HIPPA violation?

[seepy83]

It's HIPAA, not HIPPA!
It's HIPAA, not HIPPA!
It's HIPAA, not HIPPA!
It's HIPAA, not HIPPA!
It's HIPAA, not HIPPA!

Sorry...that's very frustrating to me as I work for a covered entity and lots of people can't seem to get the damn acronym right.

 

[bobdole369]

This is NOT a HIPAA violation, nor any violation of any right whatsoever. Drug tests are common practice, the results of which may absolutely be used for any action by the company for which she works. They can also (state-dependent) fire her for *passing* the drug test. Or for no reason whatsoever. They can absolutely charge more for health insurance if she fails the test. They can charge more for health insurance because they smell that she smokes cigarettes. Or they can charge more for health insurance simply because they don't like her or for no reason whatsoever. Health insurance is genrally not a right (however obamacare is changing that right???) It is a benefit that your employer does not have to provide. Note that any company engaging in the very poor taste practices I just mentioned will probably quickly be sued, but they are well within the companies rights as an employer.

 

[airdata]

nope.



liabilities and rates.

Yeah. Smoking is a horrible life decision and a smoker shouldn't get the same rate as a non smoker since they're damaging their body by choice every day.

Same is true w\ blood pressure and stuff like obesity. Simply more prone to disease, and insurance companies in the end don't want to pay for anything.

I'd find a piss test @ my office pretty funny. I know I'll pass. Not so sure about some of the coworkers : D

 

[bobdole369]

READ the employment agreement she signed.

chances are she agreed to random drug screens.

It doesn't matter. Unless its a bona fide employment contract (fairly rare) your employer can ask you to do pretty much anything that isn't illegal. And if you work in an at-will state, they can fire you for not doing that thing that isn't illegal. Now there are some medical privacy laws they cannot run afoul, but the pass/fail results of a urinalysis have been decided in court to not be private.

They don't even have to alert you or anything. In fact, they can print in the employee handbook "we will not perform random urinalysis", then one day decide to perform one without telling anybody, firing only certain people who failed it. All perfectly legal (at least here in America's Wang).

 

[Anarchist420]

It's called Obamacare. The cost of being an insurance company is going up, so they're going to crack down on fagsmoking. One way the insurance companies can raise prices is if they raise the premiums for smokers even more than they have to raise them for nonsmokers.

They may also be looking for a way to end her benefits or raise the cost of them.

 

[guyver01]

It's called Obamacare.

it's called illegal drugs are still illegal and they can screen ANYONE they want.

whether obamacare, or mccaincare, or palincare, or paulcare.

 

[American Gunner]

why does the company need to do this? Employee fills out form declare self to be jon smoker. The moment the employee tries to claim and tested for if he smokes, the jig is up.

I hope the OP's name is Jon, if not what a crappy way to find out what your girl is doing when you aren't around...

 

[airdata]

surprise piss tests are the fascist way to make budget cuts around an office.

And then they don't take into account the alcoholic that goes home drunk and beats his wife.

 

[paperfist]

If I read the NY laws correctly that sounds like docking your pay, which you cannot do unless you have the employees written consent. Not sure if that applies to where you live.

 

[waggy]

If I read the NY laws correctly that sounds like docking your pay, which you cannot do unless you have the employees written consent. Not sure if that applies to where you live.

sounds like they are charging potheads and smokers more for insurance.

 

[paperfist]

sounds like they are charging potheads and smokers more for insurance.

Should be firing the potheads, not charging them.

 

[waggy]

Should be firing the potheads, not charging them.

meh. to be honest i don't care about potheads. long as they are not smokeing on work time or driving. I would rather have a pothead working for me then a alcoholic. Cheaper on insurance and more reliable.

 

[sdifox]

I hope the OP's name is Jon, if not what a crappy way to find out what your girl is doing when you aren't around...

lulz tablet typo meant non smoker.

 

[American Gunner]

lulz tablet typo meant non smoker.

 

[gorcorps]

My girlfriend's company is going through some apparent insurance coverage changes...

The company is currently threatening the employees with disincentives, for example, if she doesn't pee in some cup today to determine allegedly if she smokes (weed? cigarettes? I dunno), she will be forced to take an extra $30 out of each paycheck to cover for a portion of her insurance that the company refuses to cover. If she does actually smoke, she'll have to cover that cost anyway.

My question is... what business is it of the company if she smokes or not?

I can understand if she's being hired and they don't want some pothead operating heavy machinery or whatever the case may be... but this isn't the first time that insurance changes have come about and they've 'needed' to put her (and other employees) through testing.

The real kicker is, is that if she isn't a smoker, she doesn't get anything in return, it doesn't save her any money in her insurance cost on each check.

I don't know what I have a larger issue with, the company knowing her medical history... or in the process of saving a buck for the company, she doesn't get to save a buck as well.

Is this a HIPPA violation?

Edit: for clarity: she's not a pothead, she doesn't smoke, and just recently I just remembered that she has to submit her blood pressure numbers as well as cholesterol numbers. Again... under threat that she'd have to pay "X" number of dollars toward her premium per month if she didn't. Again... without promise of savings if the numbers worked to her favor.

They could have easily said that the "smoker price" is the regular price, and if you're living a healthy life by not smoking you're getting $30 off. It's all a matter of perspective as the smokers are still paying more. Silly thing to seem upset about when she still is seeing an incentive, it's just not CALLED an incentive.

 

[zinfamous]

this has nothing to do with HIPPA

 

[paperfist]

meh. to be honest i don't care about potheads. long as they are not smokeing on work time or driving. I would rather have a pothead working for me then a alcoholic. Cheaper on insurance and more reliable.

Hmm the alcoholic that works for me is very reliable, the pothead that used to work for me wasn't. Maybe it's a location thing?

 

[OutHouse]

Positive test of pot smokers would likely affect the company's rates for liability and worker's comp insurances. If they knowingly employ pot smokers, their liability insurance may not cover whatever accidents those employees are involved in.

Tobacco smokers, as OP has explained here, affects rates for health insurance premiums.

two things

1. what if the pot smoker has a MMJ card issued by the state?

2. the health effects of smoking generally do not come around until much later in life. so i really do not understand how my co-workers who smoke has any affect on my health insurance premiums.

 

[fenrir]

I don't know what I have a larger issue with, the company knowing her medical history... or in the process of saving a buck for the company, she doesn't get to save a buck as well.

As others have tried to point out, you are looking at this all wrong. The base rate is for a 'healthy' person. All the tests, numbers prove that the person is healthy. The penalties are for an unhealthy person.

They could have started at a higher rate, classified it as 'unhealthy' and gave incentives for passing the various tests. It gets you to the same place regardless of how they do it.

 

[Corporate Thug]

two things

1. what if the pot smoker has a MMJ card issued by the state?

2. the health effects of smoking generally do not come around until much later in life. so i really do not understand how my co-workers who smoke has any affect on my health insurance premiums.

1. Doesn't matter. A MMJ card allows the individual to possess, cultivate, and smoke certain amounts of pot without criminal liability. It affords no protection for employer decision (in CA at least).

2. Doesn't matter. Employer policy can be completely arbitrary as long as its not discriminatory.

 

[Gooberlx2]

two things

1. what if the pot smoker has a MMJ card issued by the state?

Doesn't matter. Colorado is an avid MMJ state. Employers are still welcome to hire/fire based on MMJ usage. At-will employment and all that. Likewise, a liability insurance company is free to define under what conditions they'll pay out for whatever circumstances.

2. the health effects of smoking generally do not come around until much later in life. so i really do not understand how my co-workers who smoke has any affect on my health insurance premiums.

Smokers are much more apt to have acute lung issues, such as upper respiratory infections, pneumonia, flu, etc... Aside from the potential lung cancer and COPD they may experience later in life.

Regardless, it's not the employer making the distinction on what affects rates, it's the insurance companies -- and insurance companies tend to take statistics into account. The likelihood of a smoker getting cancer at 25 is higher than that of a non-smoker, for example.

 

[Colt45]

Move to a free, civilized country, where they don't drug test you?

 

[Jumpem]

Smokers cost the company and insurance company more, and they should pay higher rates.

 

[eits]

nope.



liabilities and rates.

was going to post the exact same thing, minus "liabilities"

by the way, it's hipaa, not hippa.

hipaa

 

[BarkingGhostar]

My girlfriend's company is going through some apparent insurance coverage changes...

The company is currently threatening the employees with disincentives, for example, if she doesn't pee in some cup today to determine allegedly if she smokes (weed? cigarettes? I dunno), she will be forced to take an extra $30 out of each paycheck to cover for a portion of her insurance that the company refuses to cover. If she does actually smoke, she'll have to cover that cost anyway.

My question is... what business is it of the company if she smokes or not?

I can understand if she's being hired and they don't want some pothead operating heavy machinery or whatever the case may be... but this isn't the first time that insurance changes have come about and they've 'needed' to put her (and other employees) through testing.

The real kicker is, is that if she isn't a smoker, she doesn't get anything in return, it doesn't save her any money in her insurance cost on each check.

I don't know what I have a larger issue with, the company knowing her medical history... or in the process of saving a buck for the company, she doesn't get to save a buck as well.

Is this a HIPPA violation?

Edit: for clarity: she's not a pothead, she doesn't smoke, and just recently I just remembered that she has to submit her blood pressure numbers as well as cholesterol numbers. Again... under threat that she'd have to pay "X" number of dollars toward her premium per month if she didn't. Again... without promise of savings if the numbers worked to her favor.

If 'she' has a problem with it she can go find another job, right? Its all about the choices. And if 'she' has a problem with these aspects of her currently employer then why would she want to stay there?