GOP Bill Could Let Employers Access Your Genetic and Health Info

A GOP bill in Congress could give employers access to employees’ personal medical and genetic information and increase financial penalties for people who reject workplace wellness programs. [1]

House Republicans have proposed this legislation that would make it easier for companies to gather DNA and health information from employees and their families – children included – when it’s collected as part of a ‘voluntary’ workplace wellness program. Debate still remains, however, on the effectiveness of such wellness programs in general. [2]

H.R. 1313, the Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act, was proposed by Rep. Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina and chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. The bill is under review by other House committees and is awaiting review by the Senate. It has drawn the ire of numerous consumer, health, and privacy advocacy groups, as well as House Democrats.

A spokesperson for the House committee argued that “the 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, however, say that the bill could undermine existing laws designed to protect an individual’s personal medical information from use by employers and others. [2]

In a statement, Nancy J. Cox, Ph.D., president of The American Society of Human Genetics, said:

“We urge the Committee not to move forward with consideration of this bill. As longtime advocates of genetic privacy, we instead encourage the Committee to pursue ways to foster workplace wellness and employee health without infringing upon the civil rights afforded by ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act).” [2]

GINA was intended to prohibit genetic discrimination, and passed Congress with bipartisan support in 2008. Under the bill, companies can neither hire nor fire workers on genetic grounds, and GINA banned employers from asking for DNA test results. Workplace wellness programs were the exception to the rule, but the information had to be given voluntarily and only the program director, not employers, would have access. [3]

When President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, employers were given the power to levy financial incentives and penalties to urge employees to participate in the supposedly voluntary programs.

As of 1 January 2017, according to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations, employees who opt out of a wellness program can face penalties of up to 30% more, or even 50% more under certain conditions, for work health insurance than those who participate in the program.

Under the Republican bill, employers can demand DNA test results for employees in wellness programs, which directly conflicts with the GINA ban on forcing workers to share their results. If the bill is passed, it would mean that the GINA provisions don’t apply to wellness programs.

Cox said that, if enacted, the bill would “fundamentally undermine” GINA and ADA. [2]

In a letter to Foxx, 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:

“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.” [1]

Sources:

[1] The New York Times

[2] Fox News

[3] Buzzfeed

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Seriously? Coca-Cola and Pepsi Fund 96 U.S. Health Groups

It sounds like a bad joke, but it’s the sad truth: Coca-Cola and Pepsi, the nation’s 2 top soda makers, recently gave money to several prominent public health groups – including some run by the government. [1]

Source: Medical Daily

The sadder truth: Those groups were more than happy to accept the funds.

As reported by a new study published October 10 in the American Journal of Preventative Measures, researchers at Boston University School of Medicine reveal that a whopping total of 96 public health groups accepted money from Coca-Cola and PepsiCo (or both companies) between 2011 and 2015.

Some of the organizations might look familiar: American Diabetes Association, the National Institutes of Health, the American Red Cross, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, just to name a few.

Study author Daniel Aaron, a medical student at Boston University, said of the groups:

“To see all these organizations [accepting money] is shocking and surprising. I don’t think companies have a legal duty to protect people’s health, but I think these groups do.”

Take a minute to let that sink in. The American Diabetes Association takes money from soda makers. The very products the organization advises people not to consume. The study’s authors called this link “surprising, given the established link between diabetes and soda consumption.” [2]

Let’s take a deeper look at this bizarre report.

Sweet, Sweet Data

Aaron and his coauthor, Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of community health sciences at the university, decided to take a closer look at the love fest between soda companies and public health groups last year, when The New York Times ran a piece about Coca-Cola’s financial support of a group called the Global Energy Balance Network. [1]

This now-defunct “network” was composed of university researchers, and to put it in the simplest terms possible, Coca-Cola paid these so-called scientists to shift the blame away from junk food and sugary drinks for causing the global obesity epidemic, and a host of other health problems.

Aaron says:

“We were bothered by that, and a little bit confused, and we wanted to know if this was common.”

So Aaron and Siegel began investigating the links between Coca-Cola and Pepsi and 96 organizations:

• 63 public health groups


• 19 medical organizations


• 7 health foundations,


• 5 government groups


• 2 food supply groups

Pepsi sponsored 14% of these groups, while Coca-Cola sponsored 99%. The men think that’s probably an underestimate, however; Coca-Cola recently disclosed its sponsorships, while PepsiCo is “known for making its sponsorship data extremely difficult to track.”

Additionally, the study also only looked at national organizations, and most sponsored organizations are state or city-wide, the researchers report.

Here’s a shocker (note the sarcasm): When the team looked at lobbying efforts by both companies, they found that the soda companies actively oppose legislation that targets soda and is aimed at preventing obesity.

Between 2011 and 2015, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo publicly opposed 28 bills and supported 1. Of the bills the companies opposed:

• 12 were soda taxes


• 4 were Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations


• 1 involved the controversial limit on soda sizes in New York.

However, both companies supported a bill designed to limit the marketing of soda in schools, though beverages like Diet Coke could still be marketed.

All that lobbying had a definite impact. One group, Save the Children, gave up pushing for soda taxes after Coca-Cola and Pepsi gave them a cool $5 million in 2009.

And The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics issued a statement saying that it would not back New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed limit on soda portions, arguing that the emphasis should be placed on nutrition education.

Marion Nestle, a New York University professor of public health and nutrition, says:

“First, they attack the science. Then, they fund community groups, promote exercise as a solution, and say they’re self-regulated and don’t need to be regulated by an outside source.” [3]

Aaron and Siegel write in the study:

“It is probable that corporate philanthropy is increasing consumption of soda throughout the country.

Rather than supporting public health, organizations may become unwitting partners that contribute to corporate marketing strategy.” [1]

The duo argues that soda companies’ sponsorship of health groups ends up creating positive cultural associations with their brands. It should be noted that sponsorship is considered marketing by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

And never underestimate an industry’s ability to shape the public view.

As I wrote last month, the sugar industry paid Harvard scientists to frame sugar as a mostly-harmless substance, while painting fat as the cause of obesity, heart disease, and all of the health problems we now know are actually caused by sugar.

The sugar industry was so successful, in fact, that – to quote one professor – it was able “to derail the discussion about sugar for decades.”

Sources:

[1] Time

[2] RT

[3] Business Insider

Medical Daily

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.