I didn't say anything about genome sequencing (nor does the bill), and your Snopes citation doesn't refute anything in HR 1313 (or my analysis).

It's easy to read the bill in its entirety, along with all the referenced sections of law, and see where the Snopes analysis is incorrect or does not sufficiently embody the imaginations of the lobbyists behind the bill.

Snopes:

"""
The bill...does not in and of itself require employees to enroll in such programs. But it notes that according to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers could reduce annual health insurance premiums by up to 50 percent for employees who did take part.
"""

Bill:

"""
...employers would be permitted to implement health promotion and prevention programs that provide incentives, rewards, rebates, SURCHARGES, PENALTIES, OR OTHER INDUCEMENTS related to wellness programs...
"""

"""
...A reward may be in the form of...THE ABSENCE OF A SURCHARGE...
"""

The Snopes analysis is incorrect. The bill specifically permits employers to "surcharge" everyone who does not participate, and "reward" those who do by relieving them of the surcharge. Such relief would be based on participation in the "wellness program". The bill even uses the very weak term "related" to allow substantial latitude in the design of these programs and their penalties and rewards.

Snopes:

"""
A spokesperson for the committee told us...[i]f a worker chooses to voluntarily participate in an employee wellness program, they would then typically participate in a health risk assessment. This has long been the case for employee wellness programs, including employee wellness programs promoted by the Affordable Care Act, and it would continue to be true for employee wellness programs under H.R. 1313.
"""

The spokesman here is attempting to justify the bill by somewhat defensively comparing it to provisions of the ACA, of whose repeal this bill would be a component. Workers will "choose to voluntarily participate" because they'll receive a memo from their employer stating that their costs will jump substantially if they do not.

Snopes:

"""
A May 2016 ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stated that premiums could be cut by 30 percent for individuals and 60 percent for couples who enrolled in such programs. But under the new bill, premiums could be cut by up to 50 percent.
"""

Bill:

"""
[T]he reward...shall not exceed 30 percent of the cost of the coverage...[and]...may be in the form of...the absence of a surcharge...[which]...[Labor, HHS, and Treasury] may increase...up to 50 percent.
"""

(EDIT: Note that the language here is "cost of the coverage", not "premiums" -- vague drafting which is probably designed to allow a newly maximal interpretation of "cost".)

This speaks for itself, and what I've elided for clarity does not change the meaning, as you can verify yourself with a quick read of the bill. HR 1313 allows the option of a "negative reward" of 50% for "voluntary" non-participants, and furthermore allows genetic testing (not specifically genome sequencing, although nothing in the bill seems to prevent this possibility) of those who do "voluntarily participate" as a precondition for such participation.

The bill blithely disclaims conflict with genetic nondiscrimination law; such disclaimer would almost certainly be held invalid if tested.