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.

Comments

Re:Simple fix

[Attila Dimedici]

No, Democrats are responsible for Trump being in the White House. If they had not re-elected Obama after he had demonstrated that he had no respect for the rule of law the Republican voters would not have felt it necessary to vote for someone who would do the same thing in their interest.
That is really what the last election was about: whose interest would the President break the law in order to promote. Hillary, who stood foursquare for the political establishment, or Trump, who proclaimed himself as opposed to it. It was really a shame it came down to that with no good candidates, but at least the American voters chose the least bad choice.