Survivalist Forum banner

Bill Allows Employee Genetic Testing

1 reading
4.5K views 60 replies 30 participants last post by  Old Soldier  
#1 ·
#5 ·
What I was thinking was the genetic information retained by employers is the Fed's and law enforcement's best wet dream. They've already gone after DNA information on people from those ancestry outfits, so I understand..

Not to mention, the employer will know too much about you and given time it will affect people's medical premiums and who knows what else. That kind of stuff is inevitable..
 
#6 ·
I'd like to see some of the seriously overweight, chain smoking, alcohol guzzling, insulin taking, uncontrolled high blood pressure-having employers would be subject to such laws.

I mean, if the insurance companies are driving all this, they're not going to want to shell out for someone's congestive heart failure or liver failure, are they?
 
#10 ·
Because there is another law on the books that prohibits involuntary DNA collection. This law will bypass the other one. It was mentioned near the end of the article I posted. I really don't see any good coming out of his at all. Beyond what I already said, I can see employers letting people go or not hiring people based on the DNA results. I can almost guarantee that these kind of things will occur given time. That is if the bill passes..
 
#15 ·
I didn't read the article but I don't see the problem, from a Constitutional POV.

There is nothing "involuntary" about it from what I can see. If you don't want to submit to testing, don't take the job.

That doesn't mean that I think its a good thing, but if enough people refuse, the employer will have a smaller selection of labor to choose from.

.
 
#24 ·
The bill just passed the House committee part of the process with 100% of the Republicans voting for passage and 100% of the Democrats voting against passage. So yeah, protest would be in order here. Just make sure you are protesting against the correct side.
 
#27 ·
This had been percolating for a while. Before my company changed hands, the previous parent company was up our cabooses to jump with both feet into a wellness program and there were cash incentives given. I managed to steer clear of it but I know nurses were around to check vitals and blood may have been taken to prove cholesterol and blood sugar at the minimum.
 
#28 ·
My husband's employer has a wellness program and he had to make an appointment to go in and have everything checked. Fortunately, he is not overweight, is relatively healthy and doesn't drink or smoke. The insurance company is Independent Health.
 
#31 ·
great. something else I have to pay for, for my employees to have. price of those run $99 and up, depending on detail, with a 5 to 8 month leads time. If I had to wait that long, i might as well not fill the slot. If it does go thru, I will have to lay a couple off to afford to do it for the rest....oh happy happy joy joy
 
#41 ·
Lets not get all Chicken Little without first reading the actual bill first.

H.R. 1313 - Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act
115th Congress (2017-2018)
Sponsor: Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5] (Introduced 03/02/2017)
Cosponsors:
Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-7]* 03/02/2017
Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21] 03/07/2017
Rep. Mitchell, Paul [R-MI-10] 03/07/2017
Committees: House - Education and the Workforce; Energy and Commerce; Ways and Means

H. R. 1313

To clarify rules relating to nondiscriminatory workplace wellness programs.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 2, 2017

Ms. Foxx (for herself and Mr. Walberg) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To clarify rules relating to nondiscriminatory workplace wellness programs.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act”.

SEC. 2. Findings.

Congress finds that—

(1) Congress has a strong tradition of protecting and preserving employee workplace wellness programs, including programs that utilize a health risk assessment, biometric screening, or other resources to inform and empower employees in making healthier lifestyle choices;

(2) health promotion and prevention programs are a means to reduce the burden of chronic illness, improve health, and limit the growth of health care costs;

(3) in enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), Congress intended that employers would be permitted to implement health promotion and prevention programs that provide incentives, rewards, rebates, surcharges, penalties, or other inducements related to wellness programs, including rewards of up to 50 percent off of insurance premiums for employees participating in programs designed to encourage healthier lifestyle choices; and

(4) Congress has struck an appropriate balance among employees, health care providers, and wellness plan sponsors to protect individual privacy and confidentiality in a wellness program which is designed to improve health outcomes.

SEC. 3. Nondiscriminatory workplace wellness programs.

(a) Uniformity across Federal agencies.—

(1) PROGRAMS OFFERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH PLAN.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, workplace wellness programs and programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer in conjunction with an employer-sponsored health plan that meet the requirements set forth in subparagraph (B) shall be considered to be in compliance with—

(i) the acceptable examinations and inquiries set forth in section 102(d)(4)(B) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(B));

(ii) section 2705(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(d)); and

(iii) section 202(b)(2) of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff–1(b)(2)).

(B) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.—The requirements referenced in subparagraph (A) are that—

(i) the programs described in such subparagraph comply with section 2705(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j));

(ii) any reward provided or offered by a program described in such subparagraph shall be less than or equal to the maximum reward amounts provided for by section 2705(j)(3)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)(3)(A)), regardless of whether such programs are otherwise subject to such limitations; and

(iii) the programs described in such subparagraph comply with any regulations promulgated with respect to section 2705(j) of such Act by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary of the Treasury.

(C) SAFE HARBOR.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, section 501(c)(2) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12201(c)(2)) shall apply to workplace wellness programs or programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer in conjunction with an employer-sponsored health plan.

(2) OTHER PROGRAMS OFFERING MORE FAVORABLE TREATMENT FOR ADVERSE HEALTH FACTORS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, workplace wellness programs and programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer that provide for more favorable treatment of individuals with adverse health factors as described in 45 CFR 146.121(g) (or any successor regulations) shall be considered to be in compliance with—

(A) the acceptable examinations and inquiries set forth in section 102(d)(4)(B) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(B));

(B) section 2705(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(d)); and

(C) section 202(b)(2) of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff–1(b)(2)).

(3) PROGRAMS NOT OFFERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH PLAN.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, workplace wellness programs and programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer that are not offered in conjunction with an employer-sponsored health plan that are not described in section 2705(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)) that meet the requirement set forth in subparagraph (B) shall be considered to be in compliance with—

(i) the acceptable examinations and inquiries as set forth in section 102(d)(4)(B) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(B));

(ii) section 2705(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(d)); and

(iii) section 202(b)(2) of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff–1(b)(2)).

(B) LIMITATION ON REWARDS.—The requirement referenced in subparagraph (A) is that any reward provided or offered by a program described in such subparagraph shall be less than or equal to the maximum reward amounts provided for by section 2705(j)(3)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)(3)(A)), and any regulations promulgated with respect to such section by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary of the Treasury.

(b) Collection of information.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member shall not be considered an unlawful acquisition of genetic information with respect to another family member as part of a workplace wellness program described in paragraph (1) or (2) offered by an employer (or in conjunction with an employer-sponsored health plan described in section 2705(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j))) and shall not violate title I or title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–233). For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term “family member” has the meaning given such term in section 201 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (Public Law 110–233).

(c) Rule of construction.—Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer that is offering a wellness program to an employee from requiring such employee, within 45 days from the date the employee first has an opportunity to earn a reward, to request a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard). Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer from imposing a reasonable time period, based upon all the facts and circumstances, during which the employee must complete the reasonable alternative standard. Such a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard) is provided for in section 2705(j)(3)(D) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300 gg–4(j)(3)(D)) (and any regulations promulgated with respect to such section by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary of the Treasury).
 
#51 ·
Sure, it's not Bill that enacts a law forcing you to submit a DNA sample. A Bill like that would never find a sponsor. It's a Bill that would fundamentally undermine the privacy provisions of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). GINA restricted the access of that genetic information collected through a workplace wellness program to only healthcare professionals. Under H. R. 1313 those restrictions would no longer apply. Some participating in this thread might say, "just opt out of that aspect of the wellness program, problem solved". Except H.R. 1313 would also allow employers to impose financial penalties of up to 30 percent of the total cost the employee’s health insurance on employees who choose to keep such information private. Americans should not be forced to choose between access to affordable healthcare and keeping their personal genetic and health information private.
 
#43 ·
Anyone see the movie Gattaca?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/

This is where the world is going...if you have perfect genetics the world will be open to you...the "defectives", the ones with faulty genetics will be the treated as the dregs of society...

They say the truth is stranger than fiction...something to think about...
Yes I did and I'm a bit concerned you may be right.. It's actually not a bad movie though..
 
#48 ·
It is about allowing employers to do unsavory things that employers should have the right to do, in full knowledge that government mandates coerce those employers to do things with tbe information obtained that benefits neither the employer-insurer nor the employee-insured.

It's basically government giving themselves future permission to do all sorts of heinous stuff.
 
#56 ·
After 24 years of active duty if they don't have what they want, they ain't gettin' it. I have worked in the private sector since I retired and will decline any demand/request for genetic material from any employer, regardless of reason or consequence.

Having read the entire link I understand the WHY but its still despicable in concept and reason.
 
#59 ·
When I was hired in 1981 (still work at the same place despite many new owners...) I got a good physical before I was hired. They had a nurse station/ triage area in case someone got hurt in the many shops we had.

One test was a urine test, I asked what they checked for, the answer was blood sugar levels to see if people were diabetic. I gave them a sample that should have glowed in the dark.