feed. So. the issue is getting some discussion. But ppl are so overwhelmed with data right now that no one topic gets much of coverage. There are newly formed organizations that can assist individuals in staying up to date and provide call scripts to use when contacting your representatives. I won't provide details here to avoid creating conflict.

[Barb_]

Mainstream media has picked it up on Twitter. The link I shared is from my Twitter feed. So. the issue is getting some discussion. But ppl are so overwhelmed with data right now that no one topic gets much of coverage. There are newly formed organizations that can assist individuals in staying up to date and provide call scripts to use when contacting your representatives. I won't provide details here to avoid creating conflict.

Yes, you're right. I think some congressmen and lobbyists are taking advantage of the firehose effect and attempting to push through legislation that would never see the light of day in a normal year.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Barb_

[Pam in CT]

I called my Senator this morning and his staffer had never even heard of the bill. McCain's voicemail is perpetually full, so he gets a postcard. I don't do much social media, but maybe those of you who do can spread it around?

 

It's in the House at the moment, so it's our Representatives who are the first responders.  Particularly those who sit on one of the three committees now reviewing the bill.  Between the three committees just about every state (though not district) is represented, so there's someone to whom anybody so moved can call!

 

 

House Education & the Workforce (chair = Rep Virginia Foxx R-NC who was the original sponsor of the bill; click link for full list of members and from there, click on individual member to get contact info)

 

and

 

House Ways & Means (chair = Rep Kevin Brady R-TX; click link for full list of committee members and from there, click on individual member to get contact info)

 

and

 

House Commerce & Energy (chair = Rep Greg Walden R-OR; click link for full list of committee members and from there, click on individual member to get contact info)

[Barb_]

 

It's in the House at the moment, so it's our Representatives who are the first responders. Particularly those who sit on one of the three committees now reviewing the bill. Between the three committees just about every state (though not district) is represented, so there's someone to whom anybody so moved can call!

 

 

House Education & the Workforce (chair = Rep Virginia Foxx R-NC who was the original sponsor of the bill; click link for full list of members and from there, click on individual member to get contact info)

 

and

 

House Ways & Means (chair = Rep Kevin Brady R-TX; click link for full list of committee members and from there, click on individual member to get contact info)

 

and

 

House Commerce & Energy (chair = Rep Greg Walden R-OR; click link for full list of committee members and from there, click on individual member to get contact info)

Thanks, Pam. You are right as usual. I called my Rep's office this morning.

[Valley Girl]

Just a comment for anyone nervous about calling. After a couple of tries, I was able to speak with staffers at the offices of my congressperson and both senators. No one was familiar with the bill.  Reps aren't necessarily aware of what's going on in each committee because they're obviously focused on legislation they currently need to vote on. So it's good to bring it to their attention.

 

I was polite. I let them know which side of the aisle I fell so they'd know I was a friendly caller just in case that helped. I had the bill name and number and my bullet points ready. They were polite and listened to all my comments and promised to relay them. I felt that I'd been heard. In fact, one staffer told me he was going to be looking into it today because he was so concerned about what he was hearing. (That made me feel good.) I asked for a response on where the representatives stood and provided contact information.

 

The first call is the hardest. If you're concerned about this bill or ANY bill, it's definitely worth the few minutes to call.

 

[displace]

NBC article re bill 1313

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/nobody-s-business-5-things-know-about-genetic-testing-bill-n733416

Edited March 16, 2017 by displace

[HTRMom]

Well, what if you think of it as a 30% discount if you're willing to take a genetic test?

 

If you don't want to know, could you just stick the results in a shredder? (That takes an incredible amount of self-control.)

 

Employers like to get health info from employees even if they aren't going to use it because it helps them budget. They also think that you will be more conscientious of your own health if you're aware of certain things. Or maybe less likely to have children? (That would be a creepy motive!)

 

I'm not really in favor of genetic testing, but I don't know that we need laws against employer discount offers... Interested in responses.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[snowbeltmom]

Well, what if you think of it as a 30% discount if you're willing to take a genetic test?

 

If you don't want to know, could you just stick the results in a shredder? (That takes an incredible amount of self-control.)

 

Employers like to get health info from employees even if they aren't going to use it because it helps them budget. They also think that you will be more conscientious of your own health if you're aware of certain things. Or maybe less likely to have children? (That would be a creepy motive!)

 

I'm not really in favor of genetic testing, but I don't know that we need laws against employer discount offers... Interested in responses.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My employer has no business knowing anything about my genetic make-up.  Just because the genetic test may indicate a person may develop a certain disease, the odds are far from 100% that he will actually develop the disease. 

 

Employers won't be using these results to help them budget.  They will be using these results in order to avoid hiring people with unfavorable genetic reports. 

 

Forcing employees to have their privacy violated with potential long-term negative consequences, not just for themselves, but also for their family members, in order to get a discount, is immoral and hits the working poor the hardest.

 

I hope this bill dies a quick death.

[HTRMom]

Do you feel the the same way about requiring a health screening? My husband had a required physical including blood draws for a desk job. Or health surveys? To get a discount we have to take a survey and use this annoying app that tracks meals.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Murphy101]

Do you feel the the same way about requiring a health screening? My husband had a required physical including blood draws for a desk job. Or health surveys? To get a discount we have to take a survey and use this annoying app that tracks meals.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think it's ever appropriate for employment. They need to know one thing: can this person show up and do the job. If yes, proceed with paying for work. If not, move to next candidate for employment. Nothing in that persons private life, and medical situation should be private, is any business of the employer.

[Garga]

Do you feel the the same way about requiring a health screening? My husband had a required physical including blood draws for a desk job. Or health surveys? To get a discount we have to take a survey and use this annoying app that tracks meals.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those are things that people can control, "Look at me! I'm not smoking so I'm lower risk for lung cancer!" I can kinda see why employers do that. I'm deeply ambivalent about it, though. It's not a clear cut yes or no for me.

 

But it's apples to oranges. Genetics are completely out of anyone's control. You can't lifestyle your way out of your genes. And one would be painfully naive if they didn't think that people would be denied jobs for having expensive genetic issues. Mucking about with genetics is too scary. It's too easy for someone to be unethical about it.

 

If you are someone who hated the Clintons, would you really want Hillary knowing your genetic information and making policies about it for you?

 

If you are someone who hates Trump, do you really want Trump knowing your genetic information and making policies about it for you?

 

I don't trust anyone in the government or in big business to have any compassion and see anything other than the bottom line when it comes to spending money on people with genetic diseases. I can see them making insincere sad faces and saying, "It's not personal, you know?" as they refuse to hire you because of a faulty gene and then enjoy all the benefits of coverage for themselves.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Garga

[MomatHWTK]

The more databases hold your information, the more ways your information can be breached. 

[Barb_]

I agree that employers nor schools have any business in our healthcare. The expansion of employee wellness programs happened under the Obama administration and I thought it was overreach at the time.