CVS Pharmacy Wants Workers' Health Information, or They'll Pay a Fine

[rockin'robin]

A new policy by CVS Pharmacy requires every one of its nearly 200,000 employees who use its health plan to submit their weight, body fat, glucose levels and other vitals or pay a monthly fine.

Employees who agree to this testing will see no change in their health insurance rates, but those who refuse will have to pay an extra $50 per month - or $600 per year - for the company's health insurance program. All employees have until May 1, 2014, to make an appointment with a doctor and record their vitals.

"The approach they're taking is based on the assumption that somehow these people need a whip, they need to be penalized in order to make themselves healthy," Patient Privacy Rights founder Dr. Deborah Peel said.

Critics are calling the policy coercion, and worrying that CVS or any other company might start firing sick workers.

"It's technology-enhanced discrimination on steroids," Peel said.

The policy change was introduced to employees in a memo highlighting the change in the health insurance plan.

CVS, which is based in Rhode Island, said the health screening was voluntary and the company would never see the test results. In an email to ABC News, CVS explained that its "benefits program is evolving to help our colleagues take more responsibility for improving their health and managing health-associated costs.

"The goal of these kinds of programs is to end up with a healthier work force. If your employees are healthy they're going to work better and they're going to cost the employer a lot less money," ABC News' chief health and medical editor Dr. Richard Besser said.

CVS insists that the use of health screenings by employer-sponsored health plans is a common practice. A quick search of the Internet shows many websites and message boards filled with questions from families asking if similar programs and policies are legal.

Brad Seff, a former Broward County, Fla., employee, learned the hard way that it is legal, according to one court. Seff sued the county in April 2011 after it charged him an extra $40 per month for health insurance after he refused health screenings.

In the suit, Seff said the wellness program violated the Americans With Disabilities Act because the county was making medical inquires of its employees. Seff lost his suit.

"I'm so disgusted. I moved. I left the state," Seff told ABC News by phone.

CVS Pharmacy Wants Workers' Health Information, or They'll Pay a Fine | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo!

 

[TXgolfer]

Just another consequence..... More to come.

 

[rockin'robin]

Just another consequence..... More to come.

Yep...I do believe it!...More is coming....

 

[VacationGuy234]

Yes, we had this at my work. If all they want is weight, body fat, etc then it is not too big of an intrusion. At my work, they wanted to have me get blood tested by a private firm, this is a much bigger intrusion. Your employer can use that information any way they see fit and they will have you sign a disclosure form to the effect. I opted out of that part of the plan.

I'm sure at some point someone will challenge the legality of it and you won't get penalized in the future for opting out.

 

[TXgolfer]

Yes, we had this at my work. If all they want is weight, body fat, etc then it is not too big of an intrusion. At my work, they wanted to have me get blood tested by a private firm, this is a much bigger intrusion. Your employer can use that information any way they see fit and they will have you sign a disclosure form to the effect. I opted out of that part of the plan.

I'm sure at some point someone will challenge the legality of it and you won't get penalized in the future for opting out.

What would be the legal basis for that?

 

[diehardbiker]

Possible violation of HIPPA laws.

There was legal issues back then with using shopping card for prescription discount, and they were shot down by court couple years ago due to HIPPA. Meaning anyone outside of medical professionals, and legal have no business knowing what your health issues were.

Its all about invasion of privacy.

What would be the legal basis for that?

 

[VacationGuy234]

What would be the legal basis for that?

Same a union dues, you should be allow the benefit even if you opt to have your primary care give you those tests which cannot be given to your employer.

 

[TXgolfer]

Possible violation of HIPPA laws.

There was legal issues back then with using shopping card for prescription discount, and they were shot down by court couple years ago due to HIPPA. Meaning anyone outside of medical professionals, and legal have no business knowing what your health issues were.

Its all about invasion of privacy.

Same a union dues, you should be allow the benefit even if you opt to have your primary care give you those tests which cannot be given to your employer.

Neither of these scenarios are applicable.

And....

Brad Seff, a former Broward County, Fla., employee, learned the hard way that it is legal, according to one court. Seff sued the county in April 2011 after it charged him an extra $40 per month for health insurance after he refused health screenings.

In the suit, Seff said the wellness program violated the Americans With Disabilities Act because the county was making medical inquires of its employees. Seff lost his suit.

 

[Rio]

Wirelessly posted

Could be discrimination for those employees with diabetes etc .. Will see what happens

 

[Babyblue]

Wirelessly posted

I get a physical yearly. So I have nothing to worry about. We will see how this plays out.

 

[diehardbiker]

What makes you a judge of the law?

The last quote about losing a case, that person used wrong law over the issue that they sue, it is not about disability, it is about privacy, that person who sued should have used privacy related laws than disability laws.

This is about personal privacy that is being violated.

What I am seeing trend in the last 30 years, especially information age, where more and more personal private information has been sharing WITHOUT you knowing it, and even though they said they won't share.... <read the fine print note>... EVENTUALLY every corporations, government, insurance industry WILL know everything about somebody, would you want to be that somebody? Would you want to live under microscope of well represented companies, agencies, government and so forth?

America quality of life has suffered at faster rate right now than it was back then.... WAKE UP!

Neither of these scenarios are applicable.

And....

 

[Foxrac]

Wirelessly posted

Could be discrimination for those employees with diabetes etc .. Will see what happens

Yes, not all diabetes are caused by obesity and it can be genetic.

 

[Foxrac]

Both of you have opinion and we have to wait and see about what happen next.

You brought a good point about privacy concern, also no disagreement involved.

What makes you a judge of the law?

The last quote about losing a case, that person used wrong law over the issue that they sue, it is not about disability, it is about privacy, that person who sued should have used privacy related laws than disability laws.

This is about personal privacy that is being violated.

What I am seeing trend in the last 30 years, especially information age, where more and more personal private information has been sharing WITHOUT you knowing it, and even though they said they won't share.... <read the fine print note>... EVENTUALLY every corporations, government, insurance industry WILL know everything about somebody, would you want to be that somebody? Would you want to live under microscope of well represented companies, agencies, government and so forth?

America quality of life has suffered at faster rate right now than it was back then.... WAKE UP!

 

[diehardbiker]

As far as Im concerned, I am currently under legal mess and mostly has to do with Medical issues, and I see how attorneys, judges, etc thinks. They are pretty much single track minded professionals. What that means is that if one decided to add something that is unrelated to the issue, they will throw everything out and consider you loser. Just like other post about guy sue company about insurance, and sue due to ADA rather than privacy, these judge will throw the case out, period because the case has nothing to do with disability issue, instead if that guy were smart enough on decided to apply privacy laws instead then the judge will hear, attorneys will hear and so forth and may have different outcome.

My struggling was trying to stay on single track than getting strayed and losing the case. Because two attorney were kind enough to explain to me and actually told me that I turned judge off, one of them represent other client not me and it was real conflict of interest but the point is if I stay on same track, I can win, if I go off track I lose. And because of this, now I am very focus on one thing and I am not sure if I will post Vlog later today. I just need time to sort my head out and figure out what to say, and I wanted to blow the whistle against specific medical person and specific medical company so that they won't hurt other Deafies like they have done to me.

I am not giving up the battle and I hope that I am actually at the top of the battle going downward to win instead of climbing up. As of this time, I am pretty much on my own, with thanks of stupid medical professionals that don't know how to help me and left me in dark.

 

[TXgolfer]

What makes you a judge of the law?

The last quote about losing a case, that person used wrong law over the issue that they sue, it is not about disability, it is about privacy, that person who sued should have used privacy related laws than disability laws.

This is about personal privacy that is being violated.

What I am seeing trend in the last 30 years, especially information age, where more and more personal private information has been sharing WITHOUT you knowing it, and even though they said they won't share.... <read the fine print note>... EVENTUALLY every corporations, government, insurance industry WILL know everything about somebody, would you want to be that somebody? Would you want to live under microscope of well represented companies, agencies, government and so forth?

America quality of life has suffered at faster rate right now than it was back then.... WAKE UP!

Again that is not applicable here.

CVS, which is based in Rhode Island, said the health screening was voluntary and the company would never see the test results

Disability would be the stronger argument.

 

[diehardbiker]

Have you been though legal mess like I am into right now? I have learn a lot how they run their business.

And no, not being wellness is not a disability, that is how law sees it and whats point of argument using disability? Having a preventable health issues have NOTHING to do with disability, but knowing the preventable health issues with specific employee is NONE of employer's business. Hence privacy has been violated.

I can see why many thinks Disability is sole issues, but they forgot there are many other laws that intend to protect civilians.

Again that is not applicable here.



Disability would be the stronger argument.

 

[Jiro]

Have you been though legal mess like I am into right now? I have learn a lot how they run their business.

And no, not being wellness is not a disability, that is how law sees it and whats point of argument using disability? Having a preventable health issues have NOTHING to do with disability, but knowing the preventable health issues with specific employee is NONE of employer's business. Hence privacy has been violated.

I can see why many thinks Disability is sole issues, but they forgot there are many other laws that intend to protect civilians.

your case and this case are clearly unrelated and off topic.

they are free to opt out. simple as that. and it's their choice - fix your health or opt out.

 

[TXgolfer]

Have you been though legal mess like I am into right now? I have learn a lot how they run their business.

And no, not being wellness is not a disability, that is how law sees it and whats point of argument using disability? Having a preventable health issues have NOTHING to do with disability, but knowing the preventable health issues with specific employee is NONE of employer's business. Hence privacy has been violated.

I can see why many thinks Disability is sole issues, but they forgot there are many other laws that intend to protect civilians.

Nope. It is optional. See also: Quote in my last post.

 

[diehardbiker]

Optional is just another advertisement from sucker that fills out the form. When one opt out, its easy for them (Employer) to figure out why, privacy is lost right on spot.

One of stealthy way for Corporation America getting around the laws that they were supposed to follow and cheat the privacy laws.

Nope. It is optional. See also: Quote in my last post.

 

[TXgolfer]

Optional is just another advertisement from sucker that fills out the form. When one opt out, its easy for them (Employer) to figure out why, privacy is lost right on spot.

One of stealthy way for Corporation America getting around the laws that they were supposed to follow and cheat the privacy laws.

Sounds.......paranoid.