[stringbean2018]

Hi everyone. I am newer to the forums and I have a question that I really don't know the answer to.

If you use insurance to pay for therapy, can your employer know about your history in therapy?

Do they have the right since they are technically paying for part of therapy?

Do you use insurance?

[Ididitmyway]

I don't believe they do. Everyone's medical information is confidential. And, no, paying partially or fully for your insurance doesn't give your employer the right to know anything about your medical history and treatments. They are required to provide you with insurance by law. Some companies give their employers incentives to get annul check ups. If you do all your tests every year, they could give you a small bonus. In that case, they would know if you've done tests or whatever else they want you to do. But you opt in for this program voluntarily, as far as I know.

I work for a large medical institution and if I use internal services, tests, procedures, meds prescribed etc it all goes into an internal chart system. In principle, people who were not involved in the treatments cannot access that information but who knows... I heard cases where someone claimed that the system is not as closed as they claim it to be. I am not sure. I also have friends who don't use insurance for mental health because of the same fear you have.

If you are on the US, HIPPA laws protect you from anyone knowing your personal medical details without your consent.

[WarmFuzzySocks]

Originally Posted by stringbean2018

Hi everyone. I am newer to the forums and I have a question that I really don't know the answer to.

If you use insurance to pay for therapy, can your employer know about your history in therapy?

Do they have the right since they are technically paying for part of therapy?

Do you use insurance?

I use insurance to pay out-of-network.

It is my understanding that the insurance company has a right to know what they are paying for, but that information is (supposedly...legally...) protected so that the employer has no right to your personal health information.

And welcome.

[piggy momma]

Insurers can definitely ask questions if they’re paying. The therapists I’ve ever talked to about this have all said they give them as little information as possible and make them dig for anything more. The insurers typically want to know your diagnosis, treatment plan, and prognosis.

I’ve always paid out of pocket so it’s never been a concern for me. I think if I knew he had to give my insurer reports I’d be far less forthcoming with information.

[starfishing]

No, fortunately your employer doesn't get to know about your therapy just because you're using insurance you get through work. In the US at least.

I do use my insurance to pay for therapy, which I'm very grateful to be able to do and which saves me a great deal of money. To the best of my knowledge they've never asked for any information from my therapist aside from the basic diagnosis code he provides.

[WishfulThinker66]

Nope, they can't. It is illegal for this to be divulged. They shouldn't, unless you inform them yourself, even know you are attending it.

[Taylor27]

No they have no right to know and insurance should never tell that to your employer

[DP_2017]

CAN they know? yes, if you tell them

Do they HAVE to know? no. there is laws protecting you

[Anne2.0]

My understanding is the same as other posters, HIPPA laws do not allow for the disclosure of any medical information, including mental health. Your insurance company cannot disclose whether you've gotten your yearly physical or whether you've seen a therapist, or if you have a cavity. All of it is protected. I can't see why an insurance company would want to provide that to them even if they asked, opening themselves up to lawsuits. I have always used insurance because it only requires a small co-pay. Let's say that somehow my employer (who is now my ex-employer because I'm retired) said ah hah, you go to therapy, I'd be like, of course, I have a still pretty recent grief and ongoing work that's really stressful. So what? I'm not ashamed of being in therapy. Also, I've seen my T's notes for the insurance records (or a sample of them) and feel confident that even if someone were to get my actual therapy records, they are pretty undetailed and would disclose very little specifics of what I'm working on, with the exception of the term "original abuse" which is as detailed as it got.

[SlumberKitty]

I think the only way they may get some information is if you use an Employee Assistance Program. But I don't think they can disclose most information. If you are just using insurance that work pays part of and you pay part of then your work wouldn't even know about it, at least in the US. Kit

[giggles6211]

I spent a little time working in HR. This is what I know from my experience at that specific place during that specific time a few years ago----

1. HR could see which claims an employee was charging against the company's insurance company. For example, they could see you went to a dermatologist or a therapist, but they did not see diagnosis codes or why. Technically, the HR people weren't supposed to access specific employees claim statuses unless the employee asked for assistance on a claim, but let's just say they definitely had access if they wanted to look.

2. If the employer sent an employee to mandatory EAP, they were entitled to receive a report back with recommendations and more than likely diagnosis.


3. The employer received a generic monthly report regarding employees who used EAP services-- no names, just a brief overview. For example, 7 employees sought counseling, 3 employees saw the nutritionist, 1 used the will service, etc. No demographic info.

[Ididitmyway]

Originally Posted by giggles6211

1. HR could see which claims an employee was charging against the company's insurance company. For example, they could see you went to a dermatologist or a therapist, but they did not see diagnosis codes or why. Technically, the HR people weren't supposed to access specific employees claim statuses unless the employee asked for assistance on a claim, but let's just say they definitely had access if they wanted to look.

This is outrageous. If the HR does access someone's records when they want to, that person should have grounds for lawsuit.

[susannahsays]

Originally Posted by Ididitmyway

This is outrageous. If the HR does access someone's records when they want to, that person should have grounds for lawsuit.

Of course they should. But this is the same way health information privacy stuff works in general. That's why you sometimes hear about hospital employees being terminated for leaking info on celebrities/royals/etc. The employees have to have access, but there is always a risk of someone abusing their access.

[Ididitmyway]

Originally Posted by susannahsays

Of course they should. But this is the same way health information privacy stuff works in general. That's why you sometimes hear about hospital employees being terminated for leaking info on celebrities/royals/etc. The employees have to have access, but there is always a risk of someone abusing their access.

Yes, I understand. But I am thinking about this in a broader way. To me, there is a much more potential for abuse here than just leaking info on celebrities and public figures.

What about the potential for someone's employment termination because of some of their health information the company has access to. Imagine some general lay off process when a health factor would play a role in determining who the company wants to let go of, and those people would never know that their health information was a factor in that decision unless someone blows a whistle on that.

[susannahsays]

I don't know if that specifically happens, but I have heard of people who are sick, morbidly obese, smokers, or who fall into other high risk categories suing for wrongful termination on similar grounds.

I do see what you mean, but I doubt that's high on the list of strategies for companies looking to downsize. While it might save a marginal amount of money, there are other more effective money-saving layoff methods that are used - like laying off more experienced people with higher salaries in favor of the younger workforce with entry level salaries. Companies don't need to make it complicated to **** over their employees in a general layoff.

[sarahsweets]

I worked for a little while in insurance. During our training we were told specifically that we would have zero access to records that involved specifics about visits to the doctor, therapists etc. Other than diagnostic code we would have no idea what was being done to treat anyone for anything. I also know that your provider also can not and should not be expected to share specifics with your employer or even insurance company. Even when requesting for more sessions or a prior-auth the only types were were privy to was stuff like "The clinician feels that additional sessions are needed to address the issues with XXX(diagnostic code).

[Anne2.0]

Originally Posted by sarahsweets

I also know that your provider also can not and should not be expected to share specifics with your employer or even insurance company. Even when requesting for more sessions or a prior-auth the only types were were privy to was stuff like "The clinician feels that additional sessions are needed to address the issues with XXX(diagnostic code).

To a great extent it seems to me that no law or policy or company practice can eliminate the possibility of wrongdoing. With the availability of software tools that mimic that where parents can track their kids' online access, the large hospital/clinic in my community tracks employees' access to records, and they can tell when someone has accessed the records of someone (however limited they may be) that they shouldn't. They tell people this in training, they provide examples of how they discovered this and terminated employees, and they regularly fire employees who attempt to do this.

I feel as comfortable as I think is possible that my therapy records are secure.