New state worker mandate: Report your ailments

A new requirement that Iowa's state government employees report their prescriptions and medical services to a private company that will monitor their absences has prompted at least three union complaints and questions about privacy.

Starting Wednesday, the Colorado- and New York-based Reed Group will be paid $386,000 a year by the state to track the medical absences of more than 21,000 state employees.

As a result of the contract, state employees were notified on June 9 that, starting Wednesday, they must report medical treatments and prescription medications provided during a work absence.

Caleb Hunter, a state spokesman, says the requirement can be fulfilled with simple notification from a physician of general treatments without directly identifying specific drugs or ailments. The goal, he said, is to assure that all Iowa employees receive consistent medical leave benefits that are granted under federal law.

But multiple state workers who contacted the Register said they fear the information could be used to target employees who cost the state the most in medical expenses and could influence future employment decisions.

The employees declined to speak publicly, citing a fear of retaliation and little or no protection granted to them by the state's whistleblower law. Instead, they provided the Register with documents from the Iowa Department of Administrative Services that instruct employees to report even intermittent absences like headaches if they might occur frequently enough to be considered a chronic problem.

The documents, which the Register verified with the state as authentic, show that employees are now required to notify the private firm of medical treatment for chronic conditions, births and a family member's military service.

The state cannot determine if an employee qualifies for guaranteed federal medical leave job protections without the information, Hunter said. Employees who take unauthorized leave may be subject to discipline, he said.

Unions who represent state employees have filed at least three complaints tied to the new practice, each alleging the state has violated worker agreements because the change was made without consulting union leaders or changing ongoing contracts. They are calling for Iowa to immediately cease the practice.

"There's all kinds of concerns," Des Moines attorney Mark Hedberg, who represents the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said Tuesday.

AFSCME is primarily concerned with the alleged contract violation, but Hedberg acknowledged that privacy issues are among underlying concerns of some members.

AFSCME and the Iowa United Professionals learned about the privatization and mandated reporting about two weeks ago, according to complaints filed within the past week before the Iowa Public Employment Relations Board. AFSCME additionally filed a union contract grievance complaint with the state.

Kevin Curry, a spokesman for the Reed Group, declined to answer questions for this article, citing company policy and contractual limitations. He directed inquiries to Hunter.

Employees' supervisors kept track of the information in previous years, which resulted in inconsistent implementation and record-keeping across the state, Hunter said. The private company's work did not displace any state jobs. The DAS is unaware of other states that have adopted a similar system to track employee medical leaves but note that it's a common practice in the private sector, Hunter said.

"It's obviously a change, but we're going to work through it to assure employees are receiving the leave that they are entitled to under the conditions of the federal legislation," Hunter said.

David Lind, an independent researcher in Clive who studies private and public employment and policy matters, noted that employers have the right to require certification from health providers to support an employee's medical leave. In addition, the employer may also require second or third medical opinions and periodic recertification of a serious health condition, he noted.

Abuse of medical leave costs employers billions of dollars every year, and retaining third-party companies to help oversee the process helps to reduce problems and is becoming increasingly common, said Jeff Nowak, an Illinois attorney who specializes in the Family and Medical Leave Act and publishes the "FMLA Insights Blog."

Nowak contends that medial privacy is improved with a third-party vendor because the information is generally out of the hands of an employee's immediate supervisor.

"I understand that may be a concern on an employee's part, but in reality, I don't see that happening," Nowak said.