A bill in Congress could make it harder for workers to
keep employers from getting access to their personal medical and genetic
information and raise the financial penalties for those who opt out of
workplace wellness programs.
House Republicans
are proposing legislation aimed at making it easier for companies to gather
genetic data from workers and their families, including their children, when
they collect it as part of a voluntary wellness program.
The bill, the
Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act, introduced by Representative
Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina and the chairwoman of the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce, would also significantly increase the
financial costs faced by someone who does not join a company wellness program.
The bill,
which is under review by other House committees and has yet to be considered by
the Senate, has already provoked fierce opposition from a wide range of
consumer, health and privacy advocacy groups, as well as by House Democrats.
Critics claim it undermines existing laws aimed at protecting an individual’s
personal medical information from use by employer and others.
“We strongly
oppose any legislation that would allow employers to inquire about employees’
private genetic information or medical information unrelated to their ability
to do their jobs, and to impose draconian penalties on employees who choose to
keep that information private,” a group of advocates, including AARP, the
American Diabetes Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Epilepsy
Foundation, the March of Dimes and others wrote in a letter this week to Ms.
Foxx.
As wellness programs proliferate across the corporate
landscape, workers are increasingly being asked by their companies to undergo
health screenings and medical assessments. Employees can opt out of these
programs, and personal information specific to a worker is not supposed to be
shared directly with the company. The prohibition is aimed at preventing
someone from being fired or otherwise discriminated against because of a
serious medical condition.
The federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission has vigorously pursued legal action against
some employers it claimed went too far and used these programs inappropriately,
but the courts have largely been sympathetic to the employers’ arguments.
Companies also complained that the regulations were confusing, and the
commission issued final rules in May aimed at addressing some of their
concerns.
Companies
defend the wellness programs, saying they keep workers healthier and help
reduce insurance costs. But some studies have questioned the effectiveness of
these initiatives.
Critics argue that workers are essentially being
coerced into giving up private medical information, such as their weight, their
blood pressure and whether they are at particular risk for cancer. Under the
Affordable Care Act, employers can entice a worker by offering as much as a 30
percent reduction in insurance payments. Although the financial incentives
offered have typically been lower, an employee who refused to participate could
lose as much as thousands of dollars in savings.
The bill would also weaken the role of the E.E.O.C. in
overseeing wellness programs and its ability to prevent violations of
anti-discrimination laws established under the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Employers would
be generally governed by rules established by different agencies. The bill “is
trying to streamline the regulatory scheme,” said Kathryn Wilber, a senior
official at the American Benefits Council, which represents employers’
interests.
She said
that companies remain committed to protecting the privacy of this information
and that employers take this responsibility “very, very seriously.”
Bethany Aronhalt, a spokeswoman for the House committee,
said the goal was to address employers’ concerns rather than to drastically
change the laws protecting workers. “We want to ensure working families can
continue to benefit from these voluntary programs, and so did the Obama
administration,” Ms. Aronhalt said. “This legislation will reaffirm existing
law and provide regulatory clarity so that employers can have the certainty
they need to help lower health care costs for their employees.”
Opponents
contend that the bill would leave workers much more vulnerable because the
rules under the anti-discrimination laws would not apply if someone volunteered
personal health information under a wellness program. “It just takes away the
workplace protection,” said Jennifer Mathis, the director of policy and legal
advocacy of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
The E.E.O.C.
does not comment on pending legislation, a spokeswoman said.
The bill
would significantly increase the amount of money at stake by allowing an
employer to offer higher incentives, up to 30 percent of the cost to cover the
whole family, as opposed to 30 percent of an individual’s coverage cost.
