Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday March 12 2017, @09:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the your-DNA-for-sale dept.

We recently received two different submissions relating to HR 1313, the "Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act". HR 1313 is a new bill in Congress that will impact privacy protections for people's genetic information.

House Republicans Would Let Employers Demand Workers' Genetic Test Results

A bill that passed its first hurdle yesterday in Congress threatens to take away genetic privacy protections put in place with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008. H.R.1313, the "Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act," might instead be called the "telling on relatives" ruling.

According to GINA, employers can't use genetic information to hire, fire, or promote an employee, or require genetic testing, and health insurers can't require genetic tests nor use results to deny coverage. The law clearly defines genetic tests – DNA, RNA, chromosomes, proteins, metabolites – and genetic information –genetic test results and family history of a genetic condition.

Nancy J. Cox, PhD, ASHG president, in a letter to the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, provides a frightening overview:

"If enacted, this legislation would undermine fundamentally the privacy provisions of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It would allow employers to ask employees invasive questions about their and their families' health, as well as genetic tests they and their families have undergone. It would further allow employers to impose stiff financial penalties on employees who choose to keep such information private, thus empowering employers to coerce their employees into providing their health and genetic information."

http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2017/03/09/saving-gina-is-genetic-privacy-imperiled/

Give Us Your Genes or Pay 50% More for Company Healthcare

Force employees to take DNA tests for bosses? We've got a new law to make that happen, beam House Republicans - Give us your genes or pay 50% more for company healthcare:

[...] House bill HR 1313, dubbed the Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act, was introduced by Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and would allow employers to request genetic data from workers – and their family members – if they want their health insurance covered. It wouldn't be mandatory, but those who refuse could see their health costs rise by up to 50 per cent.

Genetic information is protected under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The proposed legislation would do an end-run around these protections.

"Preserving wellness programs and ensuring employers have the legal certainty they need to help lower health care costs for workers must be part of the process of repealing Obamacare and replacing it with patient-centered solutions," the bill's fact sheet [PDF] reads. "The Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act (HR 1313) reaffirms existing law to allow employee wellness programs to be tied to responsible financial incentives."

From the Wikipedia page of Virginia Foxx who introduced this bill:

Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act (H.R. 1313; 115th Congress) – Foxx introduced this legislation that among other things, eliminates the genetic privacy protections of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–233) and which allows 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.

Source: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/10/us_legislation_forcing_employees_genetic_info/


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @09:48PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @09:48PM (#478214)

    For comparison imagine if companies were not allowed to use the college that a person went to as a metric for hiring.

    Are you saying that you DO look at which school someone went to instead of what their skills and knowledge are?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:57AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:57AM (#478306)

    It's mostly a filter for when all other things are roughly comparable. Having the skills and knowledge for a position is nothing particularly unique. So while a candidate from Noname U might indeed be more competent than a candidate from MIT, the vast majority of the time they won't be and so it works as a decent filter. In this instance I'm mostly speaking of candidates without substantial relevant work experience as that would of course trump education.