disclosure of medical records to employer

[yerasimos]

Anyone here ever have an employer who required, as a condition of employment, that you sign a form authorizing them to obtain any of your medical records from any doctor or medical facility, anywhere, from before and during your employment with that employer?

Leave aside jobs that required commercial driver licenses, government and military employers, and hospital/clinical employers.

[Oldgringo]

No.

[The Annoyed Man]

My guess is that it has something to do with drug testing. I wouldn't take a job like that. My records are mine, and mine alone. The proper response is, "let me see yours... THEN I'll show you mine."

[boomerang]

That's a first for me. I've heard of companies doing drug testing. I also know companies that require annual physicals for some positions, but even they don't require a general release of medical records.

[marksiwel]

The proper response is, "let me see yours... THEN I'll show you mine."

You always were a sweet talker.

Drug testing, pffffffffft. Rarely have I seen a company test more than the one time you do it to be hired.
Now if they did random Pee tests, I could see the merits (almost)
Its not hard to pass a drug test, they do nothing to stop addicts from applying for jobs, they are faulty as all get out, and they are just there to "make people feel better"

As for medical records? What do they need them for? You going into space?
My guess is they are Dead Peasant Clauses
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/ins ... p64954.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Basically they get paid by the insurer if you die.

Or are you out sick alot? Maybe they want more than a note

[Ed4032]

Only when I was in MLB and then just when signing with a new team ....

yeah in my dreams.

[buffalo_speedway_tx]

I wonder how this fits into HIPAA regulations and patient confidentiality. OK......here it comes IANAL, but I wonder if this is a requirement that is legal. I work in healthcare IT and there are strict rules on whether a paitent allows information to be made public.

[yerasimos]

I wonder how this fits into HIPAA regulations and patient confidentiality. OK......here it comes IANAL, but I wonder if this is a requirement that is legal. I work in healthcare IT and there are strict rules on whether a paitent allows information to be made public.

Regarding the type of release I described in this thread's first post, the employer or its insurer would theoretically mail or fax a copy of the signed release to a doctor's office, hospital, etc, with an expectation that the facility would send them any medical records they have about an employee whose signature appears on the release.

Assume no mention of HIPAA in the release.

Assume that the release's language has the employee agreeing to hold harmless from any legal action any entity involved in the distribution of this information.

Assume that the employer requires passage of drug screening, a physical examination and a background check prior to a formal offer of employment.

Any commentary is welcome.

[57Coastie]

I believe the cost to an employer of employee health insurance often has a role in such a requirement, and legislative proposals to require health insurance to respond in the case of preexisting conditions would encourage employers to require full disclosure by a potential employee. I have read recently of some employers (secretly??) using DNA tests in this connection, which I find repulsive.

Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

I believe the cost to an employer of employee health insurance often has a role in such a requirement, and legislative proposals to require health insurance to respond in the case of preexisting conditions would encourage employers to require full disclosure by a potential employee.

That may well be the reason, but any rational employer owes the employee an explanation for why they need the access. That way, the employee can always elect to opt out of the insurance if they don't want the intrusion. Likewise, if they want the records for some other purpose, let them state the purpose. Otherwise they can go pound sand.

I have read recently of some employers (secretly??) using DNA tests in this connection, which I find repulsive.

Jim

It may also be illegal. Collecting DNA without a warrant? For what possible purpose? I find it repulsive also.

[marksiwel]

Maybe your Boss needs a kidney, and he plans on taking yours!

[marksiwel]

http://www.ww.parentdish.com/2010/02/05 ... babys-dna/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The government may have your baby's DNA on file.

Newborns in the United States are regularly screened for various genetic diseases. These tests are mandated by the federal government.

As a result, children's DNA samples are often stored -- sometimes indefinitely.

Some parents are creeped out by the Orwellian image of the government keeping babies' DNA without their parents' knowledge or consent and they're filing lawsuits. Members of the Texas Legislature felt the same chill down their spines last year.
They passed a law that allows doctors in the state to keep and use the DNA samples for research, but requires parents be informed. The law also gives parents the option of having their children's leftover blood samples destroyed after screening.



What you dont want the government to have your DNA and Fingerprints on file? Now can I see your papers citizen?

[yerasimos]

Suppose that the HR department verbally states that signing the medical records release is necessary in order to provide relevant information in a medical emergency, and is used for no other purpose, but is required as a condition of employment, yet there is no mention of such a requirement in their employee handbook.

[57Coastie]

I believe the cost to an employer of employee health insurance often has a role in such a requirement, and legislative proposals to require health insurance to respond in the case of preexisting conditions would encourage employers to require full disclosure by a potential employee.

That may well be the reason, but any rational employer owes the employee an explanation for why they need the access. That way, the employee can always elect to opt out of the insurance if they don't want the intrusion. Likewise, if they want the records for some other purpose, let them state the purpose. Otherwise they can go pound sand.

I have read recently of some employers (secretly??) using DNA tests in this connection, which I find repulsive.

Jim

It may also be illegal. Collecting DNA without a warrant? For what possible purpose? I find it repulsive also.

TAM,

If a prospective employer does a blood test or urine test at a preemployment physical he has at the same time taken a DNA sample. Urine may not be quite as effective as blood, but testing the DNA via urine has recently become more reliable.

I suspect that we are back into the old question of, "Do you want to stand on your principles, or do you want a job?" Like it or not, there are an awful lot of folks out there today who need a job, at the same time as the cost of health insurance has skyrocketed to the point where more employers feel obliged to look into the hidden costs to his business which may be caused by a new employee. Right or wrong, I do believe that as a practical matter we can expect this.

I see no justification for a warrant here, but, on the other hand, if a prospective employee intends to use a body sample for a DNA test he had best so advise the testee. It is my understanding that the secrecy of the DNA samples raised by Marksiwel is the basis for the lawsuit(s) brought by parents.

Jim