At what point are employers asking TMI?

33762FL · Jul 3, 2011

Now how many of you folks answering this thread had a similar reaction to your "census forms" ??

Huh? the census form wanted to know how many people lived in your house, how they were related to one another, their race, and their age. That was it. It did not ask anything else, so how is that invasive?

~Mi Vida Loca~RN, ASN, RN · Jul 3, 2011

I had a basic health form I had to do and I did have to list medications and any current problems. I listed my Fibromyalgia and back issues I have going on. I listed my percocet and ambien I take. From that I had to do a physical and send health records over. It was a very simple physical. They wanted me to bed and squat to show I can do the job at hand. They cleared me without any restrictions. The doc asked me if I felt I needed any restrictions in place and I said no. Had I triggered any issues on the physical they said they would have gotten baseline ROM. They told me the biggest thing for this is in case I claimed an on the job injury they would no my baselines and so I couldn't claim previous injuries to pass off as new.

They didn't ask any sexual health questions or reproductive health questions. The main ones were head injuries, heart, lungs and back.

tvccrn, ASN, RN · Jul 3, 2011

This has been going on for a while. By far the most comprehensive pre-employment physical I ever experienced was for a non-healthcare related office job at a large corporation. The most strenuous thing I (or anyone) did all day was walk around in heels. But pre-employment physicals for all new hires included discussing a very comprehensive health history form with the company physician, blood & urine tests, measurement of cardiovascular fitness by jogging in place for a period of time and peak flow measurement. All employees had to have physical exams every 3 years (either documentation from your own physician or performed by the company MD) and those at manager level and above were also required to complete an annual colonoscopy after age 45 and mammography for females after age 40. Yes, really.
There are a couple of different things in play here. One is a corporate/employer focus on the cost of losing employees to health problems: the loss of productivity, expertise, etc. The other is to attempt to make the pool of employees more attractive to group health plan insurers by demonstrating a better level of overall health ... which makes the employees of that company a better risk for insurers and may result in lower insurance premiums.

Do they pay the costs for these totally unnecessary tests? I don't of any insurance companies that would cover yearly colonoscopies until after age 50.

linearthinker, DNP, RN · Jul 3, 2011

This isn't about your employer wanting to stick their nose into your business. this is about your employer's insurance plan. If you (generic "you" again) don't like it, support government sponsored health insurance unrelated to employment. Otherwise, spread em.

bunsterj · Jul 3, 2011

I have my own insurance through a different(government, as a matter of fact) plan, and likely won't be using an employer's plan with the exception of dental...would I therefore be able to decline all of the probing questions?

N.U.R.S.E. · Jul 3, 2011

If u answered yes to any of those questions how long b4 the gossip starts and u become a liability have u ever seen the movie philadelphia with tom hanks and denzel washington and beside u are not past ur probationary period go and seek legal counsel first before filling out and turning in these forms

eriksoln, BSN, RN · Jul 3, 2011

This has been going on for a while. By far the most comprehensive pre-employment physical I ever experienced was for a non-healthcare related office job at a large corporation. The most strenuous thing I (or anyone) did all day was walk around in heels. But pre-employment physicals for all new hires included discussing a very comprehensive health history form with the company physician, blood & urine tests, measurement of cardiovascular fitness by jogging in place for a period of time and peak flow measurement. All employees had to have physical exams every 3 years (either documentation from your own physician or performed by the company MD) and those at manager level and above were also required to complete an annual colonoscopy after age 45 and mammography for females after age 40. Yes, really.
There are a couple of different things in play here. One is a corporate/employer focus on the cost of losing employees to health problems: the loss of productivity, expertise, etc. The other is to attempt to make the pool of employees more attractive to group health plan insurers by demonstrating a better level of overall health ... which makes the employees of that company a better risk for insurers and may result in lower insurance premiums.

This is what I've been told too.

kcmylorn · Jul 3, 2011

I don't think yearly colonoscopies are the standard of care except in cases with a STRONG suspicion of colon cancer- Again, that pre exsisting condition to weed the 'imperfect' out of a job and for whose convience. Colonoscopies are a very expensive test to be done 'yearly' on just anybody- I did endoscopy in 2003- they were $3,000 a pop, under consious sedation(endo RN administered) add propofol and a CRNA and that was more cash. I can't see any insurance company ok'ing this yrly colon crap, (paron the pun). or the mammogram. The recommendations on yearly mammo's after age 40 have changed. Again with a STRONG Hx- that changes and this is a hot and frequent(!!!) area for healthcare employers to not hire, force out or force retirement on those employees who have had breast Ca.( I personally know of quite afew of fe3male RN"s whose managers have made life MISERABLE in their attempts to get rid of them- for some nurse's it happen while they were out on surgical leave w/ the mastectomy, some managers favorite was to refuse ANYtime off during chemo and radiation. These nurses were forced to schedule their chemo after work on friday's!!!. The managers were female also!!! VERY psychotic female managers I might add. That river runs very deep!! I one breath you tell a staff of bedside nurses to bend over and kiss patient butt, what ever the patient wants, pt is #1, nurses are there to be compassionate YahdaYahda bull****-- and the next breath you push a nurse against the proverbial wall and make her choose between a chance at a 5 yr survival rate/ cure or her job to feed her family. One of these nurses(notice I said one, because I know afew others inaddition to)) happend to a L&D nurse.!! and that manager was licensed as a nurse midwife RN,MSN!!! This is not an insurance company. This is the pr**k in the business suit labelled CEO Mr corporate big business. Who if it were his usless priviledged wife, mother or daughter, she would have the best of the best reconstuctive surgeon in the world.

Mamo's are approx $1,000 /mammo.

The poster who posted- this should not be tolerated, and the more we don't stand up against this, the more and farther it will go on, is bang on. Think about those end results. Anyone that doesn't think these CEO's are killing people- think again. They don't do it with bullets they do it with the pen and personal greedy misguided judgement. Both methods should bear the same accountability.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Both methods-- a person dies- shoot someone- they die, deny someone their chemo,or means to make a living/survival(income, healthcare, social security, medicare), they die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN · Jul 3, 2011

I understand what you are saying because businesses are myopic. Consider this:
If it is taken off the backs of businesses, that cost goes somewhere, right?
An unemployed population is far more costly to a society than an employed population. Unemployment=no discretionary spending=businesses make less money. It will eventually come back to them, depending on how far they go to disqualify otherwise qualified employees.
When the middle class becomes unemployed in great numbers, the **** hits the fan. There is not enough spending to sustain social programs for poor people nor enough money to funnel into the businesses of the upper class nor enough money for the middle class to sustain their own Ma and Pa businesses. Less money is invested in middle-class 401ks because more cash flow is needed for necessities, and even Wall Street is affected.

Isn't this what is where we are now?????? scary......

linearthinker, DNP, RN · Jul 3, 2011

Wow, ok. I am unclear on when these people were supposed to schedule their chemotherapy treatments so as to not affect their work performance. At lunch on Tuesday?

All that class envy and bitterness aside, if you don't want to provide the health history information, don't accept employer supplemented benefit packages, or don't work there. Simply pay out of pocket for all of your own care needs.

America, you voted for the people who decided that you are not entitled to health care, so do not complain when that policy is implemented at the micro level.

Janey CNM · Jul 3, 2011

Another thing to consider, if you submit the paperwork but lie about anything, even if it is inadvertent-( you forgot that you had chicken pox as a kid cause you had 4 siblings and your mom can't remember who had what) you could at some future time be dismissed with cause for the mistake on employment application. so if they are in a cycle of getting rid of those with more years invested/higher salaries, they can use something like this to stip the employee of any/all accrued benefits on termination.

MN-Nurse, ASN, RN · Jul 3, 2011

I agree with the above posters who touched on Hitler, genetic and the super employee population.

I invoke Godwin's Law. You lose the debate by default.