Search

Privacy is protected in biobank-based research in the US primarily by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule and the Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects (Common Rule). Neither rule, however, was created to function in the unique context of biobank research, and therefore neither applies to all biobank-based research. Not only is it challenging to determine when the HIPAA Privacy Rule or the Common Rule apply, but these laws apply different standards to protect privacy. In addition, many other federal and state laws may be applicable to a particular biobank, researcher, or project. US law also does not directly address international sharing of data or specimens outside of the EU–US Safe Harbor Agreement, which only applies to receipt of data by certain US entities from EU countries, and is in the process of revision. Although new rules would help clarify privacy protections in biobanking, any implemented changes should be studied to determine the sufficiency of the protections as well as its ability to facilitate or hinder international collaborations.

The article discusses the author's claim that children in America need sufficient time to eat their school lunches as of 2017, and it mentions concerns about childhood obesity and the consumption of fruits and vegetables, The U.S. National School Lunch Program's regulations regarding nutrition and eligibility for free and reduced-price meals are addressed, along with human dignity and children's health and education in America. Conversation skills and learning are assessed.

Objective: We sought to determine whether workplace health risk reduction programs (HRRPs) using health risk assessments (HRAs), individually focused risk reduction, and financial incentives succeeded in improving employee health and reducing employer health benefit costs. Methods: We reviewed the proprietary HRA available to us and conducted a literature review to determine the efficacy of HRRPs using HRAs, individualized employee interventions, and financial incentives for employee participation. Results: There is some evidence that HRRPs in employer-sponsored programs improve measures of employee health, but the results of these studies are somewhat equivocal. Conclusion: Employer-sponsored HRRPs may have some benefits, but problems in plan design and in the studies assessing their efficacy complicate drawing conclusions. (J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51:943–950) V irtually, every employer faced with substantial increases in employee health benefits expenses has been exploring ways to reduce costs without drastically cutting benefits or excessively shifting costs to employees. At the same time, there has been an increased awareness of the role of lifestyle in health risk and a growing sense of need to increase personal responsibility in health care utilization and outcomes. Employer sponsors of health plans have adopted a variety of activities to improve employee health measures and reduce costs. Some of these initiatives have been aggressively marketed by vendors using proprietary health risk assessments (HRAs), individual health risk reduction programs (HRRPs), and other related services. Besides vendor-produced studies and anecdotal evidence of improved employee health and lower employer costs, is there conclusive evidence that HRRPs are effective in achieving their goals?

We sought to examine the legal and ethical implications of workplace health risk reduction programs (HRRPs) using health risk assessments, individually focused risk reduction, and financial incentives to promote compliance.We conducted a literature review, analyzed relevant statutes and regulations, and considered the effects of these programs on employee health privacy.A variety of laws regulate HRRPs, and there is little evidence that employer-sponsored HRRPs violate these provisions; infringement on individual health privacy is more difficult to assess.Although current laws permit a wide range of employer health promotion activities, HRRPs also may entail largely unquantifiable costs to employee privacy and related interests.