Gattica!

I would have to read the bill, but if as presented in the article, that is some seriously scary shit.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

go nuts: HR 1313 - To clarify rules relating to nondiscriminatory workplace wellness programs.

here's probably the relevent piece:
"(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)

So what is the definition of a "Family Member" in Public Law 110-233?

5) FAMILY MEMBER.—The term ‘family member’ means, with respect to an individual— ‘‘(A) a dependent (as such term is used for purposes of section 701(f)(2)) of such individual, and ‘‘(B) any other individual who is a first-degree, seconddegree, third-degree, or fourth-degree relative of such individual or of an individual described in subparagraph (A).

I have already procured fully sequenced and cleared several reference samples to cheat that system.

Bring it on....you won't sequence that genome of mine (tried already).

This is insane, we don't even completely understand what we are looking at.

I predict long and heavy court battles regarding the validity of disease predictions based on genetic testing alone.
.


I

That doesn't do what the thread title claims. It doesn't say anywhere there that you must provide the information. What that is saying (I think) is that if you report that your kid has some sort of genetic disorder, the collector of the information has not unlawfully acquired genetic information about that kid.

Maybe there's more to it elsewhere but it seems to me to be simply protecting the collector of the information from the unlawful acquisition of genetic info. from someone.

They are not going to let you just submit whatever you want. They will come to your house and take their own swab. They have learned from the HIV experience.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I'm not seeing it as clear and evil as presented. Possible to interpret as such, but when you read laws you have to read the whole thing not just parts to determine the context. Is this simply protecting the archiver of such data? Or does it allow penalties if an employee refuses to provide genetic code? What other laws already exist that protect such data?

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

This seems like the meat n potatoes:
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).


That seems to be a FAR cry from what you presume it to mean.

I have a workplace wellness program; each year I take a wellness survey and have vitals taken by an independent agency, and get health insurance credits for doing so ($400 each). So does my wife. I can submit information about my health, and this wellness program can help me to find appropriate medical professionals for something that's ailing me. If I had a dependent I could do the same.

This is saying that anything submitted through a wellness program about a dependent is not considered 'unlawful acquisition' of that information, and thus does not violate GINA. It's recusing these third-party wellness programs of any unlawful data collection, which is a no-brainer since it's submitted by the parent/caregiver to begin with.

At least that's the way I'm reading it.

It says under section 2 part 3 they can institute penalties and surcharges based on wellness programs. Say your wife has the breast cancer gene - does that qualify for a surcharge? What if you show early onset Alzheimer's is that a penalty or just simply a job no longer needed at 50?

Based on the amount genetics has changed in the past 3 years I don't think any of can foresee what this means in 5 years.

Here's what snopes says on it
http://www.snopes.com/genetic-testing-bill/

American society of human genetics opposes it
https://www.eurekalert.org/...3/asoh-aoh030817.php

And since yesterday even Tom Price said it sounded concerning
https://www.statnews.com/...genetic-information/

Hell no.

Where does it say you have to give them that information if you don't want to?

It does not say you have to share.

It says they can charge you a penalty on your insurance premiums which some of the linked articles have estimated at up to over $5k.

Maybe you trust employers more than me, but I'm thinking that the next layoff list will have a high percentage of people who's health information privacy is worth over 5k to them or even a smaller but significant amount. As well as a few that just coincidentally have genes predisposing them to expensive and debilitating health conditions. Cause clearly if you read the news corporate ethics are not exactly the holy grail that shareholder value is.

If an employer is allowed to obtain information under the belief it will help mitigate risk, it will, and if it can penalize employees who refuse to do it, it will. This is no different than companies that forced employees to submit to nicotine screening and fired those who didn't and fired those that did that had measurable amounts and weren't under an approved smoking cessation program. Disturbing indeed, but if it isn't under support from the administration, and has so many large groups opposed to it, is this simply vaporware? I mean, that idiot form New York used to submit a draft reinstatement bill every year without any chance of passing.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

It already passed in committee along party lines. I believe 22 republicans voted for it.

The office I spoke with had never heard about it. Same with Tom Price when they asked him about it yesterday. People are not paying attention to this with the big healthcare bill and I don't want it to slip through.

That's why I put it here- I was hoping to get some attention on it and hopefully generate a call or two to elected officials who think this is no big deal on reading it since they are focused on other things.

I'd solve the problem by removing employers from the health insurance game in the first place. I don't know how they ever became involved. They don't pay for my home owner's or car insurance so I'm no sure why they are involved in paying for part of my health insurance.

Short of that I'd keep any potentially compromising health info. to myself and not share it with the Wellness program and not work for the sort of place that would use it against me in the first place.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't say that at all. Not even a little bit.

You need to understand the history of this to understand the bill.

Originally, via bipartisan support, Congress pass laws that permitted the establishment of wellness programs. A wellness program permits an employer to provide DISCOUNTS on employer-provided health insurance if you participate in the plan. In order to participate in many of these wellness programs, the employee had to submit to medical examination and adhere to healthy lifestyle choices (working out, joining a gym, etc.). Originally, the medical examinations included, in some cases, genetic testing.

GINA prohibits an employer from refusing to hire or refusing to insure a healthy person who carries a genetic predisposition to develop a serious health condition in the future.

When wellness programs were originally created, participation in the DISCOUNT program could be curtailed if the person engaged in unhealthy conduct or had a condition that may increase healthcare costs. Genetic screening was permitted.

The EEOC made the decision a few years ago that this violated GINA, even though it absolutely does not violate any express provision of GINA. This was a change to the law by an administrative agency.

This bill would remove the EEOC's determination that this is a GINA violation, which is how the law was before the EEOC changed it.

So, worst case - the employee may be prohibited from participating in the DISCOUNT wellness program. But, GINA still would prohibit them from denying health insurance coverage. So, they would pay the regular price.

Your title is blatantly false.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

If it was really about wellness alone they should offer it through your doctor and request proof that it happened and counseling occurred where it would be hippa protected.

I am siding with the American academy of pediatrics, AARP, the March of Dimes and many other credible medical organizations on this one that it is a violation of privacy. A partial list is on the letter below.

https://www.aap.org/...tionletter030717.pdf

No. Read the bill and the history of this subject.

You are engaging in hysterics and posting patently false and misleading information.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR