There has been much ado about the feds’ recent ban on mandatory genetic testing of employees. But why should most employers care?

The truth of the matter is that few companies report using genetic tests on a voluntary basis (which is legal), much less requiring such tests. But the tests are rapidly becoming simpler and more affordable. As such, it’s easier to make a business case for using them.

 Wider array of uses

Currently, it’s possible to test employees for about 50 genetic disorders. Many of the tests point to risks of developing cancer or other illnesses from exposure to various environmental agents in the workplace. Such tests are useful only to employers in certain industries, and it’s often cost-prohibitive to have more than a few employees tested. 

But thanks to the federally funded Human Genome Project, it’s become increasingly possible to test for the sorts of genetic risks that drive health plan costs. This includes such conditions as heart disease, certain types of cancer, juvenile diabetes, asthma bipolar disorder and even migraine headaches.

What’s more, the tests themselves have also become less difficult - and less expensive - to administer.  In the near future, the voluntary use of these tests could be a big help to employers in targeting wellness programs and disease management programs to otherwise healthy workers who are at risk of developing illnesses that lifestyle changes won’t prevent. 

When used that way, the tests will more than pay for themselves in cutting long-term health costs and reducing disability. But it’s also easy - and tempting - for some employers to misuse such tests. That’s why the feds made a pre-emptive strike. 

New law bans discrimination

The much publicized new federal law - the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)  - doesn’t eliminate employers’ ability to make use of genetic tests to boost a wellness program or take  safety measures to reduce disability risks.

Rather, the law says it’s illegal to base hiring, firing and benefits eligibility decisions (e.g., setting someone’s premium shares) on genetic tests. It’s also illegal to require employees or job applicants to take the tests.  So how could this apply to the average employer?  Two possibilites:

1. Inadvertent receipt of genetic information from healthcare providers. For example, under the ADA, after a conditional offer of employment, you can require that applicants submit to a medical examination and sign an authorization for the release of their health records. These health records almost invariably include genetic information now barred from disclosure by GINA. Then, let’s say you later terminate the employee. That employee could march into court and scream that the decision was made based on the genetic info you keep on him in your file cabinet.

What to do: revise your requests for medical records to specify that you want only nongenetic information. You’ll probably want to make similar changes to applications, health insurance forms and workers comp authorizations, too.

2, Self-insured decisions. If your company self-insures for health coverage, you’ll have to make sure you follow the GINA provisions that make it illegal to raise an individual’s premiums or deny insurance because of genetic information.