Investigating genetic discrimination in Australia: opportunities and challenges in the early stages

Should Australia Ban the Use of Genetic Test Results in Life Insurance?

Under current Australian regulation, life insurance companies can require applicants to disclose all genetic test results, including results from research or direct-to-consumer tests. Life insurers can then use this genetic information in underwriting and policy decisions for mutually rated products, including life, permanent disability, and total income protection insurance. Over the past decade, many countries have implemented moratoria or legislative bans on the use of genetic information by life insurers. The Australian government, by contrast, has not reviewed regulation since 2005 when it failed to ensure implementation of recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission. In that time, the Australian life insurance industry has been left to self-regulate its use of genetic information. As a result, insurance fears in Australia now are leading to deterred uptake of genetic testing by at-risk individuals and deterred participation in medical research, both of which have been documented. As the potential for genomic medicine grows, public trust and engagement are critical for successful implementation. Concerns around life insurance may become a barrier to the development of genomic health care, research, and public health initiatives in Australia, and the issue should be publicly addressed. We argue a moratorium on the use of genetic information by life insurers should be enacted while appropriate longer term policy is determined and implemented.

Genetic explanations, discrimination and chronic illness: A qualitative study on hereditary haemochromatosis in Germany

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to explore the discriminatory impacts of genetic diagnosis for people living with the chronic illness of hereditary haemochromatosis in Germany.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with 15 patients; all had tested positive for a genetic mutation associated with haemochromatosis and already displayed symptoms of the disease. Inductive approach, with interviews collaboratively interpreted by the research group in a vertical and horizontal analysis informed by a multi-person perspective.

RESULTS

First, as the genetic diagnosis of the disease holds the promise of therapeutic intervention, the interviewees perceived it as leading to relief. Second, the interviewees felt stigmatized by their family members, they complained of social isolation and a lack of acknowledgement of their health problems. Third, they feared disadvantages for themselves or their children at their place of work, when buying insurance coverage, and when attempting to donate blood.

DISCUSSION

The findings point to the need for an expanded view on genetic discrimination. Besides institutional discrimination, it appears necessary to systematically address interactional stigmatization and take anxieties and fears into account. Here we see starting points for providing essential support through specialist and self-help groups to those faced with the genetic diagnosis of haemochromatosis in addition to and beyond the legal protection against genetic discrimination that already exists.

Perception, experience, and response to genetic discrimination in Huntington disease: the international RESPOND-HD study

Genetic discrimination-defined as the denial of rights, privileges, or opportunities or other adverse treatment based solely on genetic information (including family history)-is an important concern to patients, healthcare professionals, lawmakers, and family members at risk for carrying a deleterious gene. Data from the United States, Canada, and Australia were collected from 433 individuals at risk for Huntington disease (HD) who have tested either positive or negative for the gene that causes HD and family members of affected individuals who have a 50% risk for developing the disorder but remain untested. Across all three countries, a total of 46.2% of respondents report genetic discrimination or stigma based on either their family history of HD or genetic testing for the HD gene mutation. We report on the overall incidence of discrimination and stigma in the domains of insurance (25.9%), employment (6.5%), relationships (32.9%), and other transactions (4.6%) in the United States, Canada, and Australia combined. The incidence of self-reported discrimination is less than the overall worry about the risk of discrimination, which is more prevalent in each domain. Despite a relatively low rate of perceived genetic discrimination in the areas of health insurance and employment, compared to the perception of discrimination and stigma in personal relationships, the cumulative burden of genetic discrimination across all domains of experience represents a challenge to those at risk for HD. The effect of this cumulative burden on daily life decisions remains unknown.

Verification of consumers' experiences and perceptions of genetic discrimination and its impact on utilization of genetic testing

PURPOSE

To undertake a systematic process of verification of consumer accounts of alleged genetic discrimination.

METHODS

Verification of incidents reported in life insurance and other contexts that met the criteria of genetic discrimination, and the impact of fear of such treatment, was determined, with consent, through interview, document analysis and where appropriate, direct contact with the third party involved. The process comprised obtaining evidence that the alleged incident was accurately reported and determining whether the decision or action seemed to be justifiable and/or ethical.

RESULTS

Reported incidents of genetic discrimination were verified in life insurance access, underwriting and coercion (9), applications for worker's compensation (1) and early release from prison (1) and in two cases of fear of discrimination impacting on access to genetic testing. Relevant conditions were inherited cancer susceptibility (8), Huntington disease (3), hereditary hemochromatosis (1), and polycystic kidney disease (1). In two cases, the reversal of an adverse underwriting decision to standard rate after intervention with insurers by genetics health professionals was verified. The mismatch between consumer and third party accounts in three life insurance incidents involved miscommunication or lack of information provision by financial advisers.

CONCLUSION

These first cases of verified genetic discrimination make it essential for policies and guidelines to be developed and implemented to ensure appropriate use of genetic test results in insurance underwriting, to promote education and training in the financial industry, and to provide support for consumers and health professionals undertaking challenges of adverse decisions.

Perceptions of discrimination among persons who have undergone predictive testing for Huntington's disease

Potential discrimination from genetic testing may undermine technological advances for health care. Researching long-term consequences of testing for genetic conditions that may lead to discrimination is a public health priority. The consequences of genetic discrimination generate social, health, and economic burdens for society by diminishing opportunities for at-risk individuals in a range of contexts. The current study objective was to investigate perceptions of genetic stigmatization and discrimination among persons who completed predictive testing for Huntington's disease (HD). Using semi-structured interviews and computerized qualitative analysis, the perceptions of 15 presymptomatic persons with a positive gene test predicting HD were examined with regard to differential treatment following testing. The sample comprised 11 women and 4 men, mostly married (73%), aged between 22 and 62 years, with an average education of 14.6 years (SD +/- 2.57) and residing in urban, rural and suburban settings of eight U.S. States. Participants reported perceptions of consequences following disclosure of genetic test results in three areas: employment, insurance, and social relationships. Although most employed participants (90%) revealed their test results to their employers, nearly all reported they would not disclose this information to future employers. Most (87%) participants disclosed test results to their physician, but a similar majority (83%) did not tell their genetic status to insurers. Most participants (87%) disclosed test results to family and peers; patterns of disclosure varied widely. Discrimination concerns remain high in this sample and point to the need for more information to determine the extent and scope of the problem.

Regulating personal data in a shared world: limitations of the EU’s approach to data protection

A personalized interaction, in an increasingly information-rich environment, is increasingly unlikely to be shaped by information about only the persons directly involved. As data about others is related to an individual, and perceptions about that individual formed accordingly, it is important that data-protection regulation takes into account the shared nature of personal data. The European Data Protection Directive provides an important standard for data sharing between countries. Therefore, it is essential to realize any limitations in its approach when data might be said to relate to more than one person. The need to address any such limitation becomes all the more urgent as more genetic databases and biobanks are established around the world and movements are made towards data sharing between them. Not only is it important that the regulation of genetic data takes into account its shared nature, but as international collaboration relies upon agreed standards, it is important that it does so quickly.

Engagement with genetic discrimination: concerns and experiences in the context of Huntington disease

It has been over 20 years since the inception of predictive testing for Huntington disease (HD), yet the social implications of knowing one's genetic risk for HD have not been fully explored. Genetic discrimination (GD) is a potential risk associated with predictive testing. Although anecdotal reports of GD have been documented, there is a paucity of research on the nature and experiences of GD in the context of HD. The purpose of this study was to describe the concerns and experiences of GD in the HD community. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 45 genetically tested and 10 untested individuals and analyzed using grounded theory methods. Our findings demonstrate that a majority of individuals were concerned about (37/55) and experienced GD (32/55) across a variety of contexts that extend beyond the traditionally examined contexts of insurance and employment to include family, social, government, and health-care domains. We describe a process of engagement with GD in which individuals formed meaningful interpretations of GD and personalized its risk and consequences in their lives. Our findings provide an insight into some of the specific processes and factors influencing engagement with GD. These results help identify areas where more education and support is needed and provide direction to genetic professionals supporting their clients as they confront issues of GD and genetic testing.

Public health and the challenge of genomics

This paper is a contribution to debate on the challenge to public health of advances in genomic science and its applications. While genomics offers exciting possibilities for mitigating and preventing disease and disability, it is outpacing society's comprehension as well as public health policy and practice. There is controversy in Australia and internationally over the eugenic implications of genomics, with desirable outcomes for public health set against 'slippery slope' arguments. Controversy cannot be avoided; we risk divisiveness if it is not carefully managed with informed, social-consensus-building debate. Furthermore, the intrinsic tension between genomics (with its individual and family choices) and public health (operating for the public good) may even necessitate a reconceptualisation of public health.

Risk reduction and health promotion behaviors following genetic testing for adult-onset disorders

Although clinical genetic testing is available for over 1,000 inherited disorders, consequences of predictive genetic testing have been most extensively examined for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), hereditary colon cancer, and Huntington disease (HD). These focus primarily on psychological, ethical, legal, and social aspects of genetic testing. Genetic testing may also provide information that can lead to behaviors that promote health and reduce risk for disease, reflecting options available for the disorder for which the person is at risk. However, regardless of condition, people completing a genetic test may inform relatives about the results of the test and implications for their risk to develop the condition. Literature on risk reduction behaviors and communication focuses on families with HBOC or colorectal cancer. Few reports document behaviors for other conditions. This paper presents a systematic review of the research literature on risk reduction and health promotion behaviors following clinical genetic testing for adult onset conditions, primarily HBOC, familial colon cancers, and HD. Insights gleaned from this review are discussed as a basis for planning monitoring of health promotion and risk-reduction behaviors for genetic testing for present and future use.

Genetics, insurance and participation: how a Citizens' Jury reached its verdict

Access to life insurance is subject to health discrimination. Whether this discrimination should take into account the results of predictive genetic tests is a topic of public debate. This paper draws from the deliberations of the Edinburgh (Scotland) Citizens' Jury on Genetic Test Results and Life Insurance to evaluate the capacity of one participatory research method to inform debates on genetics and insurance. We show that through a process of knowledge-building, cross-examination and deliberation, 'lay' jurors are able to assimilate complex information, engage in subtle argument and arrive at well-reasoned, clearly warranted conclusions. The Citizens' Jury approach has a further key advantage: it embraces the formation and articulation of normative ideas. It brings public understandings of how things ought to be into an arena dominated by 'expert' opinion. These normative indicators, which in this case relate to fairness and trust, are often overlooked by policy makers. However, they are key to democratic decision-taking and relevant for health promotion.

Gender Differences in Attitudes Among Those at Risk for Huntington's Disease

This report presents and discusses selected findings regarding gender differences from an Australian-based study that investigated attitudes of individuals at risk for Huntington's disease (HD) towards genetic risk and predictive testing. Clear gender differences emerged regarding perceived coping capacity with regard to predictive testing, as well as disclosure of the genetic risk for HD to others. Female participants were more likely to disclose their genetic risk to others, including their medical practitioners, while male participants were three times more fearful of disclosing their genetic risk to others. These findings are of interest in light of gender differences that have consistently been reported regarding the uptake of predictive testing for HD, other genetic conditions, and health services more generally. While gender differences cannot provide a fully explanatory framework for differential uptake of predictive genetic testing, men and women may experience and respond differently to the genetic risk for HD and possibly other inherited disorders. The meanings of genetic risk to men and women warrants further exploration, given anticipated increases in genetic testing for more common conditions, especially if post-test interventions are possible. These issues are also relevant within the context of individuals' concerns about the potential for discrimination on the basis of genetic risk or genetic test information.

Exploring the concept of genetic discrimination

The issue of genetic discrimination has attracted growing attention and has been the focus of a recent major Australian inquiry. It is, however, a complex and loaded notion, open to interpretation. This paper explores the concept of genetic discrimination in both its theoretical and practical dimensions. It examines its conceptual underpinnings, how it is understood, and how this understanding fits within the legal framework of disability discrimination. The paper also examines the phenomenon in practice, including the 'fear factor' and the resulting implications for the development of regulatory policy. The paper argues that we need to be discerning in our interpretation of this term, and differentiate between discriminatory conduct which is legal and illegal. Further, it is argued that a concerted societal response to the 'problem' of genetic discrimination is needed involving targeted legal reforms as well as broader non-legal strategies.

Methodological Considerations in the Study of Genetic Discrimination

The potential significance and dimensions of genetic discrimination have been described extensively in published literature, but epidemiological and verified case data are limited. Obtaining unbiased data from individuals about discrimination which has been based on erroneous or unjustifiable assumptions about their genetic predispositions poses unique challenges. Through review and discussion of research literature, we identify methodological considerations for collecting valid epidemiological data on genetic discrimination from individuals in the community; in particular, we consider issues which relate to sampling, selection and response. We identify issues to promote sound study design, with particular attention to verification of genetic discrimination, and highlight the importance of clinical and genetic knowledge of complex genotype-phenotype relationships.