Julie Gillis believes employers should be prevented from getting involved in your medical history.
So I just saw this outrageously-titled gem on Jezebel, and believe me, I am NOT trying to add additional fuel to the fire that is the raging debate on oral contraceptives, the federal government, insurance companies and the Church.
Believe me. Cause now we have Viagra bills in the mix.
But I clicked on Jezebel’s link to the Arizona State Press and read this article about a bill endorsed by the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee which would allow employers to ask for proof of a “medical” prescription if the seek the pill for use other then for the non-baby-having variety.
Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.
The more I see bills like this, the more I wonder if it’s about BC at all anymore. I mean, if we create a system in which employers can require knowing such personal things about you in order for you to get medicines, medicines that are private and discussed between you and your PRIVATE medical doctor, then what else can’t they require of you?
I find that thought scary. I realize right now it’s about the ladybusiness, but husbands and male partners are certainly affected by loss of consistent BC. Male employers who don’t want to participate in reviewing medical records may be affected and (I do know I’m sounding a bit paranoid here) but I’m really concerned about the farther reaching implications for anyone who may need/want to take a legally prescribed medication on an insurance plan (which may not be controversial at this time, but who knows in the future), and is required to bring proof to their employer about why.
So let’s think about men. I think if all of us were smart we’d look at the huge picture here, men and women both, ramp down the hyperbole and look at what kind of seriously weird relationships are being forged between government and employers and how that affects OUR relationship with privacy.
What happens when there is focus on the following: Drugs that support sexual health and function come to mind (like the Viagra article above), any medication focused on prostate health, medicines for mental health certainly. What about drugs or procedures that are designed to deal with infertility? Vasectomies? Once a procedure like RISUG is available here? Proof your anti-virals aren’t for HIV/Herpes/HPV suppression?
What about drugs that repair damage done by “irresponsible life choices” such cholesterol lowering drugs for those eating too much red meat, or diabetes meds, smoking patches, and more.
Is the bill (and other fights like it) a stepping stone towards the eradication of HIPPA and EEOC? Cause the reach seems kind of out of control to me.
Decisions we make with our doctors should be private. While I appreciate the desire for a religious exemption, I don’t want anyone’s right to privacy eroded, nor do I want anyone’s employer to get to peek at medical records because they don’t like what someone is doing. I’m also getting a little frustrated with playing political football with people’s access to medicine.
Is there another way through this mess? Ideas? Surely, we can do better than this!
Photo courtesy of Fillmore Photography
Great article. I find it very troubling that an employer needs to know anything about your health at all, I think in Australia we may even have laws which prevent them asking! This whole birth control issue sounds insane, the politics in the US seem pretty damn infuriating…
angelica.
I believe the discussion is about who pays for what a woman does to her body. Only if you conflate “prohibit” with “refuses to pay for” is there any prohibition.
That excludes abortion where some think the question is who gets to decide what’s done to the kid’s body.
I guess where I’m having trouble is that most healthcare plans are paid for by us, the consumers. Yes, there are some government regulations, but we’re paying for our own plans, except for Medicare/Medicaid recipients. So people are getting up in arms because women want coverage that they paid for from their own pocketbooks. Hmm. This ties into my previous point. Many people believe mental health should not be covered. My state legislature, for one. The insurer of last resort doesn’t cover it – so for a family, even if they shell out 24-36K a year just for bare-bones insurance,… Read more »
now you are beginning to understand how women feel having all these politicians discuss what she may or may not do with her body
Birdie
“far-right, who envisions an arbitrary meritocracy when determining who is and isn’t “deserving.”
Do you have a cite for this or is it frustration leading to exaggeration?
You may not agree with salt and sugar regulation, but if you vote dem, you’re getting closer. See, when the government does it, they don’t care if you agree. You have to pay a ‘crat or congresscritter a lot of money to get an exception if you don’t “agree”.
Yes, and unfortunately I make a lot of compromises when voting for Democrats, especially these days when the party has gone so pro-war, devised a public education system that cheats students, provides billions in NSA welfare to failing companies, and is willing to execute American citizens without a fair trial. The salt issue you mention is minor compared to the political and moral compromises I make. Unfortunately, the rhetoric on the Right, which asserts that one’s access to healthcare should be limited by how much s/he can afford to pay for it, does not bode in my favor. The current… Read more »
If you’re concerned about power and control, see NYC and salt. Some scientists are calling for the regulation of sugar. I didn’t vote for these clowns, but I’m going to get what I don’t deserve, just as those who did will get what they damn’ well deserve. My father was supposedly the fastest end in whatever conference UConn was in before the war. 6’1 1/2″ 185. By today’s standards, he’s overweight. I got out of OCS overworked, underfed, overstressed, at 6’2″, 205. I could whip a tiger except, if the tiger had looked me in the eye, it would have… Read more »
See, I also agree with you, that we need not control the people with salt limits and junk-food taxes. Some people will make healthy choices and others won’t. Let the people decide for themselves what they eat or don’t eat. My issue with making the distinction between insurance that covers someone who “truly needs it” vs. someone who “didn’t take personal responsibility,” is that the line between the two is razor-thin and subject to endless debate. I take Xanax for panic disorder, and I’ve met countless people who feel that the panic disorder was “my choice” and was a matter… Read more »
Julie, I think that part of the problem here is that you don’t really seem to accept the arguments of your opponents at face value. For a great many of us that oppose(d) universal health care, it really is just about economics. Yet your analysis seems inextricably linked to ideas like “control” and “power.” I’m a man in my 20s. I’ve never smoked, and I exercise 6 times a week (sometimes only 5 if I’m really busy). I know that my family has a history of heart disease, so I try to avoid foods high in cholesterol and saturated fats.… Read more »
Mike, I understand why you’re upset at being forced to subsidize others’ life choices. I’ve run a small side business for nearly a decade, and am taxed at a 35 percent rate for the privilege. It angers me that I am forced to subsidize the irresponsible business decisions of the “too-big-to-fail” companies that received bailout money, and that companies like GE can hide their profits in overseas tax shelters, forcing me and other Americans to pay more than our “fair share.” Suppose you suddenly came down with an expensive and life-threatening illness that was treatable, but would cost eight figures… Read more »
bobbt The amount of medical information your employer may have is pretty limited. You’ll recall that even asking about health is illegal in job interviews. If it’s about drugs, I suspect letting the drugged folks go first would be sensible. I have heard from businessmen that it is illegal to put such info into reference requests. Have to check that out sometime. But perhaps this is a place for a medical vs. voting analogy. If you have enough ID to buy house-brand sudafed for youir allergies, you can pass any voter ID requirement. If you insist that many people don’t… Read more »
There are certain drugs which are only prescribed for certain ailments and anyone with a basic knowlege can figure it out (ex: you take statins for heart trouble). Plus , in the case of ‘Random tests’ it’s a case of ‘Guilty until proven innocent’. Look, I’ve never done drugs in my entire life! (Iguess that sounds rather lame by todays standards). So I don’t worry personally about a drug test. I’m just concerned where this all might be leading to. Where I live there’s already one major employer who insists that all his employees must be ‘Tobacco Free’ even off… Read more »
Where its a major safety concern like keeping everyone on a building site sober then I think its warranted. Maybe the test results should only be shown to your employer if they contain illegal drugs and they don’t get to see the form you submit with the medical information about your prescription drugs? That way they are assured you’re not on anything you shouldn’t be and only some anonymous lab tech sees your raw data.
That would be nice Peter, but that’s not the way it works. Look, I’ve been in this business for over 36 years and when I first started, drinking beer on the job was a way of life(Hell, the job super more often than not would buy the beer!). Times have changed and for the better in that reguard. All I want to do is go to work, do my job, and go home. As I said, I never did drugs,I’ve certainly never tested ‘dirty’, so please stop treating me as a criminal who just ‘Hasn’t gotten caught yet’. All you… Read more »
Bring it on. If it saves lives I’m all for it. I take your point that I’m not someone who’s personally affected by it though.
If I were asked to be tested I’d seriously consider refusing if I thought my confidential medical information would be seen by anyone who didn’t absolutely have to, and I don’t at all blame you for getting angry about that. I would be too.
Incidentally, how would you feel about it if your boss only ever saw a letter from the testing lab saying “So and so is drug free?”
“Incidentally, how would feel aboutit if your boss only ever saw a letter from the testing lab saying “so and so is drug free?”” Peter, as I said previouslly , That would be reasonable, BUT THAT’S NOT HOW IT IS!!! The jobs that I’ve been on where drug testing takes place, every drug that any one’s taking(especially a drug like Valtrex, which is for Genital Herpes) becomes general knowledge through gossip. Of course, no one will admit to these ‘leaks’, but you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out it came from the job office trailer.
Jack. HIPPAA is supposed to protect privacy. There are exceptions, some of them make sense, others don’t. Drug tests for using heavy machinery make sense. If a guy shows up drugged out if his mind and runs over your father, will you refrain from suing the employer? Of course not. Don’t eat a poppy seed bagel before such a test, either. You can blame the folks who are trying to avoid having equipment that will turn around and bite you if your attention strays for an instant–they do not do their hard work at keyboards–run by druggies, or you can… Read more »
My point was not so much the drug testing itself (which yes, is done in the interest of safety) . It’s the fact that ,you must in a round about way, submit your medical history to your employer. Who,by the way, doesn’t provide our medical coverage (I get that through my union). As jobs near completion and work forces are reduced, who’s to say, armed with this imformation, thatmanagement does’t use this indeciding who to ‘let go’ and who to keep on?
Isn’t this what HIPAA Laws were created to prevent?
Julie, what you speak of already exists for the men (and women) in my profession, it has for quite some time. I work in heavy construction and many jobsites now require you to submit to a drug test at the beginning of your employment on the jobsite and also you are subject to ‘random’ test along the way. Anyone with a C.D.L. (Commericial Drivers License) is also subject to random tests. When taking these tests you must submit proof of any and all priscription drugs you are taking. If there is an accident on the job, all involved must submit… Read more »
I could kind of understand that rational, if the pill came with a warning not to operate heavy machinary.
Is there another way through this mess? Ideas? Surely, we can do better than this!
This whole, “Well oh yeah! I’ll do this!” back and forth thing is out of hand.