Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
mercurynews.com
mercurynews.com
A little Googling revealed the real business model was to convince doctors and medical groups to order these tests and pass the costs along to insurance companies and Medicare. These tests are pretty useless in most cases, probably not a lot different from 23andMe. Your grandmother goes into see her doctor with a cough. Her doctor now throws in a couple genetic tests to go along with the normal blood tests and obligatory cat-scan. And the cost of American medicine continues to rise with the same lousy results.
They used to be better until FDA cracked down and prohibited them from providing a detailed analysis of the DNA results where they would do a very decent breakdown of what kind of decease you might be predisposed to based on the results etc.
From what I understand they still do this in Canada though, also there are online services that can take your results and provide some sort of an extended analysis, never dealt with them though.
Her blog about it: https://larasgenealogy.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-genealogy-sa...
Irony #1: Stupid and paternalistic laws meant she had to mail in her spit kit from another state, rather than Maryland, where she lives.
Irony #2: She got her diagnosis the day the FDA shut down 23andMe's ability to give people their medical test results.
Wasn't that also a major plot point?
It's strange to see everyone hold up this movie as an argument against this sort of testing.
Or, wait, is that just your conjecture? Sorry. My bad.
It's left ambiguous as to whether he actually has a deadly heart condition.
There's the scene with the treadmill, but that can just be to show that he is normal.
This is like, "Perhaps that happened in Thelma & Louise 2, because the movie ends with them alive and in midair."
The swimming story is the inner story for the bigger outer story, but that's the heart of it. The bitter cripple who lends his blood points a very harsh light at rational disillusionment. Any system for genetic selection will impose a model of what ought and what ought not be; we should be wary of what it selects for, because it might not be what matters most.
It's particularly unfortunate because it would have been so easy to fix. The risk to others is unnecessary to anything the movie is saying. That it wasn't fixed says to me that either the writers couldn't be bothered to think things through, or they believe that personal ambition is worth any price, even the lives of people who don't consent. Neither alternative is very attractive.
Teams generally work better with a mix of different people, rather than uniformity. I'd be willing to bet that if the scenario was real, the mix would work better.
There are a lot of people out there who want to become astronauts and are rejected because they're not healthy enough. The reaction is almost always "that sucks for you, maybe you could go into something related to space so you're at least still doing something related to your dream," not "NASA sucks, they're building weaker teams by excluding people they think aren't healthy enough for space travel."
Interesting viewpoint! It seems to me that the genetic testing was nothing more than a convenient proxy for measuring actual performance. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and by actually performing, Vincent proved that the proxy was (in many ways) flawed.
> either the writers couldn't be bothered to think things through, or they believe that personal ambition is worth any price
The whole story is about emotion vs. reason, about whether or not the human spirit can be neatly quantified, categorized and filed away, and about the complex trade-offs involved. I think it's more likely that the writers were aware of this aspect of the plot, and gave us that much more food for thought...
The tradeoffs are never discussed, and the protagonist never so much as acknowledges that his pursuit of his dreams might cause harm to others.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and this pudding isn't eaten until Vincent's mission returns safely. When the movie ends, he has not come close to proving his performance for that.
The character is also clearly not an idiot.
At 1 minute in that clip the nurse talks about probability of heart disorder. 99% probability.
I read the movie as a criticism towards a society that grew accustomed to certainty, to a very narrow notion of physical perfection and the removal of all risk in favor of that. In that sense, the testing depicted in the movie induces society to an error, optimizing for a narrow set of traits, the expectation of fashionable accomplishments, where the explorers are not those who yearn to explore, but those whose genetic makeup makes them best suitable.
I would far rather have Ethan Hawke's character as a coast guard swimmer rescuing me in a storm than his brother, even if his brother had no similar heart defect. I would do that because I saw two instances in the movie of him out-performing his brother in feats of swimming endurance when under pressure.
His character is statistically more likely to die on the mission. Just to get a handle on the numbers let's say that with their filtering a 30 year old has about 1/20,000 chance of dying in a given month, and he might have a 1/1000 chance. We haven't seen anything about how he outperformed other candidates, but we can consider the respect of his peers and that he has succeeded in spite of appreciable time spent on establishing an identity and tracking down his DNA.
It probably doesn't matter if he dies on a routine mission. It is the rare mission with an anomaly where someone who is truly exceptional matters. If he is only 20 times more likely to provide the unusual solution that saves the mission, then it is a wash.
Anyway, my point is that one perspective on filling positions is to develop a long list of dis-qualifiers like health forecasts (and minimum competence). That is different than choosing the most extraordinary people possible (where negatives play a role in that determination). I know there is a tendency toward the former when choosing people for very selective and highly sought after roles, but it probably only appropriate when trying to fill out a large headcount with minimal resources for selecting the people. Those who can excel during crunch time are probably far more important for high level positions that are routine but punctuated requirements for extraordinary performance, than the people who look good to a hiring manager playing it safe and relying on clear but potentially less important signals.
DNA makes more sense than, let's say, blood type or astrological sign for hiring decisions, since there is a conceivable mechanism for determining future job performance. However, I wonder if the permission society that they lived in was capable of doing good analysis.
How would they cope with the relative weight of environment or even gut flora when DNA practically part of a civic religion with people being randomly tested on the street? Given a situation like the declining accuracy of Google Flu Trends over time, would they insist that the predictions were right, and the indicators of inaccuracy were wrong?
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/genetic-testing-bill-vo...
There are no genes that are identified as "First Nations genes" for this purpose.
I heard of stories where two kids are playing on a reserve, they go to the same school, share the same culture, both know the same amount of words from their ancestral language etc...
But when they turn 18 the one which is 40% native will have to leave the reserve, will suffer from racism inherent to "being native", and will have no special advantage while the other who is 60% native will be considered native and able to stay on the reserve.
1: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/491/...
So they are doubling down on a disproven theory to invade people's privacy. Hat trick to the GOP House if they can pull this nonsense off.
Why don't they?
-- Most healthcare monies are spent on the sickest individuals and they're least likely to participate in a wellness program. And the most motivated participants in lifestyle change sort of program would probably have been the most motivated to make changes outside of a program.
-- Many chronic illnesses and other expensive medical conditions/procedures are not prevented by wellness programs, getting an annual physical, etc.
-- A lot of programs are pretty superficial. (Discounted gym memberships and the like.)
I've never seen a problem with that. I do believe that everyone should have the right to health care, but I don't think that everyone should have the right to health care at the same price. If people are actively making choices that make them, statistically speaking, more costly to insure, why shouldn't they have to pay more as a result?
A discounted gym membership sounds like it'd save me money though. Is that what people are having problems with?
I thought this was about the question I get in open enrollment if I'm a smoker or not, or the forced yearly checkup other countries' employers have.
It's legalized genetic discrimination, and no protections on how the data can be used (or who it can be sold to).
This is the sort of thing the Republicans plan on replacing the ACA with.
Say you're a politician, and one of your opponents discovers you have the genes. Good luck dealing with that shit
This isn't meant as rhetorical, and I'm not trying to score some point. I'm honestly not sure where I land on this. Part of me wants to say "tough noogies, it's worth it to stop those kiddie diddlers" and another part is going, "whoa nellie, what if most of those people are completely innocent but will now forever live with this awful stigma?"
I think there's a multi-track drifting joke in here somewhere too, but I haven't had my coffee yet.
See, we don't even need genetic tests. Just don't hire left-handers under 5'8" and we'll be okay. And remember: blacks are more likely to be criminals and Jews have big noses.[2]
[1] http://www.alternet.org/are-some-men-born-pedophiles-new-sci...
[2] I know it's hard to tell on the internet, but this is sarcasm. Please keep in mind Poe's Law[3] and take a deep breath.
Suppose instead there were a gene found which caused a toxic reaction in some children. Some, but not all, children exposed to these substances might sicken or even die.
I suspect that in such a scenario, if the evidence showing correlation was compelling - you would be OK with mandating testing, and separating children from contact with known carriers of the gene - at least until it could be better understood and/or treated, cured, the harm mitigated, or what have you.
I would further suggest that if YOU were discovered to be a carrier of the gene, that you yourself would probably feel an obligation to self-report and avoid any contact with children, so as to prevent any accidental exposure and harm.
Ah yes, the clarion call of modern capitalism.
Why not just make the data free and open to all?
Knowing more doesn't always lead to better outcomes in a biased system.[1]
I'm a socialist in the old school 'greater good' sense but you have to draw the line somewhere and I think for things like DNA that line should be drawn extremely carefully.
I'm a big advocate of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
This just doesn't seem too completely unattainable to me. The average able-bodied person, properly motivated and living frugally, should be able to secure a few acres over one or two summers, easily.
... Unless you're talking about true "Swiss Family Robinson" style independence from any and all societal benefit or influence. Because then, yeah, that is pretty much not possible any more. Finding someplace a little out of the way, and "living off the land" in relative peace, however - that remains quite attainable.
I read the text of HR 1313 [2] and can't actually find the part where it allows penalties described in this article.
The final paragraph seems close, but not quite what is described:
>(c) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer that is offering a wellness program to an employee from requiring such employee, within 45 days from the date the employee first has an opportunity to earn a reward, to request a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard). Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer from imposing a reasonable time period, based upon all the facts and circumstances, during which the employee must complete the reasonable alternative standard. Such a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard) is provided for in section 2705(j)(3)(D) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300 gg–4(j)(3)(D)) (and any regulations promulgated with respect to such section by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary of the Treasury).
[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/0...
[1]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313...
[2]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313...
Sure there is, are you familiar with the Age Discrimination in Emloyment Act of 1967 [1]?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employ...
Rich will have designer genes and protected estates, poor will be locked out of any kind social advancement.
Well my aunt's work does somthing like this, if you get your blood checked once a year you get a discount, but I don't know if the company gets a copy of the results. I would think that would violate HIPPA, but I know if you switch doctors you can sign a release so your new doctor gets the information. So I assume it's all done with your permission(Signing a release with the doctor).
America is the only country that ties health insurance to employment also.
Edit: Looks like some positions only urine tests are allowed by federal law but looks like just DOT jobs. So If you have a desk job or working retail, looks like the companies are free to pick any much any method. https://www.quora.com/How-likely-is-a-hair-drug-test-for-pre...
This is more of a liability issue then anything else. If you do something while high the company has some protection from getting the "he was high while on the clock hence you responsible" book thrown at them.
>>America is the only country that ties health insurance to employment also.
It's not. Also, you're free to decline the coverage through your employer and buy your own (or not buy any). Which used to be a viable option until Obamacare kicked in - now you either buy what's called a "short term" insurance OR buy the same coverage and pay 2-3 times more for it. Why would you do that you might ask? Because short-term policies impose tax penalties and can only last up to 6 months so you have to constantly change providers which is an ordeal...
If this was true why shouldn't they also test for alcohol use?
One company I worked for had a manufacturing operation, talking to their supervisors - they would call the cops sometimes if someone is visibly drunk and the worse case scenario for the employee is they would get sent home w/out pay for a day or something along those lines. They were actually happy when some of those dudes would get drunk AND high at lunch so they can get busted by the cops :) There was also a union involved so that tied supervisor's hands even more.
These wellness programs are voluntary with the premise of the employee getting some sort of benefits for participating. So the only way I can think of where this can be presented as a "penalty" is if a company establishes a wellness program and the only way to get the benefits is to comply with the rules of the said program, of which dna testing can legally become a part of if this passes.
This is the same thing. They can't penalize people for not participating in the Wellness Program. So they increase the employee contribution for everyone and then offer discounts for people who participate. The net effect is to penalize the people that don't participate.
Furthermore, as an employer myself, I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have. Or how anyone would. At the point an employee gets tested, you've already hired them. What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A? Or getting a promotion because they're carriers of ALS?
I was assuming that it would be a worthwhile anecdote to share, given that most people appear to find it unnecessary to get tested. If one person on the Internet reads my comment, decides to get tested, and finds they are a carrier of a severe genetic abnormality and avoids delivering a stillborn child, I frankly don't give a shit how "inappropriate" it is.
> I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have.
Did you really mean to say "how" or did you mean "why"? Because the "why" is that if you have investors (at least in the U.S.) then you have a fiduciary duty to them to maximize their return by all legal means at your disposal. You do not have a fiduciary duty to your employees. So if you can increase profits by discriminating against employees who are more likely to be sick then you have no choice but to either do it or break your fiduciary duty to your investors. You could actually be sued if you don't.
> What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A? Or getting a promotion because they're carriers of ALS?
Yes. Exactly. And then hope they quit. Or, if you're in an at-will state, you could just fire them.
Please note that I am not endorsing this system. I think it sucks. But that's the way things currently are in the U.S.
http://evonomics.com/the-myth-of-maximizing-shareholder-valu...
It's the same with corporations and their duties. Enough people believe the "myth" that shareholders own corporations and that corporations hence have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders that this "myth" becomes self-actualizing in exactly the same way that the law becomes self-actualizing. The law itself even has a mechanism for incorporating such self-actualizing myths, notwithstanding that they are not formally codified into the law. That is called "common law". Common law is a meta-myth. Nowhere will you find the idea of common law formally incorporated into the law. And yet anyone who questioned the principle of common law (at least in the U.S.) would rightfully be considered out of touch with reality. Likewise for the fiduciary duty of corporations to their shareholders.
The fact remains that the legal obligation you claim exists does not. Not in statute. Not in jurisprudence. Not in common law.
Which is incorporated into law through jurisprudence, e.g., Houston & T.C. Ry. Co. v East, 81 S.W. 279 (Texas 1904), or Pierson v. Post, as examples.
Cheers.
Wrong. The matter was definitively decided in 1916:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
Note that Milton Friedman was four years old at the time, so this data point also falsifies your claim that Friedman invented fiduciary duty to shareholders out of whole cloth.
You really should do your homework before you accuse someone of "dispensing of the very concept of truth."
Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate.
"However, ONE VIEW is that this interpretation has not represented the law in most states for some time." [Emphasis added.]
IMHO that view is wrong. The fact of the matter is that if, as an officer of the company, you do not act in the best interests of the shareholders you can be sued in all 50 states, and if your conduct was sufficiently egregious you will lose. The business judgement rules gives you a lot of wiggle room, but it does not change the basic underlying principle. Whether you call this a "legal mandate" or a "standard of conduct" is just quibbling over terminology.
In any case, your claim that fiduciary duty to shareholders is "a myth ... [c]reated from whole cloth (like many others) by Milton Friedman" is plainly flat-out false.
Stout has more to add: https://works.bepress.com/lynn_stout/3/
You're forcing a false dichotomy. Under colour of sympathy to boot.
I'm sorry for your pain, but your suggestion and justification are both exceedingly poor.
> Furthermore, as an employer myself, I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have.
> What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A?
Not everyone is as nice as you. I can certainly imagine an employer terminating someone who tests "positive for XYZ Type A" because they don't want to pay the costs of treating the disease (though they may have to jump through some hoops to make it look kosher). Healthy employees are cheaper employees.
Also, keep in mind, not every employee is a developer-type that could be "leading a project." Think of all the other kinds of employees: phone reps, janitors, clerks, mechanics, etc. They're already treated as disposable, unlike a high skill developer.
In the benefactor's view there are a few actors crashing their cars everyday and others who have never had a ticket - currently they're all paying the same.