Slashdot Mirror


New Bill Would Allow Employers To Demand Genetic Testing From Workers (businessinsider.com)

capedgirardeau quotes a report from Business Insider: A little-noticed bill moving through the U.S. Congress would allow companies to require employees to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars, and would let employers see that genetic and other health information. Giving employers such power is now prohibited by U.S. law, including the 2008 genetic privacy and nondiscrimination law known as GINA. The new bill gets around that landmark law by stating explicitly that GINA and other protections do not apply when genetic tests are part of a "workplace wellness" program. The bill, HR 1313, was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. The 2008 genetic law prohibits a group health plan -- the kind employers have -- from asking, let alone requiring, someone to undergo a genetic test. It also prohibits that specifically for "underwriting purposes," which is where wellness programs come in. "Underwriting purposes" includes basing insurance deductibles, rebates, rewards, or other financial incentives on completing a health risk assessment or health screenings. In addition, any genetic information can be provided to the employer only in a de-identified, aggregated form, rather than in a way that reveals which individual has which genetic profile. There is a big exception, however: As long as employers make providing genetic information "voluntary," they can ask employees for it. Under the House bill, none of the protections for health and genetic information provided by GINA or the disabilities law would apply to workplace wellness programs as long as they complied with the ACA's very limited requirements for the programs. As a result, employers could demand that employees undergo genetic testing and health screenings.

10 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Yes those emails by jpatters · · Score: 5, Informative

    The emails were a felony only in your imagination. If the Republicans keep pulling shit like this they will become even more irrelevant in reality than you imagine the other party is.

    --
    "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
  2. BS summary by tranquilidad · · Score: 3, Informative

    The linked article can't be read if an adblocker is active.

    The current state of the law:

    Employees who refuse to participate in an employer wellness program can be charged up to 50% more for employer-provided health insurance.

    If genetic testing is part of the wellness program then employees have to voluntarily authorize the genetic test. If an employee participates in the wellness program but declines included genetic testing then they can't be penalized with the higher insurance premiums.

    The new state of the law, if this bill passes:

    Employees who refuse genetic testing that is part of a wellness program can be considered non-participants in the wellness program and be charged the higher insurance premiums.

    The comment in the summary that the new bill would "...let employers see that genetic and other health information." is the current state of the law as it relates to wellness programs (Work wellness programs put employee privacy at risk). There is nothing in the new bill that suddenly decreases patient/employee privacy.

    "Mandatory" wellness programs, themselves, were controversial and lacked privacy protections when the Democrats insisted everyone participate. They're no less controversial today as the Republicans expand those wellness programs with additional components.

  3. Re:Those emails, though by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

    The committee is not the entire House. If you think all GOP are going to support it you're insane.

    No, the ones who are in vulnerable districts will be given a pass, but only after they know they have enough Republican votes to pass it. This phenomenon even has a name. It's called the "Hastert Rule", proudly named after its inventor, a long-time Republican House leader who was also a pedophile and is currently in prison.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Fake news ahoy! by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was wondering about this so I googled it. Dems opposed mandatory wellness back in 2013. tranquilidad is full of it. Got modded up to +5 even.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  5. Re:Yes those emails by presidenteloco · · Score: 3, Informative

    So they're a felony for Pence then, is what you're saying.

    And it's a much worse felony, presumeably, that President Trump communicates about governance related issues using his unsecured Android phone.

    Hypocrisy of the highest order.

    The whole email affair was a mountain made out of a mole hill to scam gullible people into voting for someone who wants f*cking corporations to have the right to demand genetic testing of employees if it will notch up their profit one notch.

    F*ck people are stupid. Is there another planet with intelligent life?

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  6. Re:Those emails, though by dbIII · · Score: 1, Informative

    long-time Republican House leader who was also a pedophile and is currently in prison.

    Yes, but it's not like he had his own email server!
    The same with Senator Peter King - he raised money for terrorists, but no email server, so he's OK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King#Support_for_the_IRA)

  7. Hastert Rule googled + Msg to Robert Mercer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Under House rules, the Speaker schedules floor votes on pending legislation. The Hastert Rule says that the Speaker will not schedule a floor vote on any bill that does not have majority support within his or her party — EVEN IF THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE would vote to pass it"

    So the speaker subverts the majority of the votes using his position to prevent votes on bills not supported by his party.

    And now we have a President that Americans didn't vote for, they voted by clear majority for the other one.

    Robert Mercer you suck as human being.

  8. Re:Republican Freedom by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thank you for voting Democrat in 2008 and 2012 - you helped more than double my insurance costs

    You can blame lobbyists and the Republican filibuster on earlier attempts for single payer. Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was a compromise reached through negotiation with insurance lobbyists. It is modeled on the earlier Massachusetts Accountable Health Care act (Romneycare), and mainly adds requirements for insurance providers to cover preventative care and has provisions to expand Medicare. But the rest of it remain the same, it's an expansion of a system that Massachusetts already has operated successfully.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  9. He weas acquited of all charges by aepervius · · Score: 2, Informative

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Furthermore while there was allegation ,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations, none were really proved. So while I find Clinton abhorrent, you can only say about what is really proved : the sexual harassment lawsuit and the admitted sex with the 2 women. As such the GP is correct.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  10. Re:Those emails, though by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative
    There's definitely evidence of it. For example, NPR quotes Dan Metcalfe:

    He said what was "unprecedented" actually was Clinton's exclusive use of private email and her own Internet service provider in lieu of an official account "so that the records of her email account would reside solely within her personal control at home." That means "she managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it — perhaps forever." He called that "a blatant circumvention of the FOIA by someone who unquestionably knows better.

    It is certain that she didn't like email because of the risk of investigation, see this video clip.

    All of this really doesn't matter anymore though, it's in the past and more an issue for historians than anything.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."