Perceptions of genetic discrimination among at-risk relatives of colorectal cancer patients

Community concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance persist in Australia: A survey of consumers offered genetic testing

Fears of genetic discrimination in life insurance continue to deter some Australians from genetic testing. In July 2019, the life insurance industry introduced a partial, self-regulated moratorium restricting the use of genetic results in underwriting, applicable to policies up to certain limits (eg AUD$500,000 for death cover).We administered an online survey to consumers who had taken, or been offered, clinical genetic testing for adult-onset conditions, to gather views and experiences about the moratorium and the use of genetic results in life insurance, including its regulation.Most respondents (n = 367) had undertaken a genetic test (89%), and had a positive test result (76%; n = 243/321). Almost 30% (n = 94/326) reported testing after 1 July 2019. Relatively few respondents reported knowing about the moratorium (16%; n = 54/340) or that use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is legal (17%; n = 60/348). Only 4% (n = 14/350) consider this practice should be allowed. Some respondents reported ongoing difficulties accessing life insurance products, even after the moratorium. Further, discrimination concerns continue to affect some consumers' decision-making about having clinical testing and applying for life insurance products, despite the Moratorium being in place. Most respondents (88%; n = 298/340) support the introduction of legislation by the Australian government to regulate this issue.Despite the introduction of a partial moratorium in Australia, fears of genetic discrimination persist, and continue to deter people from genetic testing. Consumers overwhelmingly consider life insurers should not be allowed to use genetic results in underwriting, and that federal legislation is required to regulate this area.

Consent for Use of Genetic Data among US Hispanics/Latinos: Results from the Hispanic Community Health Study/ Study of Latinos

Inclusion of historically underrepresented populations in biomedical research is critical for large precision medicine research initiatives. Among 13,721 Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) enrollees, we used multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratios to describe characteristics associated with participants' willingness to consent to different levels of biospecimen and genetic data analysis and sharing. At baseline (2008-2011), HCHS/SOL participants almost universally consented to the use of biospecimens and genetic data by study investigators and their collaborators (97.6%; 95%CI: 97.1, 98.0). Fewer consented to biospecimen and genetic data sharing with investigators not affiliated with the HCHS/SOL research team (81%, 95%CI: 80, 82) or any data sharing with commercial/for-profit entities (75%, 95%CI: 74, 76). Those refusing to share their data beyond the study investigators group were more often females, Spanish language-speakers and non-US born individuals. As expected, participants who were retained and reconsented at the six-year follow up visit tended to embrace broader data sharing, although this varied by group. Over time, Puerto Ricans and Dominicans were more likely to convert to broader data sharing than individuals of a Mexican background. Our analysis suggests that acculturation and immigration status of specific Hispanic/Latino communities may influence decisions about participation in genomic research projects and biobanks.

Study protocol: the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium-monitoring the effectiveness and response (A-GLIMMER) project

Background

The use of genetic test results in risk-rated insurance is a significant concern internationally, with many countries banning or restricting the use of genetic test results in underwriting. In Australia, life insurers’ use of genetic test results is legal and self-regulated by the insurance industry (Financial Services Council (FSC)). In 2018, an Australian Parliamentary Inquiry recommended that insurers’ use of genetic test results in underwriting should be prohibited. In 2019, the FSC introduced an industry self-regulated moratorium on the use of genetic test results. In the absence of government oversight, it is critical that the impact, effectiveness and appropriateness of the moratorium is monitored. Here we describe the protocol of our government-funded research project, which will serve that critical function between 2020 and 2023.

Methods

A realist evaluation framework was developed for the project, using a context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) approach, to systematically assess the impact of the moratorium for a range of stakeholders. Outcomes which need to be achieved for the moratorium to accomplish its intended aims were identified, and specific data collection measures methods were developed to gather the evidence from relevant stakeholder groups (consumers, health professionals, financial industry and genetic research community) to determine if aims are achieved. Results from each arm of the study will be analysed and published in peer-reviewed journals as they become available.

Discussion

The A-GLIMMER project will provide essential monitoring of the impact and effectiveness of the self-regulated insurance moratorium. On completion of the study (3 years) a Stakeholder Report will be compiled. The Stakeholder Report will synthesise the evidence gathered in each arm of the study and use the CMO framework to evaluate the extent to which each of the outcomes have been achieved, and make evidence-based recommendations to the Australian federal government, life insurance industry and other stakeholders.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00634-2.

The Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) Questionnaire: Development and Preliminary Validation

The purpose of this study was to develop a brief instrument, the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR), to measure the psychosocial impact of returning genomic findings to patients in research and clinical practice. To create the FACToR, we modified and augmented the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire based on findings from a literature review, two focus groups (N = 12), and cognitive interviews (N = 6). We evaluated data from 122 participants referred for evaluation for inherited colorectal cancer or polyposis from the New EXome Technology in (NEXT) Medicine Study, an RCT of exome sequencing versus usual care. We assessed floor and ceiling effects of each item, conducted principal component analysis to identify subscales, and evaluated each subscale's internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity. After excluding items that were ambiguous or demonstrated floor or ceiling effects, 12 items forming four distinct subscales were retained for further analysis: negative emotions, positive feelings, uncertainty, and privacy concerns. All four showed good internal consistency (0.66-0.78) and test-retest reliability (0.65-0.91). The positive feelings and the uncertainty subscales demonstrated known-group validity. The 12-item FACToR with four subscales shows promising psychometric properties on preliminary evaluation in a limited sample and needs to be evaluated in other populations.

Global trends on fears and concerns of genetic discrimination: a systematic literature review

Since the 1990s, developments in the field of genetics have led to many questions on the use and possible misuse of genetic information. 'Genetic discrimination' has been defined as the differential treatment of asymptomatic individuals or their relatives on the basis of their real or assumed genetic characteristics. Despite the public policy attention around genetic discrimination, there is currently still much confusion surrounding this phenomenon. On the one hand, there is little evidence of the occurrence of genetic discrimination. On the other hand, it appears that people remain concerned about this theme, and this fear influences their health and life choices. This article makes use of a systematic literature review to investigate what is already known about the nature, extent and background of these fears and concerns. The 42 included studies have found considerable levels of concerns about genetic discrimination. Concerns dominate in insurance contexts and within personal interactions. The extent of concerns appears to vary depending on the type of genetic illness. Furthermore, installed laws prohibiting genetic discrimination do not seem to alleviate existing fears. This raises important questions as to the origins of these fears. Based on the findings, recommendations for future research are made. First, research on the background of fears is needed. Second, future research needs to assess more fully all different forms (for example, direct and indirect) of genetic discrimination. Thirdly, it has to be studied whether genetic discrimination is a form of discrimination that is distinguishable from discrimination based on an illness or disability. Finally, a last element that should be addressed in future research is the most recent developments in research on genomics, such as next-generation sequencing or genome-wide association studies.

Are Patients With Cancer Less Willing to Share Their Health Information? Privacy, Sensitivity, and Social Purpose

PURPOSE

Growing use of electronic health information increases opportunities to build population cancer databases for research and care delivery. Understanding patient views on reuse of health information is essential to shape privacy policies and build trust in these initiatives.

METHODS

We randomly assigned nationally representative participants (N = 3,336) with and without prior cancer to six of 18 scenarios describing different uses of electronic health information. The scenarios varied the user, use, and sensitivity of the information. Participants rated each scenario on a scale of 1 to 10 assessing their willingness to share their electronic health information. We used conjoint analysis to measure the relative importance of each attribute (ie, use, user, and sensitivity).

RESULTS

Participants with and without a prior diagnosis of cancer had a similar willingness to share health information (0.27; P = .42). Both cancer and noncancer participants rated the purpose of information use as the most important factor (importance weights, 67.1% and 45.6%, respectively). For cancer participants, the sensitivity of the information was more important (importance weights, 29.8% v 1.2%). However, cancer participants were more willing to share their health information when the information included more sensitive genetic information (0.48; P = .015). Cancer and noncancer respondents rated uses and users similarly.

CONCLUSION

The information sharing preferences of participants with and without a prior diagnosis of cancer were driven mainly by the purpose of information reuse. Although conventional thinking suggests patients with cancer might be less willing to share their health information, we found participants with cancer were more willing to share their inherited genetic information.

Ethics of genetic and biomarker test disclosures in neurodegenerative disease prevention trials

OBJECTIVE

Prevention trials for neurodegenerative diseases use genetic or other risk marker tests to select participants but there is concern that this could involve coercive disclosure of unwanted information. This has led some trials to use blinded enrollment (participants are tested but not told of their risk marker status). We examined the ethics of blinded vs transparent enrollment using well-established criteria for assessing the ethics of clinical research.

METHODS

Normative analysis applying 4 key ethical criteria-favorable risk-benefit ratio, informed consent, fair subject selection, and scientific validity-to blinded vs transparent enrollment, using current evidence and state of Alzheimer disease (AD) and other prevention trials.

RESULTS

Current evidence on the psychosocial impact of risk marker disclosure and considerations of scientific benefit do not support an obligation to use blinded enrollment in prevention trials. Nor does transparent enrollment coerce or involve undue influence of potential participants. Transparent enrollment does not unfairly exploit vulnerable participants or limit generalizability of scientific findings of prevention trials. However, if the preferences of a community of potential participants would affect the rigor or feasibility of a prevention trial using transparent enrollment, then investigators are required by considerations of scientific validity to use blinded enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerations of risks and benefits, informed consent, and fair subject selection do not require the use of blinded enrollment for AD prevention trials. Blinded enrollment in AD prevention trials may sometimes be necessary because of the need for scientific validity, not because it prevents coercion or undue influence.

Promoting healthy dietary behaviour through personalised nutrition: technology push or technology pull?

The notion of educating the public through generic healthy eating messages has pervaded dietary health promotion efforts over the years and continues to do so through various media, despite little evidence for any enduring impact upon eating behaviour. There is growing evidence, however, that tailored interventions such as those that could be delivered online can be effective in bringing about healthy dietary behaviour change. The present paper brings together evidence from qualitative and quantitative studies that have considered the public perspective of genomics, nutrigenomics and personalised nutrition, including those conducted as part of the EU-funded Food4Me project. Such studies have consistently indicated that although the public hold positive views about nutrigenomics and personalised nutrition, they have reservations about the service providers' ability to ensure the secure handling of health data. Technological innovation has driven the concept of personalised nutrition forward and now a further technological leap is required to ensure the privacy of online service delivery systems and to protect data gathered in the process of designing personalised nutrition therapies.

100 years Lynch syndrome: what have we learned about psychosocial issues?

In the care of patients with Lynch Syndrome (LS), a range of psychosocial issues are encountered, which significantly affect patient outcomes. A brief historical background of 'psycho-onco-genetics' (the domain where psychology, oncology and genetics meet) in relation to LS is presented, followed by an overview of important psychosocial issues identified in the past 20 years. The identification of mismatch repair genes in 1993-1994 made possible genetic counseling and testing for patients who had cancer and for potentially high-risk relatives without cancer. At that time, concerns were raised about the potentially negative psychosocial impact of predictive genetic testing. Since 1993, a large number of studies have been conducted to investigate the possible psychosocial benefits and limitations of such testing. This article presents an overview of: the uptake of and motivations for genetic testing, its psychosocial impact (e.g. psychological adaptation, impact on risk perception and self-concept, and concerns about, and experiences of, genetic discrimination), psychological screening instruments, adherence to and decision-making about preventive strategies, family communication, lifestyle changes, reproductive technology utilization, and professional psychosocial support needs of members of families with LS. Finally, challenges for the future are discussed, including population screening and genomic testing.

A review of quality of life after predictive testing for and earlier identification of neurodegenerative diseases

The past decade has witnessed an explosion of evidence suggesting that many neurodegenerative diseases can be detected years, if not decades, earlier than previously thought. To date, these scientific advances have not provoked any parallel translational or clinical improvements. There is an urgency to capitalize on this momentum so earlier detection of disease can be more readily translated into improved health-related quality of life for families at risk for, or suffering with, neurodegenerative diseases. In this review, we discuss health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measurement in neurodegenerative diseases and the importance of these "patient reported outcomes" for all clinical research. Next, we address HRQOL following early identification or predictive genetic testing in some neurodegenerative diseases: Huntington disease, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Dementia with Lewy bodies, frontotemporal dementia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, prion diseases, hereditary ataxias, Dentatorubral-pallidoluysian atrophy and Wilson's disease. After a brief report of available direct-to-consumer genetic tests, we address the juxtaposition of earlier disease identification with assumed reluctance toward predictive genetic testing. Forty-one studies examining health-related outcomes following predictive genetic testing for neurodegenerative disease suggested that (a) extreme or catastrophic outcomes are rare; (b) consequences commonly include transiently increased anxiety and/or depression; (c) most participants report no regret; (d) many persons report extensive benefits to receiving genetic information; and (e) stigmatization and discrimination for genetic diseases are poorly understood and policy and laws are needed. Caution is appropriate for earlier identification of neurodegenerative diseases but findings suggest further progress is safe, feasible and likely to advance clinical care.

Public preferences about secondary uses of electronic health information

IMPORTANCE

As health information technology grows, secondary uses of personal health information offer promise in advancing research, public health, and health care. Public perceptions about sharing personal health data are important for establishing and evaluating ethical and regulatory structures to oversee the use of these data.

OBJECTIVE

To measure patient preferences about sharing their electronic health information for secondary purposes (other than their own health care).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this conjoint analysis study, we surveyed 3336 adults (568 Hispanic, 500 non-Hispanic African American, and 2268 non-Hispanic white); participants were randomized to 6 of 18 scenarios describing secondary uses of electronic health information, constructed with 3 attributes: uses (research, quality improvement, or commercial marketing), users (university hospitals, commercial enterprises, or public health departments), and data sensitivity (whether it included genetic information about their own cancer risk). This design enabled participants to reveal their preferences for secondary uses of their personal health information.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Participants responded to each conjoint scenario by rating their willingness to share their electronic personal health information on a 1 to 10 scale (1 represents low willingness; 10, high willingness). Conjoint analysis yields importance weights reflecting the contribution of a dimension (use, user, or sensitivity) to willingness to share personal health information.

RESULTS

The use of data was a more important factor in the conjoint analysis (importance weight, 64.3%) than the user (importance weight, 32.6%) and data sensitivity (importance weight, 3.1%). In unadjusted linear regression models, marketing uses (β = -1.55), quality improvement uses (β = -0.51), drug company users (β = -0.80), and public health department users (β = -0.52) were associated with less willingness to share health information than research uses and university hospital users (all P < .001). Hispanics and African Americans differentiated less than whites between uses.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Participants cared most about the specific purpose for using their health information, although differences were smaller among racial and ethnic minorities. The user of the information was of secondary importance, and the sensitivity was not a significant factor. These preferences should be considered in policies governing secondary uses of health information.

Consumer awareness and attitudes about insurance discrimination post enactment of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

To examine the awareness and attitudes about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in individuals who made contact with a Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome advocacy group. This is a descriptive study of individuals (n = 1,699) who were invited via email and advertisements to complete an online questionnaire available from August 2009 through December 2010. Response distributions of relevant subgroups were compared using cross tabulation and Chi-squared tests were used. The majority of respondents (69.2 %) had undergone genetic testing (n = 1,156) and 30.2 % had not. Of those who did not undergo genetic testing, the most common reason given for declining testing was cost (28.8 %), followed by concerns about insurance discrimination (19.5 %). More than half (60.5 %) were worried about health insurance discrimination when they first considered genetic testing and 28.6 % were worried about employment discrimination. Slightly more individuals were worried about health insurance discrimination if they had no prior knowledge of GINA. While "cost" was cited most frequently as the reason not to test, "fear of insurance discrimination" was the second most common reason. Knowledge of GINA among consumers is still limited and public education may help promote reduction in fear.

Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing

BACKGROUND

Variable health literacy and genetic knowledge may pose significant challenges to engaging the general public in personal genomics, specifically with respect to promoting risk comprehension and healthy behaviors.

METHODS

We are conducting a multistage study of individual responses to genomic risk information for Type 2 diabetes mellitus. A total of 300 individuals were recruited from the general public in Durham, North Carolina: 60% self-identified as White; 70% female; and 65% have a college degree. As part of the baseline survey, we assessed genetic knowledge and attitudes toward genetic testing.

RESULTS

Scores of factual knowledge of genetics ranged from 50% to 100% (average=84%), with significant differences in relation to racial groups, the education level, and age. Scores were significantly higher on questions pertaining to the inheritance and causes of disease (mean score 90%) compared to scientific questions (mean score 77.4%). Scores on the knowledge survey were significantly higher than scores from European populations. Participants' perceived knowledge of the social consequences of genetic testing was significantly lower than their perceived knowledge of the medical uses of testing. More than half agreed with the statement that testing may affect a person's ability to obtain health insurance (51.3%) and 16% were worried about the consequences of testing for chances of finding a job.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the relatively high educational status and genetic knowledge of the study population, we find an imbalance of knowledge between scientific and medical concepts related to genetics as well as between the medical applications and societal consequences of testing, suggesting that more effort is needed to present the benefits, risks, and limitations of genetic testing, particularly, at the social and personal levels, to ensure informed decision making.

Genetic discrimination and life insurance: a systematic review of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Since the late 1980s, genetic discrimination has remained one of the major concerns associated with genetic research and clinical genetics. Europe has adopted a plethora of laws and policies, both at the regional and national levels, to prevent insurers from having access to genetic information for underwriting. Legislators from the United States and the United Kingdom have also felt compelled to adopt protective measures specifically addressing genetics and insurance. But does the available evidence really confirm the popular apprehension about genetic discrimination and the subsequent genetic exceptionalism?

METHODS

This paper presents the results of a systematic, critical review of over 20 years of genetic discrimination studies in the context of life insurance.

RESULTS

The available data clearly document the existence of individual cases of genetic discrimination. The significance of this initial finding is, however, greatly diminished by four observations. First, the methodology used in most of the studies is not sufficiently robust to clearly establish either the prevalence or the impact of discriminatory practices. Second, the current body of evidence was mostly developed around a small number of 'classic' genetic conditions. Third, the heterogeneity and small scope of most of the studies prevents formal statistical analysis of the aggregate results. Fourth, the small number of reported genetic discrimination cases in some studies could indicate that these incidents took place due to occasional errors, rather than the voluntary or planned choice, of the insurers.

CONCLUSION

Important methodological limitations and inconsistencies among the studies considered make it extremely difficult, at the moment, to justify policy action taken on the basis of evidence alone. Nonetheless, other empirical and theoretical factors have emerged (for example, the prevalence and impact of the fear of genetic discrimination among patients and research participants, the (un)importance of genetic information for the commercial viability of the private life insurance industry, and the need to develop more equitable schemes of access to life insurance) that should be considered along with the available evidence of genetic discrimination for a more holistic view of the debate.

Unravelling fears of genetic discrimination: an exploratory study of Dutch HCM families in an era of genetic non-discrimination acts

Since the 1990s, many countries in Europe and the United States have enacted genetic non-discrimination legislation to prevent people from deferring genetic tests for fear that insurers or employers would discriminate against them based on that information. Although evidence for genetic discrimination exists, little is known about the origins and backgrounds of fears of discrimination and how it affects decisions for uptake of genetic testing. The aim of this article is to gain a better understanding of these fears and its possible impact on the uptake of testing by studying the case of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). In a qualitative study, we followed six Dutch extended families involved in genetic testing for HCM for three-and-a-half years. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 57 members of these families. Based on the narratives of the families, we suggest that fears of discrimination have to be situated in the broader social and life-course context of family and kin. We describe the processes in which families developed meaningful interpretations of genetic discrimination and how these interpretations affected family members' decisions to undergo genetic testing. Our findings show that fears of genetic discrimination do not so much stem from the opportunity of genetic testing but much more from earlier experiences of discrimination of diseased family members. These results help identify the possible limitations of genetic non-discrimination regulations and provide direction to clinicians supporting their clients as they confront issues of genetic testing and genetic discrimination.

Why is genetic screening for autosomal dominant disorders underused in families? The case of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia

PURPOSE

Appropriate management of autosomal dominant disorders reduces morbidity and mortality but relies on identifying which family members are affected. Genetic testing may identify relatives needing follow-up but is underused. We conducted this study to identify barriers to genetic testing for one disorder, hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.

METHODS

Surveys and online discussion groups with people from hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia families.

RESULTS

Multiple barriers to hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia genetic testing were identified including lack of knowledge about genetic testing, problems with access, and emotional barriers. Many participants did not understand the rationale for hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia testing or benefits of early detection; believed that genetic testing is expensive and not covered by insurance; and believed that primary care providers do not know how to order genetic testing. Access to hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia testing is limited by distance from a hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia center or a genetics clinic. Emotional barriers include fear of insurance discrimination; denial of having hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia or being at risk; and guilt and stigma.

CONCLUSION

Voluntary disease organizations should develop and disseminate brief educational materials that describe the rationale for genetic testing and emphasize the benefits of early detection and treatment. In addition, laboratories offering genetic testing should provide support for primary care physicians to order and interpret genetic tests.

Beyond the patient: the broader impact of genetic discrimination among individuals at risk of Huntington disease

We aimed to address gaps in current understanding of the scope and impact of discrimination, by examining a cohort of individuals at-risk for Huntington disease (HD), to describe the prevalence of concern for oneself and one's family in multiple domains; strategies used to mitigate discrimination; and the extent to which concerns relate to experiences. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 293 individuals at-risk for HD (80% response rate); 167 respondents were genetically tested and 66 were not. Fear of discrimination was widespread (86%), particularly in the insurance, family and social settings. Approximately half of concerned individuals experienced discrimination (40-62%, depending on genetic status). Concern was associated with "keeping quiet" about one's risk of HD or "taking action to avoid" discrimination. Importantly, concern was highly distressing for some respondents (21% for oneself; 32% for relatives). Overall, concerned respondents with high education levels, who discovered their family history at a younger age, and those who were mutation-positive were more likely to report experiences of discrimination than others who were concerned. Concerns were rarely attributed to genetic test results alone. Concern about genetic discrimination is frequent among individuals at-risk of HD and spans many settings. It influences behavioral patterns and can result in high levels of self-rated distress, highlighting the need for practice and policy interventions. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Personalized medicine: progress and promise

Personalized medicine is a broad and rapidly advancing field of health care that is informed by each person's unique clinical, genetic, genomic, and environmental information. Personalized medicine depends on multidisciplinary health care teams and integrated technologies (e.g., clinical decision support) to utilize our molecular understanding of disease in order to optimize preventive health care strategies. Human genome information now allows providers to create optimized care plans at every stage of a disease, shifting the focus from reactive to preventive health care. The further integration of personalized medicine into the clinical workflow requires overcoming several barriers in education, accessibility, regulation, and reimbursement. This review focuses on providing a comprehensive understanding of personalized medicine, from scientific discovery at the laboratory bench to integration of these novel ways of understanding human biology at the bedside.

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.

Perceptions of genetic discrimination among people at risk for Huntington's disease: a cross sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess the nature and prevalence of genetic discrimination experienced by people at risk for Huntington's disease who had undergone genetic testing or remained untested.

DESIGN

Cross sectional, self reported survey.

SETTING

Seven genetics and movement disorders clinics servicing rural and urban communities in Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

233 genetically tested and untested asymptomatic people at risk for Huntington's disease (response rate 80%): 167 underwent testing (83 had the Huntington's disease mutation, 84 did not) and 66 chose not to be tested.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Self reported experiences of genetic discrimination and related psychological distress based on family history or genetic test results.

RESULTS

Discrimination was reported by 93 respondents (39.9%). Reported experiences occurred most often in insurance (29.2%), family (15.5%), and social (12.4%) settings. There were few reports of discrimination in employment (6.9%), health care (8.6%), or public sector settings (3.9%). Although respondents who were aware that they carried the Huntington's disease mutation reported the highest levels of discrimination, participation in genetic testing was not associated with increased levels of genetic discrimination. Family history of Huntington's disease, rather than the result of genetic testing, was the main reason given for experiences of genetic discrimination. Psychological distress was associated with genetic discrimination (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic discrimination was commonly reported by people at risk for Huntington's disease and was a source of psychological distress. Family history, and not genetic testing, was the major reason for genetic discrimination.

Survey of unaffected BRCA and mismatch repair (MMR) mutation positive individuals

Many individuals do not proceed with cancer predisposition testing due to fears of genetic discrimination (GD). We report the results of a survey of 47 unaffected, mutation positive individuals regarding insurance outcomes. Participants recruited from six different Cancer Risk Programs across the country were queried about their experiences with health, life, and disability insurance, as well as employment issues. Eighty-seven percent of participants carried a BRCA mutation and 87% were part of a group insurance plan at the time of testing. Forty-seven percent of participants self-paid for testing. Less than 10% of participants reported that their results were placed in the general medical record, while 43% did not know where their results were placed. Due to concerns about GD, 13% of participants stated they avoided changing jobs. Thirteen percent stated that their at-risk relatives had not undergone testing for the familial mutation due to fears about GD. Adverse events following genetic testing included two denials from private health insurers, one denial for average life insurance coverage and one denial for additional disability insurance. There were no reports of job discrimination. Results suggest fear of GD is prevalent, yet data do not support evidence that GD exists.

Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes and the role of the surgical oncologist

The expanding understanding of the genetic basis to hereditary colon cancer syndromes is dismantling previously conceived categorizations and shedding light on why those schemes often failed in past. This review highlights evolving concepts regarding the genetic diagnosis and clinical management of the more commonly inherited colorectal cancer syndromes, including a discussion of recently described familial syndromes. This review also addresses clinician responsibilities in recognition of familial syndromes and provision of counseling.

Progress along developmental tracks for electronic health records implementation in the United States

The development and implementation of electronic health records (EHR) have occurred slowly in the United States. To date, these approaches have, for the most part, followed four developmental tracks: (a) Enhancement of immunization registries and linkage with other health records to produce Child Health Profiles (CHP), (b) Regional Health Information Organization (RHIO) demonstration projects to link together patient medical records, (c) Insurance company projects linked to ICD-9 codes and patient records for cost-benefit assessments, and (d) Consortia of EHR developers collaborating to model systems requirements and standards for data linkage. Until recently, these separate efforts have been conducted in the very silos that they had intended to eliminate, and there is still considerable debate concerning health professionals access to as well as commitment to using EHR if these systems are provided. This paper will describe these four developmental tracks, patient rights and the legal environment for EHR, international comparisons, and future projections for EHR expansion across health networks in the United States.

Two cheers for GINA?

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) was recently enacted in the United States. Its supporters have applauded the passage of GINA, and they hope that it will alleviate public fear about genetic discrimination and facilitate genetic testing and participation in genetic research. Critics worry that GINA does not provide adequate protection because it fails to address discrimination on the basis of non-genetic health-related information, and it only regulates the use of genetic information in health insurance and employment. Despite these limitations, GINA represents a major step forward in US policy. Additional research is needed to assess the impact of GINA on industry practice and public opinion. In the mean time, education about GINA and its limitations can help individuals make more informed decisions about genetic testing and participation in genetic research.

Civilian and military genetics: nondiscrimination policy in a post-GINA world

Evidence is emerging of a growing societal consensus about appropriate and inappropriate uses of genetic information. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 provides new legal protections to Americans by prohibiting the discriminatory use of genetic information by health insurers and employers. Additionally, the United States military recently created new policies for fair use of genetic information in the determination of benefits for servicemen and servicewomen leaving military service. Although critical issues remain, such as the potential for genetic information to be used to deny people other forms of insurance, and how the military will use genetic medicine overall, significant progress has been made.

Medical ethics for the genome world: a paper from the 2007 William Beaumont hospital symposium on molecular pathology

Medical genetics, and in particular the areas of genetic testing and genetic counseling, are replete with ethical and social issues. This review provides readers with a summary of the genetic testing and counseling process, as well as the clinical challenges that can lead to ethical dilemmas during these processes. Using a clinical medical ethics approach, several hypothetical case scenarios are presented and discussed to provide examples of the ethical issues that can arise.

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.

Genetic discrimination in health insurance: current legal protections and industry practices

Most states have enacted genetic nondiscrimination laws in health insurance, and federal legislation is pending in Congress. Scientists worry fear of discrimination discourages some patients from participating in clinical trials and hampers important medical research. This paper describes a study of medical underwriting practices in the individual health insurance market related to genetic information. Underwriters from 23 companies participated in a survey that asked them to underwrite four pairs of hypothetical applicants for health insurance. One person in each pair had received a positive genetic test result indicating increased risk of a future health condition--breast cancer, hemochromatosis, or heart disease--for a total of 92 underwriting decisions on applications involving genetic information. In seven of these 92 applications, underwriters said they would deny coverage, place a surcharge on premiums,or limit covered benefits based on an applicant's genetic information.

Parenting children with Proteus syndrome: experiences with, and adaptation to, courtesy stigma

Courtesy stigma refers to the stigmatization an unaffected person experiences due to his or her relationship with a person who bears a stigma. Parents of children with genetic conditions are particularly vulnerable to courtesy stigma, but little research has been done to explore this phenomenon. The purpose of this study was to investigate the courtesy stigma experiences of parents of children with Proteus syndrome (PS) and related overgrowth conditions. Thematic analysis of transcripts from 31 parents identified three distinct themes: stigma experiences, social-emotional reactions to stigmatizing encounters, and coping responses. Four types of stigmatizing experiences were identified: intrusive inquires, staring and pointing, devaluing remarks, and social withdrawal. Additionally, we uncovered eight strategies parents used to cope with courtesy stigma: attributing cause, assigning meaning to social exchanges, concealing, withdrawing socially, taking the offensive, employing indifference, instructing and learning from family, and educating others. Parents' choices of strategy type were found to be context dependent and evolved over time. This is the first study to document the adaptive evolution of coping strategies to offset courtesy stigma by parents of children with genetic conditions. These results provide groundwork for genetic counseling interventions aimed at addressing issues of courtesy stigma and further investigation of the phenomenon itself.

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.

Managing genetic discrimination: strategies used by individuals found to have the Huntington disease mutation

The introduction of predictive testing for Huntington disease (HD) over 20 years ago has led to the advent of a new group of individuals found to have the HD mutation that are currently asymptomatic, yet destined in all likelihood to become affected at some point in the future. Genetic discrimination, a social risk associated with predictive testing, is the differential treatment of individuals based on genotypic difference rather than physical characteristics. While evidence for genetic discrimination exists, little is known about how individuals found to have the HD mutation cope with the potential for or experiences of genetic discrimination. The purpose of this study was to explore how individuals found to have the HD mutation manage the risk and experience of genetic discrimination. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 37 individuals who were found to have the HD mutation and analysed using grounded theory methods. The findings suggest four main strategies: "keeping low", minimizing, pre-empting and confronting genetic discrimination. Strategies varied depending on individuals' level of engagement with genetic discrimination and the nature of the experience (actual experience of genetic discrimination or concern for its potential). This exploratory framework may explain the variation in approaches and reactions to genetic discrimination among individuals living with an increased risk for HD and may offer insight for persons at risk for other late-onset genetic diseases to cope with genetic discrimination.

Defining the spectrum of genome policy

Many achievements in the genome sciences have been facilitated by policies that have prioritized genome research, secured funding and raised public and health-professional awareness. Such policies should address ethical, legal and social concerns, and are as important to the scientific and commercial development of the field as the science itself. On occasion, policy issues take precedence over science, particularly when impasses are encountered or when public health or money is at stake. Here we discuss the spectrum of current issues and debates in genome policy, and how to actively engage all affected stakeholders to promote effective policy making.

Policy implications of genetic testing: not just for geneticists anymore

Genetic testing is expanding rapidly to become part of mainstream medicine. While genetic tests bring with them the promise of improved diagnosis and treatment for patients, they also raise several policy challenges. These challenges include the lack of a coherent oversight system to ensure the quality of tests and testing laboratories, the rise of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, the dearth of professional guidelines to assist the transition of genetic tests from research to medical practice, and the absence of federal legislation to protect the privacy of genetic information and prevent genetic discrimination.

Research and practice opportunities at the intersection of health education, health behavior, and genomics

Researchers and practitioners in health behavior and health education (HBHE) can play a pivotal leadership role in the integration of genomic advances to improve the public's health. The purpose of this article is to outline research and practice opportunities at the intersection of genomics and HBHE. We begin this article by briefly summarizing the existing evidence in the literature pertaining to the public's use of genetic services, the effectiveness of genetic counseling, and the impact of genetic testing. Following this, we outline and expand on several areas that we believe are ripe for further exploration, understanding, and public health application:(a) public understanding of genetic information, (b) interventions for health behavior change, and (c) public health assurance and advocacy. This analysis has identified the need to consider potential application efforts in genomics and HBHE from an ecological perspective, with an emphasis on multiple levels of intervention and analysis.

Concerns in a primary care population about genetic discrimination by insurers

PURPOSE

Fear of genetic discrimination might deter participation in research or therapy. This is a major impetus for laws limiting insurers' use of genetic information, yet there is little information about the extent of this fear in the general population and how it varies by social factors.

METHODS

This study measures concern about insurance problems relating to genetic testing, as part of primary-care screening for hereditary hemochromatosis (iron overload). Data come from a multiethnic, primary care-based survey of 86,859 adults in five field centers in the United States (AL, CA, DC, HI, OR), and one in Canada (Ontario). Logistic regression was used to model the probability of agreeing to the question "Genetic testing is not a good idea because you might have trouble getting or keeping your insurance."

RESULTS

Overall, 40.0% of participants agreed. Adjusting for other characteristics, African Americans and Asians were much less likely (OR = 0.52 and 0.39), and Hispanics were more likely (OR = 1.124), than Caucasians to express concern about insurance discrimination. Participants under 65 years old, US residents, and those without a high school diploma were substantially more likely to be concerned (ORs ranging from 1.4-1.6), as were participants with lower mental health scores. Education showed a nonlinear relationship, with significantly higher concern among both those with less than a high school education and those with a college degree, compared to high school graduates.

CONCLUSIONS

Concern about genetic discrimination varies substantially by race and other demographic factors and by nationality. One possible explanation for lower concern about Canadians and by people over 64 is that both groups are covered by social insurance for health care (Medicare). However, US residents in states with some legal protections against genetic discrimination had more, not less, concern than either Canadians or US residents in states with no legal protections.