Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're exaggerating. Wellness programs often need to take blood to establish baseline measurements like on cholesterol, a1c, blood glucose. Wellness programs were shut down because of the POSSIBILITY that genetic information could be obtained. It was never the intent of wellness programs to collect genetic info. Costs need to be controlled, especially for self insureds, and wellness programs were helping make workforces healthier, decreasing absenteeism, and decreasing overall health costs by 5-15% depending on the quality of the program and corporate participation. It is an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Please explain how it's an exaggeration. Many sources are reporting that this bill would allow employers to require genetic information, or impose large fines on employees.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/10/workplace-wellness-genetic-testing/

It's an example of over hystericalization of a minor finger prick to assess progress in a corporate wellness program. It penalizes people who won't participate to take proven steps to improve their diabetes compliance, improve their cholesterol, among other things. They also reward employees who meet other health goals. This has to be part of a three leg stool to reduce health costs: patient compliance, provider/hospital/medication/insurer fee control, and best evidence practices. Without all three, the stool doesn't stand. That's how health care costs get reduced for all of us while maintaining excellent care.

But I suspect the real problem is once blood is drawn, the use of illegal drugs can be monitored, which is the real reason behind the manufactured hysteria.

Thank you Chamber of Commerce lobbyist or Virginia Foxx staffer.

Wellness programs are often contracted out to third party companies. What if your own doctor provided the results and kept the blood so you could participate in wellness programs? I work in healthcare. Part of Any government sudidized plan must require partipants to follow some simple healthy habits. Keeping blood sugar under control, if not losing weight, working on maintaining a healthy weight, working on high cholesterol, taking medications as prescribed among other things. Don't want to adopt wellness habits? Don't accept a subsidized plan. If I'm helping pay for your heart attack, I want you to be following best practices.. End users (patients, insureds) in this system must have accountability. Plus the republican plan doesn't do enough to regulate costs on the provider/hospital/medication side, or hold doctors accountable for best practices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're exaggerating. Wellness programs often need to take blood to establish baseline measurements like on cholesterol, a1c, blood glucose. Wellness programs were shut down because of the POSSIBILITY that genetic information could be obtained. It was never the intent of wellness programs to collect genetic info. Costs need to be controlled, especially for self insureds, and wellness programs were helping make workforces healthier, decreasing absenteeism, and decreasing overall health costs by 5-15% depending on the quality of the program and corporate participation. It is an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Please explain how it's an exaggeration. Many sources are reporting that this bill would allow employers to require genetic information, or impose large fines on employees.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/10/workplace-wellness-genetic-testing/

It's an example of over hystericalization of a minor finger prick to assess progress in a corporate wellness program. It penalizes people who won't participate to take proven steps to improve their diabetes compliance, improve their cholesterol, among other things. They also reward employees who meet other health goals. This has to be part of a three leg stool to reduce health costs: patient compliance, provider/hospital/medication/insurer fee control, and best evidence practices. Without all three, the stool doesn't stand. That's how health care costs get reduced for all of us while maintaining excellent care.

But I suspect the real problem is once blood is drawn, the use of illegal drugs can be monitored, which is the real reason behind the manufactured hysteria.

Thank you Chamber of Commerce lobbyist or Virginia Foxx staffer.

From Congresswoman Shea-Porter:

Yesterday, while considering H.R. 1313, the Preserving Employer Wellness Act, Committee Republicans voted against privacy protections for the health information workers and their children. Rep. Joe Courtney (CT-02) offered an amendment to protect the information obtained through wellness programs from being sold for profit. Rep. Jared Polis (CO-02) also offered an amendment requiring employers to notify workers if information obtained through a wellness program was sold. Republicans opposed both amendments.

She even provides a link so you can see the amendment get voted down: http://bit.ly/2m3Yvk2

Anonymous wrote:You're exaggerating. Wellness programs often need to take blood to establish baseline measurements like on cholesterol, a1c, blood glucose. Wellness programs were shut down because of the POSSIBILITY that genetic information could be obtained. It was never the intent of wellness programs to collect genetic info. Costs need to be controlled, especially for self insureds, and wellness programs were helping make workforces healthier, decreasing absenteeism, and decreasing overall health costs by 5-15% depending on the quality of the program and corporate participation. It is an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Well this certainly seems like the post of a professional operative. How exactly would a wellness program possibly obtain genetic information when running a cholesterol test? I don't believe for a second that a wellness program was shut down because they were afraid that if they did a cholesterol test they would mistakenly obtain genetic information.

And cold I get a citation for the 5-15^ decrease in health costs as the result of work place wellness programs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to understand the rationale for this. Expanding wellness programs, and including a stick to make "voluntary" disclosure more likely, seems to be the motivation. But then the part about removing GINA privacy protections from information received through these wellness programs seems to be based on an intent to monetize people's private genetic and health information for the benefit of health care companies.

It seems like someone had an idea, wrote it down, and didn't think more than a half-second about the potential results or problems with any of it.

If you haven't noticed yet, this is the Republican approach to policymaking. They're trying to protect insurance companies from having to cover everyone by looking for ways to cull the rolls.

As some callous person pointed out upthread, it's one way to lower costs - people with predisposition for needing costly medical care can be forced to pay more. They put it on employers, but it's a fundamental question about the role of government: If they have to provide health care, should they also require people to get healthy.

Japan took a shot at this a few years ago. Everyone gets health care but, to control costs, there's a penalty to being unhealthy.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html

Don't be so quick to blame the Republicans. For the genetic part yes, but one of the articles another PP linked to pointed out that the concept of these "voluntary" plans -- which come with a huge penalty if you don't "voluntarily" take part -- were approved in the ACA. The article noted that under the ACA employers who use these plans could even ask about your plans to have kids and if you didn't answer, you could be penalized by paying higher penalties. What a gross invasion of privacy. The genetics part is even worse but if the article is correct, the concept originated with the Democrats.

I would not say the idea of higher premiums for people who do not participate in wellness programs originated with the Democrats as opposed to business concerns, but PP is correct that they went along and permitted it to be added to the ACA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to understand the rationale for this. Expanding wellness programs, and including a stick to make "voluntary" disclosure more likely, seems to be the motivation. But then the part about removing GINA privacy protections from information received through these wellness programs seems to be based on an intent to monetize people's private genetic and health information for the benefit of health care companies.

It seems like someone had an idea, wrote it down, and didn't think more than a half-second about the potential results or problems with any of it.

If you haven't noticed yet, this is the Republican approach to policymaking. They're trying to protect insurance companies from having to cover everyone by looking for ways to cull the rolls.

As some callous person pointed out upthread, it's one way to lower costs - people with predisposition for needing costly medical care can be forced to pay more. They put it on employers, but it's a fundamental question about the role of government: If they have to provide health care, should they also require people to get healthy.

Japan took a shot at this a few years ago. Everyone gets health care but, to control costs, there's a penalty to being unhealthy.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html

Don't be so quick to blame the Republicans. For the genetic part yes, but one of the articles another PP linked to pointed out that the concept of these "voluntary" plans -- which come with a huge penalty if you don't "voluntarily" take part -- were approved in the ACA. The article noted that under the ACA employers who use these plans could even ask about your plans to have kids and if you didn't answer, you could be penalized by paying higher penalties. What a gross invasion of privacy. The genetics part is even worse but if the article is correct, the concept originated with the Democrats.

Just bizarre. I've considered taking a genetic test and after reading about them realized that, while the tests can tell you about your risks, genetics are only a small part of the picture. Lifestyle and community are the other large pieces of the puzzle. A perfectly healthy person, with a good lifestyle and access to walking trails may be in much better shape than a person who tests with fewer genetic problems but lives in a community where excessive drinking and poor eating is common.

I bet some of the Republicans who came up with this are getting support from the genetic testing companies.

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to understand the rationale for this. Expanding wellness programs, and including a stick to make "voluntary" disclosure more likely, seems to be the motivation. But then the part about removing GINA privacy protections from information received through these wellness programs seems to be based on an intent to monetize people's private genetic and health information for the benefit of health care companies.

It seems like someone had an idea, wrote it down, and didn't think more than a half-second about the potential results or problems with any of it.

If you haven't noticed yet, this is the Republican approach to policymaking. They're trying to protect insurance companies from having to cover everyone by looking for ways to cull the rolls.

As some callous person pointed out upthread, it's one way to lower costs - people with predisposition for needing costly medical care can be forced to pay more. They put it on employers, but it's a fundamental question about the role of government: If they have to provide health care, should they also require people to get healthy.

Japan took a shot at this a few years ago. Everyone gets health care but, to control costs, there's a penalty to being unhealthy.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're exaggerating. Wellness programs often need to take blood to establish baseline measurements like on cholesterol, a1c, blood glucose. Wellness programs were shut down because of the POSSIBILITY that genetic information could be obtained. It was never the intent of wellness programs to collect genetic info. Costs need to be controlled, especially for self insureds, and wellness programs were helping make workforces healthier, decreasing absenteeism, and decreasing overall health costs by 5-15% depending on the quality of the program and corporate participation. It is an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Please explain how it's an exaggeration. Many sources are reporting that this bill would allow employers to require genetic information, or impose large fines on employees.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/10/workplace-wellness-genetic-testing/

It's an example of over hystericalization of a minor finger prick to assess progress in a corporate wellness program. It penalizes people who won't participate to take proven steps to improve their diabetes compliance, improve their cholesterol, among other things. They also reward employees who meet other health goals. This has to be part of a three leg stool to reduce health costs: patient compliance, provider/hospital/medication/insurer fee control, and best evidence practices. Without all three, the stool doesn't stand. That's how health care costs get reduced for all of us while maintaining excellent care.

But I suspect the real problem is once blood is drawn, the use of illegal drugs can be monitored, which is the real reason behind the manufactured hysteria.

No the real reason is that many people are carriers of genes that may be somewhat possibly linked to a disease they may or may not ever get, and so based on whatever "research" an insurance company decides they will (manufacture) rely on would then lead to no coverage for a "preexisting condition" once they do away with that protection too. And the consumer will have no way to disprove the genetic "research."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're exaggerating. Wellness programs often need to take blood to establish baseline measurements like on cholesterol, a1c, blood glucose. Wellness programs were shut down because of the POSSIBILITY that genetic information could be obtained. It was never the intent of wellness programs to collect genetic info. Costs need to be controlled, especially for self insureds, and wellness programs were helping make workforces healthier, decreasing absenteeism, and decreasing overall health costs by 5-15% depending on the quality of the program and corporate participation. It is an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Please explain how it's an exaggeration. Many sources are reporting that this bill would allow employers to require genetic information, or impose large fines on employees.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/10/workplace-wellness-genetic-testing/

It's an example of over hystericalization of a minor finger prick to assess progress in a corporate wellness program. It penalizes people who won't participate to take proven steps to improve their diabetes compliance, improve their cholesterol, among other things. They also reward employees who meet other health goals. This has to be part of a three leg stool to reduce health costs: patient compliance, provider/hospital/medication/insurer fee control, and best evidence practices. Without all three, the stool doesn't stand. That's how health care costs get reduced for all of us while maintaining excellent care.

But I suspect the real problem is once blood is drawn, the use of illegal drugs can be monitored, which is the real reason behind the manufactured hysteria.

Anonymous wrote:You're exaggerating. Wellness programs often need to take blood to establish baseline measurements like on cholesterol, a1c, blood glucose. Wellness programs were shut down because of the POSSIBILITY that genetic information could be obtained. It was never the intent of wellness programs to collect genetic info. Costs need to be controlled, especially for self insureds, and wellness programs were helping make workforces healthier, decreasing absenteeism, and decreasing overall health costs by 5-15% depending on the quality of the program and corporate participation. It is an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Please explain how it's an exaggeration. Many sources are reporting that this bill would allow employers to require genetic information, or impose large fines on employees.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/10/workplace-wellness-genetic-testing/

You're exaggerating. Wellness programs often need to take blood to establish baseline measurements like on cholesterol, a1c, blood glucose. Wellness programs were shut down because of the POSSIBILITY that genetic information could be obtained. It was never the intent of wellness programs to collect genetic info. Costs need to be controlled, especially for self insureds, and wellness programs were helping make workforces healthier, decreasing absenteeism, and decreasing overall health costs by 5-15% depending on the quality of the program and corporate participation. It is an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't HIPPA override this? I would assume that your personal genetic record constitutes a medical record.

I assume that's where the "voluntary" part comes in. Sure, it's voluntary, you'll just be penalized if you don't provide it.

Wouldn't HIPPA override this? I would assume that your personal genetic record constitutes a medical record.

I'm trying to understand the rationale for this. Expanding wellness programs, and including a stick to make "voluntary" disclosure more likely, seems to be the motivation. But then the part about removing GINA privacy protections from information received through these wellness programs seems to be based on an intent to monetize people's private genetic and health information for the benefit of health care companies.

It seems like someone had an idea, wrote it down, and didn't think more than a half-second about the potential results or problems with any of it.