Legal? new employer wants list of all meds taken and medical records

[babblingbrook]

I'm a new RN and curious if it is legal for an employer to ask what medications you have taken with in the last 2 months (or more) and get my medical records. I'm not sure if this is only legit in nursing, because I've never run across this before in other non-RN jobs.

I gave them the list of all the meds I was on because I assumed they would need it for the drug test. Now it's coming back to bite me as I was on anti-anxiety/depression med. Tried to explain that I get nervous as a new grad. Now they keep harassing my dr to write a very detailed account of my diagnosis with narrative, etc. This doesn't sound legal to me, but I'm not sure.

Thanks!

[tewdles, RN]

wondering if OP resides and works in RTW state?

[PostOpPrincess, BSN, RN]

If that is their written policy, then I don't see how you have a say. You're the one that ones to work there.

But if you didn't take these meds without an M.D. order, you should be fine...

The only issue would be if you were using someone else's stuff....

[XingtheBBB, BSN, RN]

Out of curiosity... where does your doctor send his patients for hospital services? Is he stuck with that same hospital?

[heron, ASN, RN]

If that is their written policy, then I don't see how you have a say. You're the one that ones to work there.

But if you didn't take these meds without an M.D. order, you should be fine...

The only issue would be if you were using someone else's stuff....

But they're not just asking her to disclose any medications she is on ... they want her whole medical record. And it's the employer demanding this, not the insurers. Would you disclose your entire medical history to an employer?

I do believe it's a major violation of HIPAA and possibly the ADA.

Sounds like these nazis are taking advantage of the tight job market to go on a data-fishing expedition. What their motives might be is anybody's guess. Data is worth money in these times. They could also be using it to screen out "undesirables" they might not otherwise legally exclude.

Your options are: comply with this and get a job which makes you actually dependent on these people for your income ... decline to comply and tell them why (and give them your attorney's phone number for any other contact) ... or just decline to comply without telling them anything.

If you choose to comply and get hired, please do some research on federal and state labor and antidiscrimination laws. And keep a diary (at home) of management's behavior. I have a suspicion you're going to need it.

[elkpark]

I wouldn't touch an employer with this policy with a ten-foot pole, regardless of how tight the job market is in the area (I'd relocate :)). If they are this intrusive and "out of bounds" on hiring policy, it's safe to assume they will be even worse once you're working for them.

[heron, ASN, RN]

With all due respect to other posters, I think we have to be realistic about how free the OP might be to turn down any job. Health care providers are not the only employers with a hiring freeze.

We spend a lot of time on this site excoriating public assistance recipients ... the mantra is "get a job, any job ..." While the OP isn't on public assistance as far as we know, her choices for "any job" might be severely limited and she may not have the luxury of staying unemployed indefinitely.

Without a binding contract, the only legal constraints on an employer are federal/state law and their own company handbook. JoPACURN is right: their house, their rules.

In this case, however, I think they are violating the law.

[elkpark]

Without a binding contract, the only legal constraints on an employer are federal/state law and their own company handbook. JoPACURN is right: their house, their rules.

In this case, however, I think they are violating the law.

ITA; however, my concern is that an employer who feels so free to flout the law in hiring practices will feel equally free to flout the law in other areas, as well. Bad news for the employees.

[jlcole45]

You have any lawyer friends? I think you could make a case with this one.

It's like asking you if you have kids before the hire you. A big no no.

[FLArn]

I work for hospice and we are subject to random immediate drug tests; that being said I submitted neither a list of meds I take nor ANY portion of my medical records when I was being considered for employment or since. In fact, I was taking vicodin for a severe tooth infection at the time of one of my random tests--I tried to tell them about the Vicodin and they said if anything shows up on the test we'll deal with it then. Never heard any more about it. Sounds like this place may be a nightmare to work but I am not privy to your circumstances so the best I can tell you is be careful and good luck. (BTW I'm in FL which is a right to work state)

[bigbub3000]

I would go elsewhere for employment. You take a drug screen and list the meds you are on at that time in case there is a positive screen. Your medical records are privileged information covered under privacy laws. You undergo an employment physical given by your own physician or their occupational health physician and a report of such exam is made. Nowhere in this process does the employer get access to your medical records. Tell them no. No.

You don't even list meds at the test time. If something shows up in the urine, you can tell them then that you have a valid prescription for that med and they will confirm it with the pharmacy.

Just as a general rule of thumb, never provide your health records or information to your employer if you can avoid doing so. All they really have a right or need to know is that you are fit to do the work. They do not need your life history, medical or otherwise. It's too late now, perhaps, but for future reference. Good luck.

[bigbub3000]

I wouldn't touch an employer with this policy with a ten-foot pole, regardless of how tight the job market is in the area (I'd relocate :)). If they are this intrusive and "out of bounds" on hiring policy, it's safe to assume they will be even worse once you're working for them.

Easy preachin', hard livin'. About relocating and turning down this job, I mean.

And you know what assuming means, right?

[bigbub3000]

The is a whole new world to those of us who were hired on our word only. WHere does it end Soy your had 11 physicians who all wrote 11 Rx you had willed twice over an 5 years interval. Some were off patent uses. hmmmmmm.

I think I'd look around for a les mein kampf policy.

Time was when, if you had a clean uniform in the car, you could hire on and work today! No pee test, no nothing. There were no nurse addicts or other loonies (that we knew of) and it was such a totally different world. No HMO's, DRG's, or other than 80/20 Blue Cross. Soooo much simpler. Not really, but it seemed like it. There were other problems.

Oh, well.

Given the state of the world today, I'm afraid we ain't seen nothin' yet when it comes to Big Brother. He's off the growth charts and Armageddon hasn't happened yet.