When has the employer overstepped its role as a healthcare payor?

“That the intervention works and that it’s sanctioned by HIPAA and ACA don’t really address the core issue of employee privacy. The ADA and GINA exist to protect employees — to make sure, for instance, that companies can’t screen all their employees and simply fire the ones who are most likely to have expensive health problems the company could be required to pay for. Those rules say that for an employer to require a mandatory medical test, that test must be directly related to the employee’s ability to perform job functions.

But Honeywell’s reference to HIPAA and the ACA are very relevant when the potential consequences of the case are considered. By appealing to those laws, Honeywell is setting up the federal government in a battle against itself. If those laws are found to conflict, the courts will have to decide which to enforce.

Whatever ruling is made will answer the question of what is a higher priority for the government: Lowering healthcare costs or protecting employee privacy? Or perhaps the ruling will simply clarify ways employers can and should do both — like offering opt-in incentives rather than opt-out sanctions for voluntary screenings.” – http://mobihealthnews.com/37809/eeoc-lawsuit-against-honeywell-asks-when-does-employee-wellness-go-too-far


Comments are closed.