6 ms·

The bill does no such thing: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1313/BILLS-115hr1313ih.pdf https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1313/BILLS-115hr1313ih.... R

by masonic 10y ago

The bill does no such thing: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1313/BILLS-115hr1313ih.pdf https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1313/BILLS-115hr1313ih.... Relevant quotes: "...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..." "...the collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member..." But nothing about forcing genetic testing on employees.

542458 10y ago
IANAL, but if I'm reading this right sec. 3(a)1(A)(iii) (not sure of what the right way to cite that is) says that collection of genetic information is OK if you say it's workplace health promotion plan (and remember, you're allowed to charge employees way more for insurance if they don't participate in these "voluntary" health promotion programs).
jacquesm 10y ago
No, it's considered voluntary. Except that if you don't comply with the voluntary wellness program you will end up with a steep financial penalty. In other words, it's mandatory. I also like how they pre-emptively state that this is all in accordance with GINA when it really isn't. The whole 'wellness' thing has fuck all to do with the wellness of the employees, it's all about case building and shifting responsibility onto employees.
im2nguyen 10y ago
The first "relevant quote" is.. irrelevant to genetic data collection. If you expand the second quote, it reads: "the collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member shall not be considered an unlawful acquisition of genetic information" As the article stated, genetic testing isn't forced upon employees. If you don't do it, you might have to pay an increase of up to 50% for health insurance or.. if your employer doesn't sponsor healthcare, they can deduct your paycheck.
- masonic 10y ago
  There is nothing in this bill that allows your insurer to sequence your genome in the first place.
  - im2nguyen 10y ago
    To quote jacquesm and MisterBastahrd: "No, it's considered voluntary. Except that if you don't comply with the voluntary wellness program you will end up with a steep financial penalty. In other words, it's mandatory." "There's no difference between 'voluntary' and 'mandatory' if the penalty for not doing the 'voluntary' thing is so harsh that you can't afford to refrain." -- You're right, there's nothing in this bill that explicitly forces your insurer to sequence your genome in the first place. HOWEVER, if a wellness program asked for your genome, and you denied it, then you would incur a heavy penalty. This is new.
Jare 10y ago
IANAL and not even US resident, but "provide incentives, rewards, rebates, surcharges, penalties, or other inducements related to wellness programs" [emph mine] sounds pretty clear to me - they can make your healthcare plan unaffordable if you don't participate in the "program". They mention established limits to rewards but not to penalties, so unless some other law is protecting you, this bill looks like what headline says it is.
redler 10y ago
I disagree. It depends how you define "force". Let's stipulate that most people don't have the resources to simply walk away from a job providing them with their income and with health insurance. Given that, here's selected text from the bill and its references (emphasis in capitals mine): """ (HR. 1313, 2017) §1(3) in enacting the [ACA], Congress intended that employers would be permitted to implement health promotion and prevention programs that provide...SURCHARGES, PENALTIES, OR OTHER INDUCEMENTS...including rewards of up to 50 percent off of [sic] insurance premiums for employees participating... """ """ §3(a)(1)(B) ...any reward provided or offered by [such program] 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)) """ Here's that section from the referenced law: """ 42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)(3)(A): [T]he reward for the wellness program...that requires satisfaction of a standard related to a health status factor...shall not exceed 30 PERCENT OF THE COST OF THE COVERAGE in which an employee or individual and any dependents are enrolled. ...[T]he cost of coverage shall be determined based on the total amount of EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS for the benefit package under which the ...employee and any dependents are...receiving coverage. A REWARD MAY BE IN THE FORM OF...THE ABSENCE OF A SURCHARGE...or the value of a benefit that would otherwise not be provided under the plan. [Labor, HHS, and Treasury] may increase the reward available...up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage [at their option]. """ Now back to the bill: """ (HR. 1313, 2017) §3(b) ...[T]he 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...and shall not violate title I or title 16 II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–233). """ The gist is this: Employers can "offer" programs with a "reward" for participating that is "you won't get a 30 percent surcharge" on the full bill, including both employer and employee costs, including costs for your entire family (i.e., likely a much higher amount than the employee's premium contribution). For the employee to "voluntarily" participate, the employer can require genetic testing, even if such testing is "with respect to" another family member -- and such testing is deemed by this law to expressly not be a violation of protections under PL 110-233. Oh, and by the way, the government can simply declare at any time that the surcharge rises to 50% from 30%.
- masonic 10y ago
MisterBastahrd 10y ago
There's no difference between 'voluntary' and 'mandatory' if the penalty for not doing the 'voluntary' thing is so harsh that you can't afford to refrain.

by masonic 10y ago

542458 10y ago

IANAL, but if I'm reading this right sec. 3(a)1(A)(iii) (not sure of what the right way to cite that is) says that collection of genetic information is OK if you say it's workplace health promotion plan (and remember, you're allowed to charge employees way more for insurance if they don't participate in these "voluntary" health promotion programs).

jacquesm 10y ago

No, it's considered voluntary. Except that if you don't comply with the voluntary wellness program you will end up with a steep financial penalty. In other words, it's mandatory. I also like how they pre-emptively state that this is all in accordance with GINA when it really isn't. The whole 'wellness' thing has fuck all to do with the wellness of the employees, it's all about case building and shifting responsibility onto employees.

im2nguyen 10y ago

The first "relevant quote" is.. irrelevant to genetic data collection. If you expand the second quote, it reads: "the collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member shall not be considered an unlawful acquisition of genetic information" As the article stated, genetic testing isn't forced upon employees. If you don't do it, you might have to pay an increase of up to 50% for health insurance or.. if your employer doesn't sponsor healthcare, they can deduct your paycheck.

masonic 10y ago
There is nothing in this bill that allows your insurer to sequence your genome in the first place.
- im2nguyen 10y ago
  To quote jacquesm and MisterBastahrd: "No, it's considered voluntary. Except that if you don't comply with the voluntary wellness program you will end up with a steep financial penalty. In other words, it's mandatory." "There's no difference between 'voluntary' and 'mandatory' if the penalty for not doing the 'voluntary' thing is so harsh that you can't afford to refrain." -- You're right, there's nothing in this bill that explicitly forces your insurer to sequence your genome in the first place. HOWEVER, if a wellness program asked for your genome, and you denied it, then you would incur a heavy penalty. This is new.

Jare 10y ago

IANAL and not even US resident, but "provide incentives, rewards, rebates, surcharges, penalties, or other inducements related to wellness programs" [emph mine] sounds pretty clear to me - they can make your healthcare plan unaffordable if you don't participate in the "program". They mention established limits to rewards but not to penalties, so unless some other law is protecting you, this bill looks like what headline says it is.

redler 10y ago

I disagree. It depends how you define "force". Let's stipulate that most people don't have the resources to simply walk away from a job providing them with their income and with health insurance. Given that, here's selected text from the bill and its references (emphasis in capitals mine): """ (HR. 1313, 2017) §1(3) in enacting the [ACA], Congress intended that employers would be permitted to implement health promotion and prevention programs that provide...SURCHARGES, PENALTIES, OR OTHER INDUCEMENTS...including rewards of up to 50 percent off of [sic] insurance premiums for employees participating... """ """ §3(a)(1)(B) ...any reward provided or offered by [such program] 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)) """ Here's that section from the referenced law: """ 42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)(3)(A): [T]he reward for the wellness program...that requires satisfaction of a standard related to a health status factor...shall not exceed 30 PERCENT OF THE COST OF THE COVERAGE in which an employee or individual and any dependents are enrolled. ...[T]he cost of coverage shall be determined based on the total amount of EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS for the benefit package under which the ...employee and any dependents are...receiving coverage. A REWARD MAY BE IN THE FORM OF...THE ABSENCE OF A SURCHARGE...or the value of a benefit that would otherwise not be provided under the plan. [Labor, HHS, and Treasury] may increase the reward available...up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage [at their option]. """ Now back to the bill: """ (HR. 1313, 2017) §3(b) ...[T]he 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...and shall not violate title I or title 16 II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–233). """ The gist is this: Employers can "offer" programs with a "reward" for participating that is "you won't get a 30 percent surcharge" on the full bill, including both employer and employee costs, including costs for your entire family (i.e., likely a much higher amount than the employee's premium contribution). For the employee to "voluntarily" participate, the employer can require genetic testing, even if such testing is "with respect to" another family member -- and such testing is deemed by this law to expressly not be a violation of protections under PL 110-233. Oh, and by the way, the government can simply declare at any time that the surcharge rises to 50% from 30%.

masonic 10y ago

MisterBastahrd 10y ago

There's no difference between 'voluntary' and 'mandatory' if the penalty for not doing the 'voluntary' thing is so harsh that you can't afford to refrain.