It Might Soon Be Legal for Employers to Force You Into a Genetic Test

[Suppressed]

It Might Soon Be Legal for Employers to Force You Into a Genetic Test
Sy Mukherjee
12:49 PM Eastern
http://fortune.com/2017/03/10/genetic-testing-workplace-wellness-bill/

Say your employer wants you to get a genetic test. You politely decline because you consider it a gross infringement of privacy. Well, too bad—your monthly health insurance payments just spiked 30%.

This could be the reality under HR 1313, the Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act, a House GOP-sponsored bill that would essentially allow companies with workplace wellness programs to demand your genetic information (or force you to pay a big penalty).

The legislation has now passed a House committee on a straight party line vote, reports STAT News, with all 22 Republicans unified in support against 17 Democratic detractors. The bill is expected to be latched on to a second Obamacare-related legislative effort that will be a followup to the main GOP health care plan now working its way through Congress.

Currently, employers with ostensibly voluntary workplace wellness programs can force their workers to pay 30% more (and up to 50% more for smokers) toward their company-provided health insurance benefits if they choose not to participate - provisions that were actually passed as a part of Obamacare and then cemented by the Obama administration's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The wellness programs typically include basic biometric screenings, access to gym memberships, and health care-related questionnaires.

...

Excerpt.  Read more at link.

[Suppressed]

Headline is misleading.  It's not "forcing" anyone.  It's providing an incentive to give up your genetic info...like a tax break.  Or saying it's a condition of employment.

So where will "conservatives" come down on this... will they want the government to step in and prevent companies from providing these incentives/requirements?

[txradioguy]

Hell no.  Not a good idea needs to die quickly.

[Cyber Liberty]

Headline is misleading.  It's not "forcing" anyone.  It's providing an incentive to give up your genetic info...like a tax break.  Or saying it's a condition of employment.

So where will "conservatives" come down on this... will they want the government to step in and prevent companies from providing these incentives/requirements?

I paid extra premiums one year for declining participation in our "Wellness Program" because I got tired of nagging letters from the insurance company about things like my cholesterol, which is just borderline.  If they change it to require genetic testing I'll refuse and resume paying the extra premium.  As a conservative, I don't have a problem with that. 

If they refuse to insure me that would be another matter.  If they make it a condition of employment then it looks like an early retirement for me.

[Jazzhead]

Headline is misleading.  It's not "forcing" anyone.  It's providing an incentive to give up your genetic info...like a tax break.  Or saying it's a condition of employment.

So where will "conservatives" come down on this... will they want the government to step in and prevent companies from providing these incentives/requirements?

This is part of the growing effort to encourage wellness, by tying rewards to engagement in wellness activities that will (hopefully) keep employees healthier and health care costs down.   Usually what's at stake is the employee's agreement to take a health risk assessment in exchange for a discount in health insurance premiums.   

[Elderberry]

Genetic test! No Way! 

Last year our doctor's office, of many years, told my wife that they no longer accepted our insurance. So we found another doctor nearby. On my wife's first visit, they wanted to do some blood work. One of the tests was, you guessed it, a genetics test. My wife objected, but relented and agreed as they pressured her. For that genetics test they billed our insurance for over $21,000 of which our insurance claimed that some $650 was reasonable and we should pay it. Well my wife told the new doctor to eat it as she told them she didn't want the test anyway.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Headline is misleading.  It's not "forcing" anyone.  It's providing an incentive to give up your genetic info...like a tax break.  Or saying it's a condition of employment.

So where will "conservatives" come down on this... will they want the government to step in and prevent companies from providing these incentives/requirements?

I'm not a market purist or anything of that nature. I'm not an anarchist. The free market should be there for when it benefits people.


So no, I can say no to this kind of nonsense while still remaining a conservative.

[txradioguy]

This is part of the growing effort to encourage wellness, by tying rewards to engagement in wellness activities that will (hopefully) keep employees healthier and health care costs down.   Usually what's at stake is the employee's agreement to take a health risk assessment in exchange for a discount in health insurance premiums.

Not their job to look over our shoulder on things like this or to "encourage" employees to be "healthy".

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

This is part of the growing effort to encourage wellness, by tying rewards to engagement in wellness activities that will (hopefully) keep employees healthier and health care costs down.   Usually what's at stake is the employee's agreement to take a health risk assessment in exchange for a discount in health insurance premiums.

Welp, by definition a genetics test is something you really cannot do anything about so any arguments about being the interest of employees is bunk.

[Wingnut]

This is part of the growing effort to encourage wellness, by tying rewards to engagement in wellness activities that will (hopefully) keep employees healthier and health care costs down.   Usually what's at stake is the employee's agreement to take a

Not to put words in you mouth, but do you find  this "health risk assessment in exchange for a discount in health insurance premiums" acceptable?   Or not.

[Jazzhead]

Not their job to look over our shoulder on things like this or to "encourage" employees to be "healthy".

Why not?  They're paying the bills. 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

"Currently, employers with ostensibly voluntary workplace wellness programs can force their workers to pay 30% more (and up to 50% more for smokers) toward their company-provided health insurance benefits if they choose not to participate"

I've never had an employer that forced me to accept their subsidized health insurance.  If I didn't want it, I didn't have to pay anything.  If they wanted to attach conditions to the amount of my health insurance THEY were paying for, that's their right.  They don't owe me anything other than to keep up their end of any bargain we made.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Not their job to look over our shoulder on things like this or to "encourage" employees to be "healthy".

That's the path we went down when companies started ponying up the insurance cost for their resources uh I mean carbon based wage slaves.

Of course they are going to try and cut that cost.

[Cyber Liberty]

Why not?  They're paying the bills.

I'm paying the bills for welfare recipients because I was lucky and won the Lottery of Life by working my butt off in a job.  Since I'm paying their bills, I have an interest in whether they're taking illegal drugs.  So...by your reasoning I have the right to demand welfare recipients take regular drug screens.

[XenaLee]

I paid extra premiums one year for declining participation in our "Wellness Program" because I got tired of nagging letters from the insurance company about things like my cholesterol, which is just borderline.  If they change it to require genetic testing I'll refuse and resume paying the extra premium.  As a conservative, I don't have a problem with that. 

If they refuse to insure me that would be another matter.  If they make it a condition of employment then it looks like an early retirement for me.

It sounds to me like just another method of "nudging" Americans to do something they don't really want to do....ie either charge them more or tax the hell out of them if they don't do something "for their own good".  Cass Sunstein would be proud of his ongoing legacy, no doubt.

[Suppressed]

Hell no.  Not a good idea needs to die quickly.

So you think it's the government's business to step in and tell the employer how to run his business, @txradioguy?

Funny...on this thread, @Jazzhead isn't the one advocating Big Government intrusion.   


I think it's a very interesting debate.

[txradioguy]

Why not?  They're paying the bills.

Seriously? 

You sit here and rail in one thread against corporations picking and choosing winners and losers based on the kind of Healthcare they can offer...and in the next breath fully back a company being able to pick and choose who they employ (winners / losers) because of an invasive genetics test that has nothing to do with whether you are qualified for the position or not.

You seem have some very loose situational ethics when it comes to what matters you want the Government to be involved in and which ones you think they don't need to be.

[txradioguy]

So you think it's the government's business to step in and tell the employer how to run his business, @txradioguy?

Funny...on this thread, @Jazzhead isn't the one advocating Big Government intrusion.   


I think it's a very interesting debate.

No the government doesn't need to be involved AND this is something the employer has no business getting involved with either.

Let me be clear I am in no way shape or form advocating for big government intrusion of any sort.

[Lando Lincoln]

I am opposed without reservation.  Databases can be compiled in ways that I am unable to comprehend or imagine.  It is enough for me to know that others can imagine those ways.  Heck, maybe I can be assessed a tax because of my DNA/mitochondrial advantages.  Or not.  I don't know what I don't know - and I'm speaking for the purity of intent in mapping my genetics.

Meanwhile, as a philosophical matter, I suspect many who may desire this genetic testing would find it abhorrent to drug screen a welfare recipient. 

Edit:  Spelling - drat!

[Jazzhead]

Not to put words in you mouth, but do you find  this "health risk assessment in exchange for a discount in health insurance premiums" acceptable?   Or not.

I have no philosophical objection to this.   If you're too hung up on privacy to take a health risk assessment, then don't - and pay the higher cost for your health insurance.  Most employers pay the majority of their employees' health insurance premiums, so why shouldn't they take an interest in their good health?   

Conservatives recoil in horror at having to "subsidize" the bad habits of others.   So what's the beef with an employer charging more to cover employees with bad habits that will drive up its health care spend?   The point of the HRA is to identify risk factors that the employee can take steps to control.   Certain genetic risks  are made riskier by bad habits - and the employee can be educated or encouraged to take part in wellness activities to help him live healthier.     
 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I have no philosophical objection to this.   If you're too hung up on privacy to take a health risk assessment, then don't - and pay the higher cost for your health insurance.  Most employers pay the majority of their employees' health insurance premiums, so why shouldn't they take an interest in their good health?   

Conservatives recoil in horror at having to "subsidize" the bad habits of others.   So what's the beef with an employer charging more to cover employees with bad habits that will drive up its health care spend?   The point of the HRA is to identify risk factors that the employee can take steps to control.   Certain genetic risks  are made riskier by bad habits - and the employee can be educated or encouraged to take part in wellness activities to help him live healthier.   

My problem with genetic testing IMO is that it seems extremely unfair, by definition.

[Jazzhead]

No the government doesn't need to be involved AND this is something the employer has no business getting involved with either.

Let me be clear I am in no way shape or form advocating for big government intrusion of any sort.

You advocate government solutions more frequently than I do. 

[txradioguy]

I am opposed without reservation.  Databases can be compiled in ways that I am unable to comprehend or imagine.  It is enough for me to know that others can imagine those ways.  Heck, maybe I can be accessed a tax because of my DNA/mitochondrial advantages.  Or not.  I don't know what I don't know - and I'm speaking for the purity of intent in mapping my genetics.

Meanwhile, as a philosophical matter, I suspect many who may desire this genetic testing would find it abhorrent to drug screen a welfare recipient.

You can coerce all kinds of forced behavior under the guise of "wellness" and the desire to keep someone "healthy".

 The kids of cars they drive...food they eat...activities they participate in...clothes they buy etc etc.

It's a slippery slope with lots of unintended consequences.

[txradioguy]

You advocate government solutions more frequently than I do.

That's a steamy pile of horse apples and you know it.

[Cyber Liberty]

@INVAR, I'm interested in what you think of this potential policy of employers and insurers...

[txradioguy]

@INVAR, I'm interested in what you think of this potential policy of employers and insurers...

[Lando Lincoln]

Listen everyone - I gotta call it a day. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Listen everyone - I gotta call it a day.

Dittos.  TTYL.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Listen everyone - I gotta call it a day.

A DAY! -There it's been called.
Have a good weekend!

[GrouchoTex]

This is part of the growing effort to encourage wellness, by tying rewards to engagement in wellness activities that will (hopefully) keep employees healthier and health care costs down.   Usually what's at stake is the employee's agreement to take a health risk assessment in exchange for a discount in health insurance premiums.

I disagree.

It is a way to:
(1) Find high risk people to weed them out,remove them from the payroll (and the company insurance).
(2) Making it mandatory to take the "wellness" exams, thereby when you refuse, they can drop you from the insurance or force you to pay more for your coverage than your other co-workers do. Which means the employer will kick in less.

it is a right to privacy issue, which is a conservative issue, and this crazy idea is not conservative at all.

[Cyber Liberty]

I disagree.

It is a way to:
(1) Find high risk people to weed them out,remove them from the payroll (and the company insurance).
(2) Making it mandatory to take the "wellness" exams, thereby when you refuse, they can drop you from the insurance or force you to pay more for your coverage than your other co-workers do. Which means the employer will kick in less.

it is a right to privacy issue, which is a conservative issue, and this crazy idea is not conservative at all.

...which is why it will be portrayed as one.

[Gefn]

I don't like this Idea at all. Smacks of Big Brother.


However, as an adopted child, knowing nothing about my genetic parents I would like this test but I wouldn't want anyone to see the results other than myself.

It would be nice to know if there is anything I need to look for in my family history, like cancer or what not, but it would be my information, not my employers.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't like this Idea at all. Smacks of Big Brother.


However, as an adopted child, knowing nothing about my genetic parents I would like this test but I wouldn't want anyone to see the results other than myself.

It would be nice to know if there is anything I need to look for in my family history, like cancer or what not, but it would be my information, not my employers.

Generally, if you are willing to pay for the thing yourself you can sign a proviso refusing access to the data to anybody but yourself.  The problem with this is the mention upthread that a genetic test that would help you spot cancer markers and such is still in excess of $20,000.

[Gefn]

Generally, if you are willing to pay for the thing yourself you can sign a proviso refusing access to the data to anybody but yourself.  The problem with this is the mention upthread that a genetic test that would help you spot cancer markers and such is still in excess of $20,000.

I don't have that kind of money. It's ok I've gone my whole life not knowing, it's all good.

[Wingnut]

@INVAR, I'm interested in what you think of this potential policy of employers and insurers...

You are a very bad man!.

I'm out of here.  Meeting the Mrs for a Metamucil Martini down at the Dew Drop Inn.  You all have fun. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't have that kind of money. It's ok I've gone my whole life not knowing, it's all good.

Same here.  Mrs. Liberty was considering it, but when we found out the cost it was No Way Jose.

[Gefn]

You are a very bad man!.

I'm out of here.  Meeting the Mrs for a Metamucil Martini down at the Dew Drop Inn.  You all have fun.

Shaken or stirred?

[Cyber Liberty]

Shaken or stirred?

I'd bet stirred.  Shaken would disrupt Wings' cataracts and, uh, his naughty bits.

[Wingnut]

I'd bet stirred.  Shaken would disrupt Wings' cataracts and, uh, his naughty bits.

Correct.  Always stirred. In a tub poured over ice with 2 olives and wave the Vermouth bottle over the glass letting two drops fall gently on the cubes.....

[240B]

Genetic testing would mean flirting with that dreadful "reality" thing, which some States are making illegal.


If I'm a 45 year old bearded male, but I self-identify as a 14 year old Chinese girl, which will the genetic testing report to my employer? Who are they to tell ME that I'm not a woman?, or Chinese?, or Black?, or a giraffe? That's racist, sexist, and homophobic! I see many lawsuits in this.
Genetic reality is infringing on my right to be a delusional weirdo. I'm suing!

[DB]

Seriously, what is the difference in making employment decisions based on a "genetic test" and looking at one's skin color? Neither is something the person being tested has any control of. So if you have "bad" genes or the wrong skin color you are "defective" and must pay more for healthcare and/or are unemployable?

[GrouchoTex]

...which is why it will be portrayed as one.

Sad day.

I read where all the house republicans on the committee voted for it, and all the house democrats voted against it.

The world really is upside down now.

[Jazzhead]

I disagree.

It is a way to:
(1) Find high risk people to weed them out,remove them from the payroll (and the company insurance).
(2) Making it mandatory to take the "wellness" exams, thereby when you refuse, they can drop you from the insurance or force you to pay more for your coverage than your other co-workers do. Which means the employer will kick in less.

No it's not.    There are protections against just that sort of thing.   It's to encourage employees to get information to better their health.   Results of the HRA aren't shared with the employer.  And completing a health risk assessment must be completely voluntary.   So if privacy's your thing,  just decline. 

EDIT:  I just took a quick look at the bill.   It seems clear that the purpose of the bill is to reconcile certain inconsistencies between regulations issued by different federal agencies with respect to three pieces of legislation that impact employee wellness programs (the ACA,  the ADEA and GINA,  the latter addressing genetic testing).   Those inconsistencies have bedeviled employers seeking to implement workplace wellness programs linked to a health plan.   It is, simply stated, consistent with the Trump administration's goal to simplify regulations that ultimately harm economic growth and cost jobs.   

[INVAR]

@INVAR, I'm interested in what you think of this potential policy of employers and insurers...

If a private company wants to mitigate risk factors with this information - then the free market can decide that, and whether or not it crosses into the realm of discrimination - will end up being litigated.

The split second government gets involved in this issue - it will be used as an ugly political weapon.

With genetic markers, the ability to label, target and identify persons based on genetic proclivities - will go well beyond discriminating based on skin color and deviant behavior, to a more medieval bloodline/genetic discrimination that will be excused as 'risk factor' elimination.

Government picking winners and losers - always ruins liberty, and with a weapon like this in their control or pocket - what little remains of liberty will certainly be erased.

[XenaLee]

I disagree.

It is a way to:
(1) Find high risk people to weed them out,remove them from the payroll (and the company insurance).
(2) Making it mandatory to take the "wellness" exams, thereby when you refuse, they can drop you from the insurance or force you to pay more for your coverage than your other co-workers do. Which means the employer will kick in less.

it is a right to privacy issue, which is a conservative issue, and this crazy idea is not conservative at all.

I'm somewhat confused.   It if is currently illegal (supposedly) for employers to discriminate against hiring individuals based on their age....(called age-discrimination hiring)....

then how the hell is this not illegal too? 

[Cyber Liberty]

If a private company wants to mitigate risk factors with this information - then the free market can decide that, and whether or not it crosses into the realm of discrimination - will end up being litigated.

The split second government gets involved in this issue - it will be used as an ugly political weapon.

With genetic markers, the ability to label, target and identify persons based on genetic proclivities - will go well beyond discriminating based on skin color and deviant behavior, to a more medieval bloodline/genetic discrimination that will be excused as 'risk factor' elimination.

Government picking winners and losers - always ruins liberty, and with a weapon like this in their control or pocket - what little remains of liberty will certainly be erased.

That's what I thought.  I think that way too, thanks for the affirmation.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm somewhat confused.   It if is currently illegal (supposedly) for employers to discriminate against hiring individuals based on their age....(called age-discrimination hiring)....

then how the hell is this not illegal too?

It should be illegal, it would be discrimination by immutable characteristics, like race.

[Lando Lincoln]

If a private company wants to mitigate risk factors with this information - then the free market can decide that, and whether or not it crosses into the realm of discrimination - will end up being litigated.

The split second government gets involved in this issue - it will be used as an ugly political weapon.

With genetic markers, the ability to label, target and identify persons based on genetic proclivities - will go well beyond discriminating based on skin color and deviant behavior, to a more medieval bloodline/genetic discrimination that will be excused as 'risk factor' elimination.

Government picking winners and losers - always ruins liberty, and with a weapon like this in their control or pocket - what little remains of liberty will certainly be erased.

Well thought out and nicely stated.  The slopes are indeed slippery.

[DB]

If a private company wants to mitigate risk factors with this information - then the free market can decide that, and whether or not it crosses into the realm of discrimination - will end up being litigated.

The split second government gets involved in this issue - it will be used as an ugly political weapon.

With genetic markers, the ability to label, target and identify persons based on genetic proclivities - will go well beyond discriminating based on skin color and deviant behavior, to a more medieval bloodline/genetic discrimination that will be excused as 'risk factor' elimination.

Government picking winners and losers - always ruins liberty, and with a weapon like this in their control or pocket - what little remains of liberty will certainly be erased.

I think the question is, how much information are they entitled to. Were does privacy begin and end?

[INVAR]

I think the question is, how much information are they entitled to. Were does privacy begin and end?

In our depraved and wicked culture, the only privacy one is permitted is to engage in deviant sexual behaviors and criminality if you are a liberal Leftist and vote Democrat.

The rest of us are not entitled to any privacy, because as Leftists have been trumpeting now with great fanfare - the plebes in flyover country cannot be trusted with liberty or privacy.  Certainly they say that the last election proves we cannot be trusted to vote either.

Those of us who understand the scriptures recognize we are rapidly arriving at the place and time whereby everyone must be married, thought and deed to the beast - or breathing and making a living will be impossible.

This is just one more tool in such an arsenal of imposing that.