Little-noticed House Republican bill would let employers demand workers' genetic test results

[DonViejo]

Source: Stat/RawStory



STAT
10 MAR 2017 AT 10:06 ET

A House panel voted to allow employers to require workers to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars.

A little-noticed bill moving through 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 legislation 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. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.

"What this bill would do is completely take away the protections of existing laws," said Jennifer Mathis, director of policy and legal advocacy at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, a civil rights group. In particular, privacy and other protections for genetic and health information in GINA and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act "would be pretty much eviscerated," she said.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/little-noticed-house-republican-bill-would-let-employers-demand-workers-genetic-test-results/

[dalton99a]

1. This is a must read.

[defacto7]

22. Genetics for Eugenics...

What a concept. Culling the undesirables, the "probability" of desease, the racially impure...
This is entering the realm of pure fascism at the level of Hitler but using modern methods not available in his time.

OK... I'm really passed the point of patience. I'm ready for war on this regime of Nazis.

[pepperbear]

50. Snopes' take....

http://www.snopes.com/genetic-testing-bill/

[Stryst]

2. This will backfire on them

Ignoring the legal and moral issues with doing something like this, about 1% of the population is intersexed. And I'm going to say one of the more f**ked up things I've ever said here, but if it passes, I sincerely hope that a bunch of right wing women who have been screaming about trans people in their bathrooms all turn out to be genetically male with androgen insensitivity syndrome or the like.

[greatauntoftriplets]

3. I did a DNA test last summer.

It was for ancestry only, not the one with health predictions. I don't think that test would contain any information of interest to a potential employer, but you can't get more intrusive, can you?

[defacto7]

23. There are a lot of different genetics tests...

They're opening the door to finding out things that can only be described as discriminatory, racist or even eugenics.

[greatauntoftriplets]

32. I chose Ancestry's test because of their genealogical data.

As to the health forecast that some provide, I'll take my chances. I know what my parents, grandparents and, in some cases, great-grandparents died of. In some cases, it was old age -- one great-grandfather died at 96.

Still, this proposal is amazingly intrusive.

[Ms. Toad]

25. Actually it can have health implications . . . interesting story

My daughter was conceived by donor insemination - so we had no information about her ancestry.

One of those ancestry services matched her to her biological father

But, as it pertains to health, it confirmed our suspicion that there was an Ashkenazi Jew or two in her background (she turns out to be 50% - since he is 100%)

That particular ancestry has enormous health implications - some of which are why we suspected it in the first place, and some of which now mean that in addition to the breast cancer heredity that she has via my line (5 in 4 generations), she now has a second, specifically identifiable breast cancer risk that we know of because of an ancestry DNA test.

As to this new variation on family, she has (and we have) met her biological father and his wife. She has met her half-siblings - and this seems to be a case of things accidentally going well. Such encounters can be disastrous - and this had the potential, since donating was mostly a joke/way to get a little extra spending money for medical students (and he treated it that way). We're a same gender couple - which most donors did not even think about 27 years ago - so that could have been uncomfortable. But his wife knew about it at the time, so it wasn't a surprise - even though finding donor kids was not their goal when they signed up. My daughter has been invited to be as much a part of their "crazy family" as she wants to be - and nearly a year later, they both seem happy with the level of contact they've developed.

[greatauntoftriplets]

34. That's quite a story.

The great outcome is that your daughter now knows her father and his family -- and that they are accepting.

The downside is the health implications. But at least your daughter's doctors can watch and monitor her, but it's a hard thing to have hanging over your head.

I turned out to be 100 percent European, which disappointed me because I was always told there was a Native American ancestor. The surprise was the 11 percent Italian and 8 percent Portuguese/Spanish, but that actually made sense in term of European history.

My mother's family is well known since there is still extensive family in Europe. We have a family history based on existing record that goes back to the 15th century. My father's family was less known because other than my three first cousins, we didn't keep up and those we did know have all died.

But a cousin did find me and our friendship is developing, even though we live far away -- me in Illinois and she in Arizona.

I took the test out of curiosity. Yet I still find it intrusive as part of a job interview.

[Ms. Toad]

36. Definitely intrusive, as part of a job interview/employment requirement.

As to my daughter - it is nice to close the loop.

We would not have chosen to hide the donor - but at that time, places that included health screening we trusted required anonymity. So it was anonymity or no child. We registered her with the donor sibling registry as soon as she expressed any interest in finding her biological father - but didn't get any connections, and had given up. We went back to the doctor and paid them to try to retrieve the insemination records fo see if we could unearth more clues (no luck).

I wasn't even thinking about a parent/sibling match when she registered for the ancestry services. (It does have a health component - and she got a discount becuase she has a disease they are trying to gather information about. One of the diseases that made us suspect some of her ancestry.) And out of the blue, in the wee hours of Easter morning last year, my daughter got an inquiry from the wife of her biological father.

I find it amazing that the first question most people ask is whether I'm OK with it. #justnotwiredthatway

[greatauntoftriplets]

39. I think that someone who uses AI to have a child would be open to expanding their knowledge.

Similarly, my niece underwent AI to have a child. She was single, 36, had a good job and really wanted children and so decided to do it on her own. Today, she has six-year-old twin girls who are her life and love. She considers it the best thing she's ever done.

I don't know if she's ever thought about finding out more about the donor, but if she does, I'll support her all the way.

How nice that your daughter's biological father's wife made the first contact. They sound like good people.

[Aristus]

4. If this bill passes, it will be headed for a Fourth Amendment smackdown of epic proportions.

I hope it dies a quick, squalid, ugly death.

But if it doesn't, I'll tune in for the Supreme Court arguments...

[Ilsa]

28. I don't think the RWers on the Court appreciate the 4th. NT

[Igel]

67. Why?

The bill says if you participate in a wellness program and get a financial reward for it then they get access to your health information.
"Having a job" isn't the reward, and these are voluntary programs.
The "penalty" is being kicked out of the program and losing the reward.

Now, once they have this info they'll probably keep it. But it's the same for any other problem. I'm not in one because my condition could have some nasty consequences. A simple check or two that could be done in 2 minutes with a watch and a blood pressure device could alert the PTB. So I don't participate. That's hardly a 4th amendment issue.

[Mc Mike]

5. They're the 'limited, unobtrusive, small government' party.

[keithbvadu2]

47. Yeah! I thought republicans were anti-penalty.

[Mc Mike]

49. I guess it's not the g o pee ers in government invading the citzens' lives like a dictator state

would.

It's the g o pee ers telling the citizens that they made a new law that the citizens' employers can invade the citizens' lives like a dictatorship would.

So there's no hypocrisy involved in the repugs' latest nazi legislative effort, at all.

[Eugene]

62. It's limiting government's check on corporate power.

They're not about protecting individual rights,
especially for people who work for a living.

[Mc Mike]

64. Yeah. But that's not how they sell it to their rabble. nt

[rzemanfl]

6. Long term "white" Southerners will be against this bigly. n/t

[defacto7]

27. good point. nt

[FakeNoose]

56. All the conservatives should be against this - bigly

I can't imagine why they'd think this horribly intrusive bill would be in their best interest.

[rzemanfl]

58. "White" folks in the south who have been here for generations have a particular fear about their

genes.

[vlyons]

7. Must be to ferret out trans people

and people with high probability for genetic diseases. Republicans are so hateful.

[iluvtennis]

9. And people who don't meet the MAWA requirement GAH

[calimary]

40. This is not just hateful. It's freakin' SCARY!!!

Eugenics, anyone?

Are we working toward that whole "master race" thing? How 'bout YOU, Steve Bannon, and your white supremacy wet-dreams?

[Renew Deal]

8. Who would want this?

[CousinIT]

10. Big Insurance.

Vehicle to deny coverage.

[Grins]

19. Dead on!!!

That test would tell employers whether their potential or current employees were at increased risk for a range of diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease, breast or prostate cancer, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heroin addiction, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. For starters. With that information they deny employment and keep their insurance costs down. For existing employees, a slower career advancement track and management figuring out how to get rid of them before costs mount.

[FakeNoose]

57. It hurts the cons as much as the libs

Why would conservatives want this? It makes no sense.

[DeminPennswoods]

20. Exactly

nt

[Guilded Lilly]

11. And would it require the government's "employer rights"

To test every member of congress first? And allow the results published to their real employers...us?

[Stonepounder]

15. You realize that you could have an amazing career in stand-up comedy don't you?

Suggesting that Congress would pass any legislation that actually applied to them. (Except, of course, for pay raises and tax cuts.)

[Guilded Lilly]

16. Samantha Bee has me on speed dial of course!!! Bwahahaha.

[atreides1]

12. The wicked hag of North Carolina!!!

H.R.1313 - Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act
House - Education and the Workforce; Energy and Commerce; Ways and Means
Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5] (Introduced 03/02/2017)

Representative Foxx, she looks like a kindly grandmother, but that's a facade, this woman is evil to the core. You've heard of old white southern men, she's the female version! A more hate filled woman you will never find and she makes the witch in any horror story look like a fairy princess!!

[ffr]

14. Not to put too fine a point on it.

[Ilsa]

44. She's vile. Called Matthew Shepard's murder a hoax. NT

[ffr]

13. Those small government KGOP'ers are intruding on out liberties at every turn

Dammit! I'm sure this is what those stupid motherf-king hoodwinked voters were hoping we'd get more of from electing weirdos.

[Initech]

17. The sooner we stop listening to rural voters the better off we'll be.

[C Moon]

18. The GOP is horrible: they themselves would lose their jobs if they had to take a test like this.

They only work for the almighty corporations. Any fool who is less than a multi-millionaire and voted them in, needs to wake the frock up!

[RobinA]

21. Really

talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Illnesses that can be found in genes aren't limited to us peons, even insurance executives, even Presidents...oh, wait...on second thought...

[defacto7]

26. They probably think there can be exceptions for

certain excepional elitists who have proven their wortiness with their wealth. Even Hitler was an exception to the arian rule. He had Jewish ancestry.

[meadowlander]

24. This serves literally no purpose other than to discriminate against employees

Last edited Sat Mar 11, 2017, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)

with pre-existing medical conditions or who are at risk of developing expensive illnesses.

Literally every other person in my family has diabetes except me, both Type 1 and Type 2. So on top of having to worry about getting sick, I also now won't be able to get a job and therefore won't be able to get health coverage because of a genetic issue that I have no real control over.

They should be nailed to the wall for proposing this. We need to uncouple health care from employment permanently and we need to get sociopaths out of industry and government.

[still_one]

29. Well they must hire only those who make up this "super race"

[Lostnote]

30. This imfo must be targeted in the sponsors district!... Now!

[calimary]

42. Welcome to DU, Lostnote!

You're right. The voters in this woman's district need to know. But if they're romanced and swayed by the shrewdly-crafted "Freedom-Freedom!" talking points, they may not take delivery of this.

The enemy is VERY VERY VERY good at messaging. Strategic messaging. They say "FREEDOM!" and "Family!" and "America!" Note, btw, they call their "health care" bill the "American Health Care Act." As if slapping those empty words on something will somehow make it all better. Unfortunately, too many non-thinking marks (and that's what they ARE. Marks - for the predatory, opportunistic-infection CON artists to prey upon.) will just swallow it whole, because "FREEDOM!" "Family!" and "America!"

[Lostnote]

51. Thank you Cali... Been viewing DU before Black Box was a Box/lol

... Per the "marks" message I suggest renaming HR1313 to HR666...Certainly the groundwork for an emotional response has already been propagated for a very long time...

[Tanuki]

31. The article states that "workplace wellness programs"

are an $8 billion industry. Sounds like someone is interested in making big bucks off of this.

[Igel]

68. Yeah, they make a lot of people money.

At the same time, some are tied to reductions in health or life insurance premiums. If you document that you take steps to stay healthy, you reduce risks and you're in a cheaper benefits pool.

For those, there's a built-in reward: Do things to document you're in a low-risk pool, pay less for insurance.

But what if you were doing all the right things at age 40 but knew you were at high risk for early-onset Alzheimer's because of your genetic history? Then at age 45 you're deep in medical bills, knew this, but let the record state you were in optimal health. Because it benefits you now to pay as little as possible, even though you get full benefits later. You're socializing risk and privatizing benefits.

I don't like wellness programs. The ones I've seen are pretty simplistic. "Oh, your weight says your BMI is way over the mark." But the person they're talking to bench presses 300 lbs and is ripped. Muscle = fat.

My BP is great, my heartrate is usually 60. But a couple of times a week the pulse soars to 140 and the BP is 115/95. See part of the picture, it's great. See the other part, not great. I know when I'm in atrial flutter (or atrial fibrillation) and could easily not get checked at those times. I could deceive my employer. I'd consider this to be fraud. Knowing one thing and hiding that information in order to get a discount based on a lie.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

33. Every single one of us carries markers

for various diseases. But not every one of us gets even one of those diseases.

This is so wrong.

[joanbarnes]

37. Workplace 'wellness' programs are the worst invasion of privacy.

[Hekate]

38. Well there goes HIPA in one fell swoop. Expect a legal challenge.

Gods I hate these people.

[lunatica]

41. Would they give it up for their genetic history to be used?

Somehow I don't think so.

[Javaman]

43. this is just more of the right wing neo-fascism. bringing back eugenics. nt

[Angry Dragon]

45. NEO-NAZIS

[CitizenZero]

46. Needs To Be Watched

This story needs to be watched and followed over time. The danger is that it will slip under the radar. This dangerous, creeping Fascism. Glad at least it is getting some attention. We need to stay on top of this.

[keithbvadu2]

48. Surely they would not discriminate???

[Paula Sims]

52. This absolutely TERRIFIES me

I have lots of genetic conditions, one of them Ehlers-Danlos and another Lipoedema. Not fun. And hubby has the gene for high triglycerides and without Red Yeast Rice it has gone as high as 1200. We tell no one.

We at work have a "healthy rewards" option of lowing our insurance premiums by $120 a year (minus taxes) in exchange for biometric testing - height, weight, bp, cholesterol. I refuse to - I don't care. People around me say "what's the big deal" but I trust no one.

THIS, above all else, terrifies me.

[Dawson Leery]

53. From the party that was on it's knees for Hitler.

[Hoyt]

54. I'm generally OK with wellness programs. I think they help people and keep

costs down for employers and workers. Plus, might keep someone alive.

Genetic testing is probably going a bit far, although I'd probably do it. Your name can't be given to employer according to article. I don't agree with increasing premiums for someone who refuses genetic testing. Heck, nowadays docs warn patients that the might not want to know they have markers for some diseases. I think I would, but see how some might not.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

61. It seems more than a bit unnecessary.

Makes you wonder why they would want it.

[Lostnote]

55. Thank You Sir for this post.... HR1313 should be referred to as HR666...

Maybe the voters of the district that the Congressional sponsors represent, will begin to appreciate the level of contempt that these individuals have for the dignity of their fellow citizens... Best wishes

[mpcamb]

59. Get that in court ASAP.

That can't be legal for a half dozen reason.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

60. This is some scary shit. n/t

[applegrove]

63. And if they force you into a genetic test will they then own it? Kind of

like your data is owned by the businesses you buy and sell with and they resell your information?

[El Mimbreno]

65. 1984 has been trumped

Big Brother only watched, he never got into anyone's DNA.

[Crash2Parties]

66. Should be interesting. 1 in 467 are NOT the XX/XY they think they are...

More precisely, 1 in 467 have sex chromosomes that don't match the sex assigned at birth.

Many do know and will be outed to their employees, coworkers and communities.

The rest do not know having never been tested and may suddenly become more empathetic to transgender/intersex people.

'Tis unlikely to pass both House and Senate, but it would be interesting.

Apart, of course, from the horrendous breach of privacy we all assume to be part of American individualism. Also, HIPAA.