Skip to comments.Question: Mandatory Blood test by the Insurance Company
Posted on 03/03/2011 4:25:44 AM PST by The Working Man
A vanity question here.
A friend of my wife was asking for advice.
The situation: Her Husband works for the City. They just received a notice that all of the spouses of the covered employees MUST show up, as in mandatory, for a meeting with the Health Care insurer for a question and answer session and then give a blood sample.
So, with that as the situation. Her question to my wife was; Why do they want a blood sample from the spouses?
I don't know anything further than what she told my wife. So I think that what I am asking for is this.
Has anyone experienced a similar situation lately?
Any idea; Why the mandatory blood sample?
To make sure that they people covered under the plan don’t have hugely expensive diseases.
...checking for drug issues. Health insurance, general insurance for the township or community... their covering their butts.
This is usually done for life insurance however it is being done more recently for medical insurance in some areas.
If your employer is providing a coverage discount for being “healthy”, i.e. “wellness plans”, you will likely get a blood test even if just to ensure you are not a smoker.
I personally consider wellness plans discriminatory but that’s how they work.
They are screening for drugs and “blood anomalies”.
My former company “revamped” their insurance a few years ago as well and required this. Their was an option to go to your own doctor. They are looking at risk factors such as diabetes in order to create groups of high and low risk pools and change rates accordingly. All while adding domestic partner benefits which cost us more than any individual with a terrible disease.
I’ve also heard of companies that offer discounts for tobacco users sometimes testing to see whether or not subscribers are abiding by the rules.
The number 1 thing they will be testing for is HIV.
If the spouse is covered by the plan, that is why.
“Why do they want a blood sample from the spouses?”
That’s very odd. I worked for a city H.R. department, and the only mandatory drug testing was for employees. There was always testing for pre-employment health test. The second was random testing only for people in certain job classes in vehicle maintenance, etc.
I can’t believe spouse screening is OK, but in this nanny state, who knows?
I am assuming that the spouses are covered by the City’s health insurance. They probably have some right to request a blood test for their insurees.
If you are worried about something showing up, I would talk to a lawyer knowledgeable about medical law or labor law.
If your spouse has HIV, don’t you think your health insurance company has the right to use that info in deciding the amount of your premium?
Thank you everyone for responding.
If I hear anything more after my wife’s friend has this meeting and they do these blood samples I’ll post it here.
In many ways I hate the paranoia that we’ve built up over the last 20 years or so. My personal first thought was that they were going to to do DNA checking for genetic diseases and use that as a reason to put the Employees on a ‘first to layoff’ list.
Take care and have yourselves a great day!
But...but...under Obamacare I thought all were covered?
shuuuuush, you ask too many questions
If the Republicans had just passed McCaincare (God forbid) the ACLU would be screaming from the roof tops over this type of intrusion! God I despise the left and their duplicity!
I am not an attorney, but I suspect that they can only compel this if the spouse is covered by the same health plan.
are they allowed to test for HIV without your notification and consent ?
If a spouse is covered, there is likely to limited or no basis for objection. The usual purpose is preventative screening, with the potential for health improvement and cost reductions through medical and lifestyle interventions.
Collecting DNA samples for national data bases would be another good guess.
“If your spouse has HIV, dont you think your health insurance company has the right to use that info in deciding the amount of your premium?”
I didn’t say it was either a good policy or a bad policy. I(1) said I’d never heard of it before, and (2) implied that Big Brother is intrusive.
When a government negotiates insurance premiums for a group, each individual employee is not reviewed on a case-by-case basis. At least, that was the case when I was involved in negotiations.
I'm going through roughly the same thing (although no blood tests, not yet) with my employer. Currently, there's a "wellness program" that we get some hard armtwisting to participate in. Next year, we've been told that we'll have mandatory screening, and a 'life coach' (read: company-approved nanny) will "help" us with areas in which we're found lacking.
I'm looking for another job.
But, to the point, although we've been assured that all results are completely confidential (then, how would the company know that we need a 'life coach', or even if we're seeing one? I asked, and was told that I asked too many questions), I had exactly the same thoughts as you. Not healthy enough? That'll get you on the short list when layoffs come. Particularly if there's someone in the dept who has the same qualifications, but ISN'T on statins, or blood pressure meds, or something.
“Concent is a fuzzy word. Do you want the insurance? Do they require a blood test to get the insurance?
It’s all about the actuarial tables, or should be. The question should come down to “Who is assuming what level of risk, and for what premium?” Well......pre-ObamaCare anyway.
If you’re marking “no” to things like HIV and cancer, or not listing those types of things, the blood test is to verify that you’re telling the truth or not withholding information.
It would be very tempting for someone who is in the beginning stages of cancer to sign up for insurance and then afterward say “Oops - what are the chances of that?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.