I had a thought after last week’s article on if the employer
should pay for out of work activities with respect to health care. If
they do pay, should they know what they are paying for? Would they have
to know in order to decide if to cover the injury or not? Let's discuss.
Should they know: Right now, employers really do not
have the right to know as injuries and sickness fall under the category of
protected health information. But it calls into question of if such a
protection should exist or if there should be more exceptions to the rules with
respect to someone else paying for your health care. You can see the
logic right, someone else is paying for your leg injury, your antibiotics and
even your chemotherapy. I would say they have to know. If you break
your foot, then they will want to fix it so you can come to work right.
Or they would need to know so that you can get your broken bones fixed or
else that injury could make your health worse and thus more costly to the
employer to help keep you healthy in the long run.
Conclusion: Some may be saying never, it is my health
and I should have the right to keep it private. And you are right to an
extent. But with fraud, and other forms of lying going on in the
healthcare industry, is it right to keep certain things private. I can
understand some people’s reluctance, but the relationship between doctor and
patient is now tainted with insurance providers, government officials and
whatever else you have brought in to help regulate and monitor your health.
This is why I do not even include an opposing section in this issue,
because it is redundant in my opinion to do so. We have so many people
interfering with our health already, and we already need doctor’s notes to
prove we were even at a doctor’s office to the employer, that privacy in
healthcare is literally a redundant exercise except in very specific
circumstances. Thus, in my opinion, the employer should know if and only
if they are footing the bill for your health care costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment