[art]

Hammer:
There's no violation of HIPPA. when you signed up for insurance from your employer you authorized the release of information to the insirance carrier so the claim could be processed.
The insurer sends a quarterly report to the employer to justify the current cost of the policy. Every claim and the DX of every employee and their families is enumerated.
As the CFO I saw the reports.
Up in Boston there is a big computer called the BMI. The Bureau of Medical Information. Every claim you ever made is in the big box.
I know corporate executives that have gone on "vacation" and had heart surgery and never filed a claim. A DX of a heart condition would kill their careers.
Just the way it is.

Art

[Hammer]

Pegasus, it's a real crappy union. You wouldn't think so when you see all the publicity we always get. This is the UAW...United Auto Workers....and the problem is, if you're not in the union in Michigan, then they don't care about you. At one time we had 6000 members in my local. When we had that many dues paying members, the International union listened to us. Before the plant shut down, we were down to 1,000 members. Since the international wasn't making that much money off of our little 1,000 members, they ignored us. If you listened to the news media, you'd think we were getting rich, what with the ridiculous stories that we're making $75/hr in pay and benefits.(yeah, right, we make less than half that in pay and benefits.)

Art, I don't understand, why would any company officer get private medical information about it's employees? There's no need for the insurance company to reveal who got what in medical services, they'd only need to know what those services were, not who got them. Since you were privy to personal medical info, then if you were to reveal this info to other employees, wouldn't that be a HIPAA violation?

[art]

I was the guy that had to negoiate the medical insurance contracts and such. I had to know the WHO so when I discussed premiums with a carrier I coudl tell who was still employed by the company. The VP of HR had the same info and at times I suspected even more info.
Revealing it to anyone else in theory would be a HIPPA violation. But the number of people having access to the data was enormous.

Art

[pegasus]

Hammer,
I know the UAW pretty well--I'm also a member, but of an oddball "national" local. We've had problems too, because since we're not traditional "employees" they didn't quite know how to handle us. But I also freelance for a small UAW local that's gotten pretty good service from the international, so to some extent it may depend on how your local leadership deals with them.

Unfortunately, the old-line manufacturing unions have really been under siege, and as tankers have had a hard time adjusting course--and structure, and how they function--to meet the demands of outsourcing, independent contracting, low-wage labor in Mexico, China, an alien NLRB, etc. That's not to excuse the way they've treated you and your local, only by way of trying to figure out how to deal with it. Unions are by nature "reactionary"--and I don't mean that in the traditionally nasty "ultra-right wing" definition. They "react"--always have--to the industries that they formed around; you're not going to deal w/members of the Screen Actors Guild the same way you'd deal with members of the UAW. And especially w/large organizations like the UAW, steelworkers, etc., that succeeded incredibly well in their heydays, with internal structures in place for those industries, change has been slow. The steelworkers have reacted in part by getting involved in "green jobs"; I think the UAW has been slow if not recalcitrant in going there.

All this is to say that the international's abandonment of your local may not be malice or deliberate but flailing. And the thing I'd suggest would be to learn a helluva lot about how things work internally and see if there's a way in that you can have your say, maybe see if there's a way to influence what's been going on.

I generally think it's worth a shot, because there's real potential in numbers.

Art,
It's really obscene, though not surprising, that employee medical info was so readily--illegally--avaiable to the higher echelons of that company. At the very least, if employees felt they were discriminated against because of their medical and/or disabled condition--even if they didn't know it was known--they'd have recourse to ADA and/or HIPAA (I'm not sure what if any the consequences of the latter are; hopefully there actually are some penalties in the law). But of course it makes it much tougher, as such discrimination can often be easily disguised.

Sigh.

[JediSkipdogg]

It's funny that we've been talking about work seeing medical information. THere's an insurance committee right now at my work and it was brought up that maybe the city I work for should go self-insured. I'd say we have maybe 150-200 employees in the city that have health benefits. The city refuses to go self-insured because they know they would need 2-3 people to process all the paperwork which they don't want to hire so most likely they would hire one to oversee it then use the rest of the HR people to assist. They are then worried that since the employees dealing with it will see medical claims and since we are such a small city, that HIPPA would be violated too many times by accident.

I could see so many HIPPA problems in a place that is self-insured and unless you make the employees dealing with the management of the healthcare act like an outsourced company, it's going to happen.

[princesslinda]

Self-funded plans give the employers a lot of say about what they will cover. In our office, we're self-funded, and a couple of years ago a lady had breast reduction due to severe back and neck problems. The next calendar year, we got a memo stating that breast reduction was no longer covered under our plan, regardless of medical necessity.

Another year a woman had gastric bypass and the next year we got a memo stating that no weight loss procedures or medications would be covered under our plan, again regardless of medical necessity.

Our docs routinely mention how much they've had to pay for various surgeries and meds for employees. I agree that this should be handled by an outside source, but the "powers that be" will still know the medical costs of each employee.

I'd much rather be under a traditional insurance plan.

[Evermont]

Originally Posted by princesslinda

...a couple of years ago a lady had breast reduction due to severe back and neck problems. The next calendar year, we got a memo stating that breast reduction was no longer covered under our plan, regardless of medical necessity.

Another year a woman had gastric bypass and the next year we got a memo stating that no weight loss procedures or medications would be covered under our plan, again regardless of medical necessity...

So what's the lesson here? Make sure you're the first one in your group to get any particular medical problem?

[art]

Pegasus:
there's nothing ILLEGAL about it.
When you signed up for coverage you allowed a lot of people access. Part of my job as CFO is being the Chief Risk Officer too. I had to manage insurance premiums, workman's comp claims, disability claims.
Were there limitations on who I could tell what, of course.
I never exceeded those limits.
Did I know stuff I didn't want too. You bet.

But as an example, a very good friend of mine was an accounts receivable manager for a Fortune 500 company. He'd been with the company for 18 years.He was DX'd with MS. I begged him not to tell anyone.
The good loyal employee he was, he told his immedate supervisor. In 6 months he was fired for sexually harassing another employee. No pension, No disability, no nothing.
He tried to sue but as he was fired for something not related to his disease the company was within it's rights. . It was fully documented.

So I still say, shut up!!!

Art

[notme]

I agree with you Art. There is no reason to disclose, so I wouldn't. If a employer wants you gone for any reason, they are very good at creating a difficult work environment until you leave.

I say "don't do it".

[pegasus]

Originally Posted by art

Pegasus:

But as an example, a very good friend of mine was an accounts receivable manager for a Fortune 500 company. He'd been with the company for 18 years.He was DX'd with MS. I begged him not to tell anyone.
The good loyal employee he was, he told his immedate supervisor. In 6 months he was fired for sexually harassing another employee. No pension, No disability, no nothing.
He tried to sue but as he was fired for something not related to his disease the company was within it's rights. . It was fully documented.

So I still say, shut up!!!

Art

Art,
I've said throughout this threat that I believe people shouldn't tell employers; that that's what potentially opens them to discrimination--and I still say illegal discrimination, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Your friend's example makes the point I made in my last post--if someone's condition is known and they're fired, the discrimination can be hidden by other reasons.

Workers' comp is a different issue--that's on-the-job injury, so of course employers would know. And if you're claiming disability, of course the employer would know, because you're either asking for an ADA-required accommodation, if you want to keep working for the same employer, or something else has happened that makes one un-able (i.e., disabled) to do the job. What this thread has been about is, who is allowed to/must know about one's condition that has no impact on the job.

I could see that it would be possible that a higher-echelon person would be allowed to know, but as you say, there are limits. And, to still answer the initial question, no employer has to, legally, be told by the diabetic. And, we cannot be discriminated against because of it. And, of course, employers will try to get around that.

Pegasus

[JediSkipdogg]

And I'll disagree with the above post. Remember, if there is a medical emergency your fellow employees are the first ones to assist you and many times may catch the problem before it requires medical attention. And if it gets to the point of needing medical attention, the entire office will find out you are diabetic then anyways.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by JediSkipdogg

And I'll disagree with the above post. Remember, if there is a medical emergency your fellow employees are the first ones to assist you and many times may catch the problem before it requires medical attention. And if it gets to the point of needing medical attention, the entire office will find out you are diabetic then anyways.

Yes, but you're assuming you'll still have a job after you tell them.

[JediSkipdogg]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Yes, but you're assuming you'll still have a job after you tell them.

Well, 5 jobs later of telling my employee I have never had any problems or been terminated from a job. They have all respected it and assisted me anytime I needed something. And all 5 of these jobs have been ones that have not had set lunch periods but they have allowed me to eat when I needed to and take more than one lunch break if required.

The other disadvantage of not telling is you can't scream ADA (which I hate people doing anyways) when they won't give you extra time for a medical problem.

Here's an example. Say you are an employee that is on time every day for 3 years. One day you wake up running 20 and know you have to wait a bit before you should drive. However, this is going toput you late to work. At least every one I have dealt with would be more than happen to give an additional 15-30 minutes arriving late if I told them it was for my diabetes. If I just called and said I needed to be late without a good reason then I could expect a write-up when I got to work.

Maybe I've just worked with great employers in my 10 years of jobs. I'm also an employer of about 5 people for video work and have allowed slippage now and then with great reason for people being straightforward to me.

[pegasus]

Originally Posted by JediSkipdogg

Well, 5 jobs later of telling my employee I have never had any problems or been terminated from a job. They have all respected it and assisted me anytime I needed something. And all 5 of these jobs have been ones that have not had set lunch periods but they have allowed me to eat when I needed to and take more than one lunch break if required.

The other disadvantage of not telling is you can't scream ADA (which I hate people doing anyways) when they won't give you extra time for a medical problem.

Here's an example. Say you are an employee that is on time every day for 3 years. One day you wake up running 20 and know you have to wait a bit before you should drive. However, this is going toput you late to work. At least every one I have dealt with would be more than happen to give an additional 15-30 minutes arriving late if I told them it was for my diabetes. If I just called and said I needed to be late without a good reason then I could expect a write-up when I got to work.

Maybe I've just worked with great employers in my 10 years of jobs. I'm also an employer of about 5 people for video work and have allowed slippage now and then with great reason for people being straightforward to me.

I think you are indeed fortunate, Jed. I've been an independent contractor most of my 30+ year work life, but I've heard of many attempts at discrimination in my health care advocacy work (I'm now consulting for a group that provides services and advocates for people with disabilities).

I think everyone individually has to decide what their needs for help/security/support are. I'd be more inclined to tell trustworthy, friendly coworkers, esp if there are ones in the same location, than I would a supervisor or employer. Per your example: If your employer has a strict lateness policy, and you tend to have early morning problems, then that is the sort of "reasonable accommodation" that ADA should cover. It's wonderful that your employer is supportive, but for those who are new to a job or less secure, then they can say they need a reasonable accommodation to occasionally be late.

As for "screaming ADA": I hope you're then never in a position to need it.

[JediSkipdogg]

I'm glad we can agree/disagree on this subject in a calm manner. With that said...

Originally Posted by pegasus

It's wonderful that your employer is supportive, but for those who are new to a job or less secure, then they can say they need a reasonable accommodation to occasionally be late.

In my honest opinion then that person should not be applying for that job. Now, the difference would be if say one worked 9-5 all the time and then switched to shift work. I could understand that certain accomadations may need to be made then....however...the problem comes in how will your other co-workers then respect you? If you say get stuck on 3rd shift (generally 11-7) but you have to take your meds and eat at 6 am and you want off work at 6 am all the time, that is not a reasonable accomadation. Your other employees may not respect that either and keep in mind that your fellow employees are what generally determines how enjoyable a job is.

But if they have always worked say 9-5 and are applying at a new job that is 9-5, then that new job in my honest opinion, should not make any accomadations for the employee to "occasionally" be late. If the employee can't work the hours, then they should look at a job that starts at 10 instead of 9 or bring up starting an hour late in the interview, of course, at this point, they would need to tell of the diabetes (which you and I will disagree on if it should be brought up.) If that job won't accomadate, then there are about a billion other companies out there that may.

Originally Posted by pegasus

As for "screaming ADA": I hope you're then never in a position to need it.

I have huge issues with the entire ADA thing to begin with and it's very evident on this forum. In case A people want the ADA to give them special accomadations but then in case B people want to be treated like everyone else.

Look at driver's licenses...most on here will agree that it's no business of the BMV that they are diabetic however they are the same ones that want to time to test and eat at work. I'll bet you that those people will not pull over to the side of the road every 1 hour of driving to test.