No, it's considered voluntary. Except that if you don't comply with the voluntary wellness program you will end up with a steep financial penalty.

In other words, it's mandatory.

I also like how they pre-emptively state that this is all in accordance with GINA when it really isn't.

The whole 'wellness' thing has fuck all to do with the wellness of the employees, it's all about case building and shifting responsibility onto employees.

IANAL and not even US resident, but "provide incentives, rewards, rebates, surcharges, penalties, or other inducements related to wellness programs" [emph mine] sounds pretty clear to me - they can make your healthcare plan unaffordable if you don't participate in the "program". They mention established limits to rewards but not to penalties, so unless some other law is protecting you, this bill looks like what headline says it is.

The first "relevant quote" is.. irrelevant to genetic data collection.

If you expand the second quote, it reads:

"the collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member shall not be considered an unlawful acquisition of genetic information"

As the article stated, genetic testing isn't forced upon employees. If you don't do it, you might have to pay an increase of up to 50% for health insurance or.. if your employer doesn't sponsor healthcare, they can deduct your paycheck.

There is nothing in this bill that allows your insurer to sequence your genome in the first place.

To quote jacquesm and MisterBastahrd:

"No, it's considered voluntary. Except that if you don't comply with the voluntary wellness program you will end up with a steep financial penalty. In other words, it's mandatory."

"There's no difference between 'voluntary' and 'mandatory' if the penalty for not doing the 'voluntary' thing is so harsh that you can't afford to refrain."

--

You're right, there's nothing in this bill that explicitly forces your insurer to sequence your genome in the first place. HOWEVER, if a wellness program asked for your genome, and you denied it, then you would incur a heavy penalty. This is new.

IANAL, but if I'm reading this right sec. 3(a)1(A)(iii) (not sure of what the right way to cite that is) says that collection of genetic information is OK if you say it's workplace health promotion plan (and remember, you're allowed to charge employees way more for insurance if they don't participate in these "voluntary" health promotion programs).

There's no difference between 'voluntary' and 'mandatory' if the penalty for not doing the 'voluntary' thing is so harsh that you can't afford to refrain.

I disagree. It depends how you define "force". Let's stipulate that most people don't have the resources to simply walk away from a job providing them with their income and with health insurance.

Given that, here's selected text from the bill and its references (emphasis in capitals mine):

""" (HR. 1313, 2017) §1(3) in enacting the [ACA], Congress intended that employers would be permitted to implement health promotion and prevention programs that provide...SURCHARGES, PENALTIES, OR OTHER INDUCEMENTS...including rewards of up to 50 percent off of [sic] insurance premiums for employees participating... """

""" §3(a)(1)(B) ...any reward provided or offered by [such program] shall be less than or equal to the maximum reward amounts provided for by section 2705(j)(3)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)(3)(A)) """

Here's that section from the referenced law:

""" 42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)(3)(A): [T]he reward for the wellness program...that requires satisfaction of a standard related to a health status factor...shall not exceed 30 PERCENT OF THE COST OF THE COVERAGE in which an employee or individual and any dependents are enrolled. ...[T]he cost of coverage shall be determined based on the total amount of EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS for the benefit package under which the ...employee and any dependents are...receiving coverage. A REWARD MAY BE IN THE FORM OF...THE ABSENCE OF A SURCHARGE...or the value of a benefit that would otherwise not be provided under the plan. [Labor, HHS, and Treasury] may increase the reward available...up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage [at their option]. """

Now back to the bill:

""" (HR. 1313, 2017) §3(b) ...[T]he 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...and shall not violate title I or title 16 II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–233). """

The gist is this: Employers can "offer" programs with a "reward" for participating that is "you won't get a 30 percent surcharge" on the full bill, including both employer and employee costs, including costs for your entire family (i.e., likely a much higher amount than the employee's premium contribution). For the employee to "voluntarily" participate, the employer can require genetic testing, even if such testing is "with respect to" another family member -- and such testing is deemed by this law to expressly not be a violation of protections under PL 110-233. Oh, and by the way, the government can simply declare at any time that the surcharge rises to 50% from 30%.

You capitalize it, yet you still misinterpret it.

See:

http://www.snopes.com/genetic-testing-bill/

There is nothing in this bill that empowers your insurer to sequence your genome in the first place.

I didn't say anything about genome sequencing (nor does the bill), and your Snopes citation doesn't refute anything in HR 1313 (or my analysis).

It's easy to read the bill in its entirety, along with all the referenced sections of law, and see where the Snopes analysis is incorrect or does not sufficiently embody the imaginations of the lobbyists behind the bill.

Snopes:

""" The bill...does not in and of itself require employees to enroll in such programs. But it notes that according to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers could reduce annual health insurance premiums by up to 50 percent for employees who did take part. """

Bill:

""" ...employers would be permitted to implement health promotion and prevention programs that provide incentives, rewards, rebates, SURCHARGES, PENALTIES, OR OTHER INDUCEMENTS related to wellness programs... """

""" ...A reward may be in the form of...THE ABSENCE OF A SURCHARGE... """

The Snopes analysis is incorrect. The bill specifically permits employers to "surcharge" everyone who does not participate, and "reward" those who do by relieving them of the surcharge. Such relief would be based on participation in the "wellness program". The bill even uses the very weak term "related" to allow substantial latitude in the design of these programs and their penalties and rewards.

Snopes:

""" A spokesperson for the committee told us...[i]f a worker chooses to voluntarily participate in an employee wellness program, they would then typically participate in a health risk assessment. This has long been the case for employee wellness programs, including employee wellness programs promoted by the Affordable Care Act, and it would continue to be true for employee wellness programs under H.R. 1313. """

The spokesman here is attempting to justify the bill by somewhat defensively comparing it to provisions of the ACA, of whose repeal this bill would be a component. Workers will "choose to voluntarily participate" because they'll receive a memo from their employer stating that their costs will jump substantially if they do not.

Snopes:

""" A May 2016 ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stated that premiums could be cut by 30 percent for individuals and 60 percent for couples who enrolled in such programs. But under the new bill, premiums could be cut by up to 50 percent. """

Bill:

""" [T]he reward...shall not exceed 30 percent of the cost of the coverage...[and]...may be in the form of...the absence of a surcharge...[which]...[Labor, HHS, and Treasury] may increase...up to 50 percent. """

(EDIT: Note that the language here is "cost of the coverage", not "premiums" -- vague drafting which is probably designed to allow a newly maximal interpretation of "cost".)

This speaks for itself, and what I've elided for clarity does not change the meaning, as you can verify yourself with a quick read of the bill. HR 1313 allows the option of a "negative reward" of 50% for "voluntary" non-participants, and furthermore allows genetic testing (not specifically genome sequencing, although nothing in the bill seems to prevent this possibility) of those who do "voluntarily participate" as a precondition for such participation.

The bill blithely disclaims conflict with genetic nondiscrimination law; such disclaimer would almost certainly be held invalid if tested.

> The bill blithely disclaims conflict with genetic nondiscrimination law; such disclaimer would almost certainly be held invalid if tested.

Actually, no, a later enactment explicitly stating that things it allows are not prohibited by an earlier enactment, by that explicit statement, limits the earlier enactment.