D.C. Circuit guts ObamaCare

This has been part of the employee benefits landscape forever. You aren't allowed to penalize employees, period. Never have been, never will be. Saying that the ACA tells businesses that they can or that they should is a bald faced lie.

What companies can do is the same thing they have always been able to do. Offer incentive bonuses. If you choose to participate in this wellness program the company will give you this...either additional pay or contribution towards your health insurance or whatever. Honeywell either accidentally or intentionally tried a lamely backwards application and got bounced for it. Big deal.
 
Nice spin doctoring. The reality is an increase in health insurance costs for the employees who use private insurance IF they refuse to participate in the wellness checks due to loss of privacy.

That sounds like Republican rhetoric for big business. Great I guess if you care about The Man instead of Americans.

Of course this is ON TOP OF the extra $3500 a family will pay due to Obamacare. It made health insurance extremely expensive.
 
Nice spin doctoring. The reality is an increase in health insurance costs for the employees who use private insurance IF they refuse to participate in the wellness checks due to loss of privacy.

That sounds like Republican rhetoric for big business. Great I guess if you care about The Man instead of Americans.

Of course this is ON TOP OF the extra $3500 a family will pay due to Obamacare. It made health insurance extremely expensive.

No spin doctoring to it. Long before Obama was more than an apple in the eye of the Chicago political machine I worked for a company that offered 'well care pay'. If you went the full month without ever being late or calling in sick you got a bonus of an extra fifty cents an hour. It got challenged and upheld as perfectly fine by the state labor board and the courts...because no one is penalized by a bonus program, and the criteria for awarding bonuses are almost unlimited as long as no one is prevented from the opportunity to participate.

If Honeywell says "we can get a lower rate if we show this much participation in this program, so we will provide a bonus of XXX amount for those who choose to participate, which will be applied towards the employee contribution on their health plan" they will be totally within the law and not infringe on anyone's rights. At a guess that was probably done about ten minutes after the feds told them they were going about it wrong.
 
No spin doctoring to it. Long before Obama was more than an apple in the eye of the Chicago political machine I worked for a company that offered 'well care pay'. If you went the full month without ever being late or calling in sick you got a bonus of an extra fifty cents an hour. It got challenged and upheld as perfectly fine by the state labor board and the courts...because no one is penalized by a bonus program, and the criteria for awarding bonuses are almost unlimited as long as no one is prevented from the opportunity to participate.

If Honeywell says "we can get a lower rate if we show this much participation in this program, so we will provide a bonus of XXX amount for those who choose to participate" they will be totally within the law and not infringe on anyone's rights.

Which has nothing to do with the massive increase in wellness checks under Obamacare. Nice try though Tim.

The whole point was that Honeywell was implementing a biometrics program due to the wellness check provisions of Obamacare, and it's giving lots of companies pause now while they and the federal government figure out the problems and legalities of it.
 
Which has nothing to do with the massive increase in wellness checks under Obamacare. Nice try though Tim.

The whole point was that Honeywell was implementing a biometrics program due to the wellness check provisions of Obamacare, and it's giving lots of companies pause now while they and the federal government figure out the problems and legalities of it.

:lol:

Well, this mighty 'pause' they are taking while they 'figure it out' could be avoided by contacting the clearly avant garde truck stop that I worked at twenty years ago...so I doubt that in this little place called reality it is much of a pause at all. Of course in the land of 'let's blame the ACA' any stop for breath might be inflated into a national disaster meriting full coverage on FoxNews.

The whole point was to feed the Fox viewers another helping of what they want to hear.
 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/wellness-program-at-honeywell-faces-test-1414626180
"While the Obama administration and the agencies that oversee the Affordable Care Act tout wellness plans as a way for employers to promote worker health and cut insurance costs, the EEOC has repeatedly cautioned that such measures might violate the law when the penalties or rewards become so extreme that employees essentially cannot afford to decline.

Employers are watching the EEOC’s actions closely and are hoping the agency will issue guidelines to help them design programs that won’t stray into questionable territory, attorneys and trade groups say.

At Honeywell, two employees filed discrimination charges with the EEOC soon after receiving information about the screening policy, claiming that the request violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the more recent Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

The Honeywell policy also applies to spouses or domestic partners who are covered under the company’s plan. So far 60% of participants in the screening program have reduced at least one of their health risks, according to the company.

“Honeywell wants its employees to be well-informed about their health status,” a company spokesman said. “We don’t believe that those employees who do work to lead healthier lifestyles should subsidize health-care premium for those who don’t,” he added.

This is the employment commission’s third legal action regarding wellness programs. The two other suits, against plastics manufacturing company Flambeau Inc., owned by Nordic Group of Companies Ltd., and Orion Energy Systems Inc., involved instances where the companies canceled a worker’s insurance completely or an employee was fired, allegedly for refusing to participate in wellness initiatives."

Mark my words, these wellness check initiatives are going to be a major privacy breach, will be considered discriminatory, will raise the cost of healthcare, etc. It's going to be a pervasive problem.

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/he...concerns-other-companies/stories/201412020038
"Major U.S. corporations and business lobbying groups have grown audibly critical of the Obama administration’s workplace discrimination enforcers, who have “struck an inflamed nerve” by challenging the legality of corporate wellness programs.

As a result, those corporations and their CEOs are threatening to undermine the 2010 Affordable Care Act, saying that the most recent legal action by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission targets a company that has tried to comply with the health overhaul.

Some of those corporate officials — members of the Business Roundtable, an economically conservative Washington, D.C., association of 200 U.S. CEOs, whose firms employ more than 16 million and sponsor health plans for 40 million — were set to meet President Barack Obama in a closed-door session Tuesday, according to Reuters news service.

“If the EEOC were to be successful in this lawsuit, it would set a precedent that would make it fairly difficult for a lot of wellness plans as they now exist to go forward,” said Mike Fischer, an employment law attorney and a partner in the Milwaukee office of Quarles & Brady LLP.

Earlier this year, the EEOC sued two small Wisconsin companies — Flambeau Inc., and Orion Energy Systems — claiming their wellness programs violated federal law, but the actions didn’t generate much backlash. In both cases, the companies were alleged to have engaged in clear-cut violations: Flambeau was accused of cancelling the medical insurance of an employee who didn’t particulate in a wellness program, and Orion is alleged to have fired an employee who objected to health screenings.

But when the EEOC’s Chicago office sued corporate giant Honeywell International Inc. on Oct. 27 on similar grounds, alarm bells were sounded. Honeywell’s CEO, David M. Cote, is a member of the Business Roundtable, and sits on its executive leadership committee.

“It’s hard to overestimate the amount of anxiety that this EEOC action has caused,” said Gretchen K. Young, senior vice president of health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee in Washington, D.C. Honeywell operates “a relatively mainstream wellness program. People said, ‘Are you kidding me?’ ”

Wellness programs, at the employer level, use a variety of carrots and sticks to motivate employees to lose weight, quit smoking and take their own health more seriously, in hopes of keeping the workforce healthier and reducing corporate health claims. Most programs include some combination of medical physicals, biometric screenings, smoking cessation incentives, at-work flu shots and weight-loss programs, and wellness quizzes meant to show employees how lifestyle choices affect their own health."

If you think the old school wellness programs are what is being talked about post-ACA, then you're not considering that long list of welness checks that are part of the ACA. The implications of mandating wellness checks is a far different animal then the standard smoking cessation program.
 
"Major U.S. corporations and business lobbying groups have grown audibly critical of the Obama administration’s workplace discrimination enforcers, who have “struck an inflamed nerve” by challenging the legality of corporate wellness programs.

As a result, those corporations and their CEOs are threatening to undermine the 2010 Affordable Care Act, saying that the most recent legal action by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission targets a company that has tried to comply with the health overhaul.

Some of those corporate officials — members of the Business Roundtable, an economically conservative Washington, D.C., association of 200 U.S. CEOs, whose firms employ more than 16 million and sponsor health plans for 40 million — were set to meet President Barack Obama in a closed-door session Tuesday, according to Reuters news service.

This is the nut of your wall of text.

These corporate officials aren't suddenly 'growing audibly critical'. Like you, they are actively looking for anything to complain about. Their "threats to undermine" are nothing new at all. Does this extend as far as Honeywell intentionally drafting a policy that they can say is an effort to comply while knowing full well it violates long standing and well known law? Maybe. I mean the congress has spent years establishing a similarly low standard of behavior.
 
This is the nut of your wall of text.

These corporate officials aren't suddenly 'growing audibly critical'. Like you, they are actively looking for anything to complain about. Their "threats to undermine" are nothing new at all. Does this extend as far as Honeywell intentionally drafting a policy that they can say is an effort to comply while knowing full well it violates long standing and well known law? Maybe. I mean the congress has spent years establishing a similarly low standard of behavior.

That's a value judgement. On what do you base it?

From my perspective, corporations seem to be pretty cowed.

J
 
That's a value judgement. On what do you base it?

From my perspective, corporations seem to be pretty cowed.

J

I base it on the fact that Honeywell, a company with a legal department that probably features a cast of thousands, drafted a policy that my old boss, who was a truck stop owner with a high school education, would have pointed out was obviously illegal. I find it very difficult to imagine that was accidental.
 
I base it on the fact that Honeywell, a company with a legal department that probably features a cast of thousands, drafted a policy that my old boss, who was a truck stop owner with a high school education, would have pointed out was obviously illegal. I find it very difficult to imagine that was accidental.

I defer to your extensive research.

J
 
Wellness check testing is a double edged sword. The goal of genetic testing is to look to see if someone is predisposed to acquiring certain forms of ailments, say breast cancer, and then tailoring a pharmaceutical to that person to get the best treatment outcome. What happens if we do lots of breast cancer screenings, find the BRCA gene, and then women needlessly have total masectomies (as has already happened) in order to preempt the potential disease? What if that results in discriminatory action by the insurance companies despite the assurances within the ACA and earlier laws that this will not be so?

This is why the ACA cannot and should not go around HIIPA. As soon as they put that provision in for wellness that allowed a loophole, they turned back the hard won fight for patient privacy.

Link to video.

See the Genetic Information Nondiscriminatory Act of 2008. Know your rights as a patient or as the caregivers of a patient.
 
Since the alteration in the payment schedule of Medicare and Medicaid, several rural hospitals have closed. It's not difficult for the professionals who work there to acquire new employment due to the terrible shortages in those areas, but it's a genuine hardship for those rural patients and families who now must travel further for treatment.

If you're interested in seeing national healthcare succeed, and particularly if located far from an urban area, then it would be prudent to see how this plays out.

When reimbursement rates are very low, and when most of the new enrollees are on Medicaid, then these combined issues translate into hospitals and medical centers being less able to break even.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-federal-reimbursement-medicaid-aca/18532471/

It's also worthwhile to notice the alteration of triage for patients and the closures of Emergency Rooms. Since ERs notoriously have patients who fail to pay the bills, and are one of the most expensive ways to manage the health of a patient, most managed care programs have closed lots of them. We could reach a crisis point where care is compromised due to the distance ambulances must travel, too many ERs on diversion, and a lack of them to see patients.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/05/health/emergency-room-closures/

Emergency Rooms cannot make it on Medicaid reimbursement. A loss of 6% of ERs (and they've been going down for a long time under Managed Care prior), with a loss of rural hospitals, and then millions more patients, may be the straw that broke the camel's back.
 
Supreme Court saves Obamacare 6-3

With what struck me as a direct rebuke to the idiots that keep trying to throw the health care system into chaos through frivolous use of the courts.

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.

Guess what Repugnicants, if you want to destroy the country you will have to find another place to do so than in the halls of the Supreme Court.
 
In a dissent, Scalia said "we should start calling this law SCOTUScare," referring to the two times the Court has saved the law.
:lol:

Leave it up to the authoritarians to try to claim it is everybody else who suffers from it.

They are taking away our freedom to screw over the American public as we see fit!

Next step: Socialized medicine. Man, are they going to howl over that...
 
Since the alteration in the payment schedule of Medicare and Medicaid, several rural hospitals have closed. It's not difficult for the professionals who work there to acquire new employment due to the terrible shortages in those areas, but it's a genuine hardship for those rural patients and families who now must travel further for treatment.

If you're interested in seeing national healthcare succeed, and particularly if located far from an urban area, then it would be prudent to see how this plays out.

When reimbursement rates are very low, and when most of the new enrollees are on Medicaid, then these combined issues translate into hospitals and medical centers being less able to break even.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-federal-reimbursement-medicaid-aca/18532471/

It's also worthwhile to notice the alteration of triage for patients and the closures of Emergency Rooms. Since ERs notoriously have patients who fail to pay the bills, and are one of the most expensive ways to manage the health of a patient, most managed care programs have closed lots of them. We could reach a crisis point where care is compromised due to the distance ambulances must travel, too many ERs on diversion, and a lack of them to see patients.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/05/health/emergency-room-closures/

Emergency Rooms cannot make it on Medicaid reimbursement. A loss of 6% of ERs (and they've been going down for a long time under Managed Care prior), with a loss of rural hospitals, and then millions more patients, may be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Get those facts out of here :mischief: .

Will be losing one of the major individual health carriers in NC on dec 15th...

Can't afford to stay in business without loans from the Federal Gov't. Would never be profitable in addition to that.
 
Tyranny: When 6 justices, appointed by both republican and democratic presidents, vote to uphold a law for the second time.
 
Back
Top Bottom