should companies, who are hiring, have the right to screen applicants for genetic defects that could prove to be costly with health insurance?
or, another way to ask: should insurance groups have the right to demand that companies do a complete genetic screening before hiring?
Consider: If you and I were applying for the same job, and the company decided that I should be screened for genetic defects, but you were not, and then you got the job, could the choice made by the company then be construed as discrimination? At some point, the company would have to look at the legalities of whether or not their discretionary choices
were breaking a law, wouldn't it?
Or is your question aimed at the company making the decision to either screen everyone or no one?
Any reasonable information can be required by an insurance company from businesses who are contemplating purchasing medical coverage for their employees, it seems to me. However, the business would then have to decide if the insurance company's coverage is WORTH all that time, hassle, and cost to the business for employee screening such as you've suggested.
At that juncture, would it be possible that the insurance company might very well "demand" itself right out of business?
A couple of hospitals in my local area now won't recognize some insurance companies because they're so difficult to work with. We have a doctor friend who told me at one time that the insurance company that the state of NC was using for their teachers' and state employees' coverage was very difficult to get to approve just routine medical charges, such as the delivery of a baby, without mountains of paperwork and long delays in forwarding the payment. Consequently, many doctors and patients complained to the state, and soon the hard-nosed insurance company lost that very large state contract.
Good questions, mga.