"Uninsurable because of a genetic test": a qualitative study of consumer views about the use of genetic test results in Australian life insurance

Genetic testing can provide valuable information to mitigate personal disease risk, but the use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is known to deter many consumers from pursuing genetic testing. In 2019, following Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry recommendations, the Financial Services Council (FSC) introduced an industry-led partial moratorium, prohibiting life insurance companies from using genetic test results for policies up to $AUD500,000. We used semi-structured interviews to explore genetic test consumers' experiences and views about the FSC moratorium and the use of genetic results by life insurers. Individuals who participated in an online survey and agreed to be re-contacted to discuss the issue further were invited. Interviews were 20-30-min long, conducted via video conference, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis. Twenty-seven participants were interviewed. Despite the moratorium, concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance were prevalent. Participants reported instances where life insurers did not consider risk mitigation when assessing risk for policies based on genetic results, contrary to legal requirements. Most participants felt that the moratorium provided inadequate protection against discrimination, and that government legislation regulating life insurers' use of genetic results is necessary. Many participants perceived the financial limits to be inadequate, given the cost-of-living in Australia. Our findings indicate that from the perspective of participants, the moratorium has not been effective in allaying fears about genetic discrimination or ensuring adequate access to life insurance products. Concern about genetic discrimination in life insurance remains prevalent in Australia.

Research biobank participants attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and health record confidentiality

Understanding attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and confidentiality is important in guiding policies regarding special protections for genetic/genomic information stored in electronic health records (EHR). The goals of this study were to determine biobank participants' attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and confidentiality and whether those attitudes are related to their preference for return of genetic results. An online questionnaire was distributed to patients with an EHR and email address who had previously enrolled in the BioMe Biobank program. Most participants responded with similar levels of concern in scenarios involving the use of genetic information and other types of health information, suggesting that participants want similar protections for genetic data as other types of sensitive health information, particularly mental health and family history records. Of the 829 respondents, the majority had genetic exceptionalist views when directly asked, even though their concerns about confidentiality were similar for their genetic information and other health information. There were no differences in genetic exceptionalist views between those who had a documented preference to have genetic results returned and those who did not. Notably, for many participants, their recall of preference did not align with their documented preference. The majority of biobank participants were most anxious about the loss of confidentiality for genetic, mental health, and family history information, indicating that certain types of health information are considered more "sensitive" than others. These findings suggest the importance of assuring people participating in biobank research that the confidentiality of their "sensitive" health information is secured.

Potential corporate uses of polygenic indexes: Starting a conversation about the associated ethics and policy issues

Some commercial firms currently sell polygenic indexes (PGIs) to individual consumers, despite their relatively low predictive power. It might be tempting to assume that because the predictive power of many PGIs is so modest, other sorts of firms-such as those selling insurance and financial services-will not be interested in using PGIs for their own purposes. We argue to the contrary. We build this argument in two ways. First, we offer a very simple model, rooted in economic theory, of a profit-maximizing firm that can gain information about a single consumer's genome. We use the model to show that, depending on the specific economic environment, a firm would be willing to pay for statistically noisy PGIs, even if they allow for only a small reduction in uncertainty. Second, we describe two plausible scenarios in which these different kinds of firms could conceivably use PGIs to maximize profits. Finally, we briefly discuss some of the associated ethics and policy issues. They deserve more attention, which is unlikely to be given until it is first recognized that firms whose services affect a large swath of the public will indeed have incentives to use PGIs.

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.

Attitudes of the Public Toward Consent for Biobank Research in Japan

Background: Parallel to the rapid advancement of biological and information technologies, the role and forms of biobank research have been constantly changing. The ethical, legal, and social implications of consent in biobank research are in a state of flux. This study aimed to clarify current Japanese public preferences regarding the consent model and explore how public attitudes are determined. Methods: We conducted an online, population-based quantitative survey among Japanese residents aged between 20 and 69 years. Statistical analyses consisted of univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Results: Of the 1580 respondents, 60.9% preferred autonomy-based consent (specific or dynamic consent) and 23.9% preferred broad-type consent (opt-out or broad consent). Marital status, gender, and privacy concerns were significantly associated with the preference for a consent model. Conclusions: Our results demonstrated the public's current preference for autonomy-based consent, including dynamic consent. However, our findings also revealed that approximately half of the respondents considered broad consent as somewhat preferable.

Financial Advisers' and Key Informants' Perspectives on the Australian Industry-Led Moratorium on Genetic Tests in Life Insurance

INTRODUCTION

Genetic discrimination (GD) in the context of life insurance is a perennial concern in Australia and internationally. To address such concerns in Australia, an industry self-regulated Moratorium on Genetic Tests in Life Insurance was introduced in 2019 to restrict life insurers from using genetic test results in underwriting for policies under certain limits. Financial advisers (FAs) are sometimes engaged by clients to provide financial advice and assist them to apply for life insurance. They are therefore well-placed to comment on GD and the operation of the Moratorium. Despite this, the financial advising sector in Australia has yet to be studied empirically with regards to GD and the Moratorium. This study aims to capture this perspective by reporting on interviews with the financial advising sector.

METHODS

Ten semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with FAs and key informants and were analysed using thematic analysis.

CONCLUSION(S)

Participants' level of awareness and understanding of the Moratorium varied. Participants reported mixed views on the Moratorium's effectiveness, how it operates in practice, and perceived industry compliance. Participants also provided reflections on Australia's current approach to regulating GD, with most participants supporting the concept of industry self-regulation but identifying a need for this to be supplemented with external oversight and meaningful recourse mechanisms for consumers. Our results suggest that there is scope to increase FAs' awareness of GD, and that further research, consultation, and policy consideration are required to identify an optimal regulatory response to GD in Australia.

Utilization of genetic information for medicines development and equitable benefit sharing

Advances in genomic research have significantly enhanced modern drug development. However, equitable benefit sharing of the results of scientific advancement has not always been achieved. This paper shows how molecular biology has modified medicines development while also leaving open significant challenges for benefit sharing. Presented here is a conceptual modeling describing the processes in genetic-related medicines development and how these are related to specific ethical considerations. The focus is on three important areas: 1) population genetics and the need for discrimination prevention; 2) pharmacogenomics and the need for inclusive governance; and 3) global health to be achieved in open science frameworks. Benefit sharing is taken as the ethical value that underlies all these aspects. The implementation of benefit sharing requires a value shift in which the outcomes of health science are not viewed simply as trade commodities but also as a "global public good". This approach should lead to genetic science to contribute to promoting the fundamental human right to health to all members of the global community.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Genetic Testing and Personal Insurance Products in Australia

The expansion of genetic and genomic testing in clinical practice and research, and the growing market for direct-to-consumer genomic testing has led to increased awareness about the impact of this form of testing on insurance. Genetic or genomic information can be requested by providers of mutually rated insurance products, who may then use it when setting premiums or determining eligibility for cover under a particular product. Australian insurers are subject to relevant legislation and an industry led standard that was updated in 2019 to introduce a moratorium on the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting for policies Collapse

Key Words

• Australia
• Genetic testing
• discrimination
• genomics
• insurance
• regulation

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Australia
• Insurance Selection Bias
• Genetic Testing
• Australasia
• Human Genetics

Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Aideen M McInerney-Leo Frazer Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Samantha Ayres Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Jackie Boyle Genetics of Learning Disability Service, Waratah, New South Wales, Australia
Chris Jacobs Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia
Ainsley J Newson The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Collapse

Attitude Disparity and Worrying Scenarios in Genetic Discrimination-Based on Questionnaires from China

Objectives: As genetic testing is increasingly used in non-medical fields, the judgment of people's potential conditions based on predictive genetic information inevitably causes genetic discrimination (henceforth GD). This article aimed to systematically investigate the disparity in attitudes and worrying scenarios concerning GD in China. Methods: A questionnaire survey of 555 respondents was conducted. Statistical tests were used to examine disparity in attitudes between gender, age, and education. A descriptive analysis was also conducted to explore other worrying scenarios. Results: It shows that (1) men are more tolerant of GD compared to women, and (2) participants aged between 18 and 30 years old possess the highest objection to GD. However, (3) no indication can attest to the relationship between educational level and perspective on GD. In addition, (4) the acceptance of gene testing in the three most common scenarios is ranked in descending order as follows: partner choice, insurance services, and recruitment. Moreover, (5) worrying scenarios relating to GD include: education, social occasions, medical services, fertility, shopping, and so on. Conclusions: Based on the results, suggestions proposed include developing a blacklist mechanism in the field of genetic data application and strengthening the security regulations for the commercial use of genetic data.

Global Oncology Medical Diplomacy Working Group Inaugural Meeting: Defining Worldwide Barriers to Germline Genomics in Cancer Prevention and Management

We convened an international working group to examine the issues that challenge equity and inclusion in genetic medicine. Specifically, 72 internationally known experts in oncology and cancer genetics from 34 countries (the Global Oncology Medical Diplomacy Working Group), gathered virtually on January 4-5, 2022, for the "Humanity Cancer Germline Convergence and Divergence Cancer Predispositions" conference hosted by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in collaboration with the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Health and the Al Jalila Foundation. The goal of the conference was to broaden transnational understanding of the current state of genetics in preventive and therapeutic cancer medicine, and to define barriers to increased uptake of germline genomics to decrease the international burden of cancer. Here, we highlight the overarching barriers that were defined through this effort. These global barriers to incorporating germline genomics into optimal cancer care can inform ongoing research, collaboration, and advocacy for equitable, cost-effective genomic medicine for populations worldwide.

Health professionals' views and experiences of the Australian moratorium on genetic testing and life insurance: A qualitative study

Australian life insurance companies can legally use genetic test results in underwriting, which can lead to genetic discrimination. In 2019, the Financial Services Council (Australian life insurance industry governing body) introduced a partial moratorium restricting the use of genetic testing in underwriting policies ≤ $500,000 (active 2019-2024). Health professionals (HPs), especially clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors, often discuss the implications of genetic testing with patients, and provide critical insights into the effectiveness of the moratorium. Using a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, we interviewed 23 Australian HPs, who regularly discuss genetic testing with patients and had previously completed an online survey about genetic testing and life insurance. Interviews explored views and experiences about the moratorium, and regulation, in greater depth. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Two key themes emerged from views expressed by HPs during interviews (about matters reported to or observed by them): 1) benefits of the moratorium, and 2) concerns about the moratorium. While HPs reported that the moratorium reassures some consumers, concerns include industry self-regulation, uncertainty created by the temporary time period, and the inadequacy of the moratorium's financial limits for patients' financial needs. Although a minority of HPs felt the current industry self-regulated moratorium is an adequate solution to genetic discrimination, the vast majority (19/23) expressed concern with industry self-regulation and most felt government regulation is required to adequately protect consumers. HPs in Australia are concerned about the adequacy of the FSC moratorium with regards to consumer protections, and suggest government regulation is required.

Anti-Selection & Genetic Testing in Insurance: An Interdisciplinary Perspective

Anti-selection occurs when information asymmetry exists between insurers and applicants. When an applicant knows they are at high risk of loss, but the insurer does not, the applicant may try to use this knowledge differential to secure insurance at a lower premium that does not match risk.

A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals' views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium

BACKGROUND

In 2019, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium (ban) limiting the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. The moratorium is industry self-regulated and applies only to policies below certain financial limits (eg, $500 000 of death cover).

METHODS

We surveyed Australian health professionals (HPs) who discuss genetic testing with patients, to assess knowledge of the moratorium; reported patient experiences since its commencement; and HP views regarding regulation of genetic discrimination (GD) in Australia.

RESULTS

Between April and June 2020, 166 eligible HPs responded to the online survey. Of these, 86% were aware of the moratorium, but <50% had attended related training/information sessions. Only 16% answered all knowledge questions correctly, yet 69% believed they had sufficient knowledge to advise patients. Genetics HPs' awareness and knowledge were better than non-genetics HPs' (p<0.05). There was some reported decrease in patients delaying/declining testing after the moratorium's introduction, however, 42% of HPs disagreed that patients were more willing to have testing post-moratorium. Although many (76%) felt the moratorium resolved some GD concerns, most (88%) still have concerns, primarily around self-regulation, financial limits and the moratorium's temporary nature. Almost half (49%) of HPs reported being dissatisfied with the moratorium as a solution to GD. The majority (95%) felt government oversight is required, and 93% felt specific Australian legislation regarding GD is required.

CONCLUSION

While the current Australian moratorium is considered a step forward, most HPs believe it falls short of an adequate long-term regulatory solution to GD in life insurance.

Genetic discrimination: introducing the Asian perspective to the debate

Our article aims to provide a comprehensive portrayal of how seven Asian jurisdictions have sought to address the challenge of genetic discrimination (GD) by presenting an analysis of the relevant legislation, policies, and practices. Based on our findings, policy discussion and action on preventing or mitigating GD have been narrowly framed in terms of employment, insurance, disability, marriage, and family planning. Except for South Korea, none of the jurisdictions we examined has adopted specific legislation to prevent GD. However, for Asia to truly benefit from its recent scientific and technological progress in genomics, we highlight the need for these jurisdictions to engage more proactively with the challenges of GD through a coordinated regulatory and governance mechanism.

Normalising life at risk of Huntington's disease. A qualitative study of backgrounds and coping strategies of fears of genetic discrimination

Studies in the sociology of genetics have shown how living with a predisposition to a genetic disorder often comes with significant psycho-social burdens and struggles. One of these struggles is the fear of genetic discrimination. Despite genetic non-discrimination regulations, research shows people still worry about being subjected to genetic discrimination. This article adds to this existing body of literature by showing why people still worry about genetic discrimination and how they cope with these worries. Our findings derive from an analysis of semi-structured, in-depth interviews with individuals at risk for Huntington's disease (HD) in Belgium. Concerns of genetic discrimination are grounded in the participants' family backgrounds. Our participants, having witnessed numerous events in which symptomatic relatives suffered discrimination and stigmatisation, expressed heightened fears of facing genetic discrimination. Further, this article provides insight into the strategies participants use to cope with these fears. Two ways of normalising life were identified-while some persist in keeping their genetic risk a secret, other participants explicitly choose to be transparent about their genetic risk, desiring a level of openness. However, while they want to 'break' with their family background, participants who choose to be open are still held back by their worries about genetic discrimination by organisational actors. 'Normalising genetics' appears to be particularly challenging considering the remaining stereotypes and stigma surrounding genetic diseases.

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.

A new era of genetic testing in congenital heart disease: A review

Genetic and genomic testing in pediatric CHD is becoming increasingly routine, and can have important psychosocial, clinical and reproductive implications. In this paper we highlight important challenges and considerations when providing genetics consults and testing in pediatric CHD and illustrate the role of a dedicated CHD genetics clinic. Key lessons include that a) a genetic diagnosis can have clinical utility that justifies testing early in life, b) adequate genetic counselling is crucial to ensure families are supported, understand the range of possible results, and are prepared for new or unexpected health information, and c) further integration of the clinical genetics and cardiology workflows will be required to effectively manage the burgeoning information arising from genetic testing. Our experience demonstrates that a dedicated CHD genetics clinic is a valuable addition to a multidisciplinary team providing care to children with CHD.

Genetic testing and genetic discrimination: Public policy when insurance becomes "too expensive"

We examine public policy toward the use of genetic tests by insurers when a positive test makes actuarially fair insurance too expensive for some consumers. With state-dependent utility, consumers may decline actuarially fair insurance if the probability of becoming ill exceeds a threshold. In markets with adverse selection, a positive genetic test may cause all or some high risks to drop out of the market (complete and partial genetic discrimination, respectively). Full participation in the market by all consumers requires cross-subsidization. We show that the consent law and mandatory testing are equivalent. Under complete genetic discrimination, the duty to disclose is never Pareto dominated, but either the code of conduct or consent law can yield the same outcome. Under partial genetic discrimination, the duty to disclose is never Pareto dominated. However, partial genetic discrimination and cross-subsidization imply the information ban is noncomparable to the other policy alternatives.

Genetic discrimination views in online discussion forums: Perspectives from Canadian forumites

Recent advancements in genetic technologies have made genetic information increasingly sought out in a wide range of non-therapeutic contexts, which has increased the risk that such information be used to discriminate against individuals. Frequently, it is genetic counselors who have to respond to questions about genetic discrimination (GD) from worried patients. Here, we examine the general Canadian public's knowledge, attitudes, and concerns about GD through a comprehensive analysis and categorization of posts from selected Canadian online discussion forums. Overall, we collected 1,638 posts, from which we coded 694 posts originating from newspaper comment sections and Reddit posts that were categorized to yield 6 main themes that consistently concerned Canadian users on the topics of GD: (a) discussions centered around how insurance business practices can be affected by genetic information; (b) issues in employment; (c) 'fear' of genetic testing and eugenics; (d) preventive approaches such as law and human rights instruments; (e) the predictive value and privacy that should be conferred to genetic information; and (f) other ethical issues. Overall, discussions addressed risk stratification models applied to genetic information and personal insurance underwriting. We find that many forum users (aka forumites) fear GD in insurance and employment, consider genetic information private, and strongly support different legal approaches to prevent GD. However, we find dissension among forumites that may represent different advocacy groups such as insurers and employers. From these important concerns and social conceptions, we discuss issues that should be taken into consideration for the development of future policies and information campaigns addressing GD in Canada and other countries.

A Narrative Review of the Patient Journey Through the Lens of Non-communicable Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are challenged with a disproportionately high burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and limited healthcare resources at their disposal to tackle the NCD epidemic. Understanding the patient journey for NCDs from the patients' perspective can help healthcare systems in these settings evolve their NCD care models to address the unmet needs of patients, enhance patient participation in their management, and progress towards better outcomes and quality of life. This paper aims to provide a theoretical framework outlining common touchpoints along the patient journey for NCDs in LMICs. It further aims to review influencing factors and recommend strategies to improve patient experience, satisfaction, and disease outcomes at each touchpoint. The co-occurrence of major NCDs makes it possible to structure the patient journey for NCDs into five broad touchpoints: awareness, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and adherence, with integration of palliative care along the care continuum pathway. The patients' perspective must be considered at each touchpoint in order to inform interventions as they experience first-hand the impact of NCDs on their quality of life and physical function and participate substantially in their disease management. Collaboratively designed health communication programs, shared decision-making, use of appropriate risk assessment tools, therapeutic alliances between the patient and provider for treatment planning, self-management tools, and improved access to palliative care are some strategies to help improve the patient journeys in LMICs. Long-term management of NCDs entails substantial self-management by patients, which can be augmented by pharmacists and nurse-led interventions. The digital healthcare revolution has heralded an increase in patient engagement, support of home monitoring of patients, optimized accurate diagnosis, personalized care plans, and facilitated timely intervention. There is an opportunity to integrate digital technology into each touchpoint of the patient journey, while ensuring minimal interruption to patients' care in the face of global health emergencies.

Stakeholders' perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic and health-related data for research: a systematic review

The majority of biobank policies and consent forms do not address post-mortem use of data for medical research, thus causing uncertainty after research participants' death. This systematic review identifies studies examining stakeholders' perspectives on this issue. We conducted a search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science. Findings were categorised in two themes: (1) views on the use of data for medical research after participants' death, and (2) perspectives regarding the post-mortem return of individual genetic research results. An important subtheme was the appropriate authority and degree of control over posthumous use of data. The sixteen included studies all focused on genetic data and used quantitative and qualitative methods to survey perspectives of research participants, family members, researchers and Institutional Review Board members. Acceptability of post-mortem use of data for medical research was high among research participants and their relatives. Most stakeholders thought participants should be informed about post-mortem research uses during initial consent. Between lay persons and professionals, disagreement exists about whether relatives should receive actionable genetic findings, and whether the deceased's previous preferences can be overridden. We conclude that regulations and ethical guidance should leave room for post-mortem use of personal data for research, provided that informed consent procedures are transparent on this issue, including the return of individual research findings to relatives. Future research is needed to explore underlying causes for differences in views, as well as ethical and legal issues on the appropriate level of control by deceased research participants (while alive) and their relatives.

How is the trade-off between adverse selection and discrimination risk affected by genetic testing? Theory and experiment

We develop a theoretical analysis of two widely used regulations of genetic tests, Disclosure Duty and Consent Law, and we run an experiment in order to shed light on both the take-up rate of genetic testing and on the comparison of policyholders' welfare under the two regulations. Disclosure duty forces individuals to reveal their test results to insurers, exposing them to a discrimination risk. Consent Law allows them to hide any detrimental information, resulting in adverse selection. The experiment results in much lower genetic tests take-up rates with Disclosure Duty than with Consent Law, showing that subjects are very sensitive to the discrimination risk. Under Consent Law, take-up rates increase with the adverse selection intensity. A decrease in the test cost, and in adverse selection intensity, both make it more likely that Consent Law is preferred to Disclosure Duty.

Cost-Effectiveness of Risk-Stratified Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Polygenic Risk: Current Status and Future Potential

Background

Although uniform colonoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, risk-based screening may be more efficient. We investigated whether CRC screening based on polygenic risk is a cost-effective alternative to current uniform screening, and if not, under what conditions it would be.

Methods

The MISCAN-Colon model was used to simulate a hypothetical cohort of US 40-year-olds. Uniform screening was modeled as colonoscopy screening at ages 50, 60, and 70 years. For risk-stratified screening, individuals underwent polygenic testing with current and potential future discriminatory performance (area under the receiver-operating curve [AUC] of 0.60 and 0.65–0.80, respectively). Polygenic testing results were used to create risk groups, for which colonoscopy screening was optimized by varying the start age (40–60 years), end age (70–85 years), and interval (1–20 years).

Results

With current discriminatory performance, optimal screening ranged from once-only colonoscopy at age 60 years for the lowest-risk group to six colonoscopies at ages 40–80 years for the highest-risk group. While maintaining the same health benefits, risk-stratified screening increased costs by $59 per person. Risk-stratified screening could become cost-effective if the AUC value would increase beyond 0.65, the price per polygenic test would drop to less than $141, or risk-stratified screening would lead to a 5% increase in screening participation.

Conclusions

Currently, CRC screening based on polygenic risk is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with uniform screening. This is expected to change with a greater than 0.05 increase in AUC value, a greater than 30% reduction in polygenic testing costs, or a greater than 5% increase in adherence with screening.

Genetic testing, insurance discrimination and medical research: what the United States can learn from peer countries

While genetic testing may be the gateway to the future of medicine, it also poses challenges for individuals, especially in terms of differentiated treatments on the basis of their genetic characteristics. The fear of unwanted disclosure to insurers and the possibility of genetic discrimination can hamper the recruitment of individuals for clinical research that involves genetic testing. Precision medicine initiatives, such as All of Us, are proliferating in the United States. In order to succeed, however, they must ensure that the millions of Americans recruited to share their genetic data are not penalized with regard to life, disability and long-term insurance coverage. In this Perspective, we discuss several initiatives adopted by countries around the world, such as the United Kingdom and France, that better balance the interests of insurers and research subjects, and explain how the United States might learn from them. We call for regulatory and industry leadership to come together to establish a voluntary moratorium on insurance pricing with the aim of protecting research participants.

Genetic discrimination by Australian insurance companies: a survey of consumer experiences

We report previously undocumented evidence of genetic discrimination by Australian insurance companies, obtained through direct consumer reports. We surveyed 174 consumers with cancer-predisposing variants, recruited by cancer organisations Lynch Syndrome Australia and Pink Hope. Questions related to experiences accessing risk-rated insurance after genetic testing. Results indicate that both legal (permitted under current regulation) and illegal discrimination is occurring. Although some respondents had not applied for risk-rated insurance, or had insurance in place before genetic testing (n = 100), those seeking new policies (n = 74) commonly experienced difficulties obtaining insurance (86%, 64/74). Of those experiencing difficulties, 50% (32/64) had no prior history or symptoms of cancer, and had undertaken risk reduction through surveillance and/or preventative surgery. Seventy-seven percent (49/64) reported difficulties related to life insurance. Follow-up telephone interviews with four respondents further described cases of apparent illegal breaches. All reports of discrimination identified were, to our knowledge, previously unreported in the literature. The number of cases suggests a systemic problem with the Australian life insurance industry. We support calls for government oversight of the inherently conflicted model of industry self-regulation in Australia, and an immediate ban on the use of genetic test results in insurance underwriting.

Preventing discrimination based on psychiatric risk biomarkers

Recent studies have identified genomic and nongenomic psychiatric risk biomarkers (PRBs; e.g., genomic variants, blood analytes, gray matter volume). PRBs may soon become a powerful tool for improving psychiatric care and prevention. PRB research and its translation to clinical care, however, may prove to be a double-edged sword. Mental health stigma and discrimination are already widespread, and data caution that biological explanations of psychiatric disorders can exacerbate these stigmatizing attitudes, increasing the desire for social distance and heightening the perceived dangerousness of the patient. As a reaction to the Human Genome Project and historical concerns about eugenics, the international community mobilized to establish legislation to prevent genomic discrimination. But in most countries, these laws are limited to few contexts (e.g., employment, health insurance), and very few countries protect against discrimination based on nongenomic risk biomarkers. Like genomic PRBs, nongenomic PRBs provide information regarding risk for stigmatized psychiatric disorders and have similar-and in some cases greater-predictive value. Numerous large-scale neuroscience and neurogenomics projects are advancing the identification and translation of PRBs. The prospect of PRB-based stigma however, threatens to undermine the potential benefits of this research. Unbridaled by nonexistent or limited PRB anti-discrimination protections, the threat of PRB-based stigma and discrimination may lead many to forego PRB testing, even if shown to have clinical utility. To maximize the clinical and social benefits of PRB-based technologies, educational campaigns should address mental health and PRB stigma, and lawmakers should carefully consider expanding legislation that prohibits PRB-based discrimination.

Genetics, Insurance and Professional Practice: Survey of the Australasian Clinical Genetics Workforce

In Australia and New Zealand, by contrast with much of the developed world, insurance companies can use genetic test results to refuse cover or increase premiums for mutually-rated insurance products, including life, income protection and disability insurance. Genetics professionals regularly discuss insurance implications with clients and report the issue as a clinical challenge, yet no studies have examined clinical practices or opinions. This study surveyed genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists from Australia and New Zealand to (i) investigate variability in professional practice across the Australasian clinical genetic workforce relating to the insurance implications of genetic testing, and (ii) ascertain views regarding current regulation of the issue. There was considerable variability in training and clinical policies, especially around the communication of insurance implications. Almost half of participants reported receiving no training on the insurance implications of genetic testing, and almost 40% were unsure whether they could adequately advise clients. A number of deficits in professional knowledge and understanding of the issue were identified. Widespread concerns regarding regulation of this area were reported, with < 10% of Australian participants considering current Australian regulations as adequate to protect clients from genetic discrimination. The findings from this study highlight scope for greater education, consistency and professional training on the issue of genetics and insurance in Australasia, and strong agreement about the need for regulatory reform.

Ethical aspects of sudden cardiac arrest research using observational data: a narrative review

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) accounts for half of all cardiac deaths in Europe. In recent years, large-scale SCA registries have been set up to enable observational studies into risk factors and the effect of treatment approaches. The increasing scale and variety of data sources, coupled with the implementation of a new European data protection legal framework, causes researchers to struggle with how to handle these ‘big data’. Data protection in the SCA setting is especially complex since patients become at least temporarily incapacitated, and are thus unable to provide prospective informed consent, and because the majority of patients do not survive. A narrative review employing a systematic literature search was conducted to thematically analyse ethical aspects of non-interventional emergency medicine and critical care research. Although the identified issues may apply to a wider patient population, we describe them within the context of SCA research. Potential harms were found to include: privacy breaches, genetic discrimination and issues associated with the disclosure of individual findings, study design and application of research results. Measures proposed to mitigate harms were: alternative informed consent models including deferred or waived consent and data governance approaches promoting data security, responsible sharing and public engagement. The themes identified in this study may serve as a basis for a much-needed ethical framework regarding research with data from patients with acute and critical illness such as SCA.

Measuring the impact of genetic knowledge on intentions and attitudes of the community towards expanded preconception carrier screening

BACKGROUND

Preconception carrier screening (PCS) provides the potential to empower couples to make reproductive choices before having an affected child. An important question is what factors influence the decision to use or not use PCS.

METHODS

We analysed the relationship between knowledge, attitudes and intentions to participate in PCS using logistic regression in 832 participants in Western Australia.

RESULTS

Two-thirds of participants said they would take the test, with 92% of these supporting screening for diseases reducing the lifespan of children and infants. Those who had good genetic knowledge were seven times more likely to intend to use PCS (p≤0.001), while those with high genetic knowledge were four times more likely to (p=0.002) and raised concerns such as insurance and confidentiality.Decreasing genetic knowledge correlated positively with religiosity and apprehension (p≤0.001), which correlated negatively with intention to use PCS (p≤0.001). Increasing genetic knowledge correlated positively with factors representing positive attitudes (p≤0.001), which correlated positively with intention to use PCS (p≤0.001). Many participants with good genetic knowledge nevertheless answered questions that tested understanding incorrectly.80% of participants stated they would prefer to access the test through their general practitioners and 30% would pay up to $A200.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge is instrumental in influencing participation. Having good genetic knowledge may not be enough to understand core concepts of PCS and may impact informed decision-making. This study recommends that continuous education of health professionals and thus the community, in PCS is crucial to reduce misconceptions.

Epigenetic Discrimination: Emerging Applications of Epigenetics Pointing to the Limitations of Policies Against Genetic Discrimination

Over more than two decades, various policies have been adopted worldwide to restrict the use of individual genetic information for non-medical reasons by third parties and prevent ‘genetic discrimination’. In this paper, we bring attention to the growing interest for individual epigenetic information by insurers and forensic scientists. We question whether such interest could lead to ‘epigenetic discrimination’ – the differential adverse treatment or abusive profiling of individuals or groups based on their actual or presumed epigenetic characteristics – and argue that we might already be facing the limitations of recently adopted normative approaches against genetic discrimination. First, we highlight some similarities and differences between genetic and epigenetic modifications, and stress potential challenges to regulating epigenetic discrimination. Second, we argue that most existing normative approaches against genetic discrimination fall short in providing oversight into the field of epigenetics. We conclude with a call for discussion on the issue, and the development of comprehensive and forward-looking preventive strategies against epigenetic discrimination.

Tensions in ethics and policy created by National Precision Medicine Programs

Precision medicine promises to use genomics and other data-intensive approaches to improve diagnosis and develop new treatments for major diseases, but also raises a range of ethical and governance challenges. Implementation of precision medicine in “real world” healthcare systems blurs the boundary between research and care. This has implications for the meaning and validity of consent, and increased potential for discrimination, among other challenges. Increased sharing of personal information raises concerns about privacy, commercialization, and public trust. This paper considers national precision medicine schemes from the USA, the UK, and Japan, comparing how these challenges manifest in each national context and examining the range of approaches deployed to mitigate the potential undesirable social consequences. There is rarely a “one size” fits all solution to these complex problems, but the most viable approaches are those which take account of cultural preferences and attitudes, available resources, and the wider political landscape in which national healthcare systems are embedded.

Advances in Alzheimer's imaging are changing the experience of Alzheimer's disease

Neuroimaging is advancing a new definition of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Using imaging biomarkers, clinicians may begin to diagnose the disease by identifying pathology and neurodegeneration in either cognitively impaired or unimpaired adults. This "biomarker-based" diagnosis may allow clinicians novel opportunities to use interventions that either delay the onset or slow the progression of cognitive decline, but it will also bring novel challenges. How will changing the definition of AD from a clinical to a biomarker construct change the experience of living with the disease? Knowledge of AD biomarker status can affect how individuals feel about themselves (internalized stigma) and how others judge them (public stigma). Following a review of AD stigma, we appraise how advances in diagnosis may enable or interrupt its transfer from clinical to preclinical stages and then explore conceptual and pragmatic challenges to addressing stigma in routine care.

Genomic medicine for kidney disease

Technologies such as next-generation sequencing and chromosomal microarray have advanced the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of a variety of renal disorders. Genetic findings are increasingly used to inform the clinical management of many nephropathies, enabling targeted disease surveillance, choice of therapy, and family counselling. Genetic analysis has excellent diagnostic utility in paediatric nephrology, as illustrated by sequencing studies of patients with congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract and steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome. Although additional investigation is needed, pilot studies suggest that genetic testing can also provide similar diagnostic insight among adult patients. Reaching a genetic diagnosis first involves choosing the appropriate testing modality, as guided by the clinical presentation of the patient and the number of potential genes associated with the suspected nephropathy. Genome-wide sequencing increases diagnostic sensitivity relative to targeted panels, but holds the challenges of identifying causal variants in the vast amount of data generated and interpreting secondary findings. In order to realize the promise of genomic medicine for kidney disease, many technical, logistical, and ethical questions that accompany the implementation of genetic testing in nephrology must be addressed. The creation of evidence-based guidelines for the utilization and implementation of genetic testing in nephrology will help to translate genetic knowledge into improved clinical outcomes for patients with kidney disease.

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.

Investigating Married Adults' Communal Coping with Genetic Health Risk and Perceived Discrimination

Increased genetic testing in personalized medicine presents unique challenges for couples, including managing disease risk and potential discrimination as a couple. This study investigated couples' conflicts and support gaps as they coped with perceived genetic discrimination. We also explored the degree to which communal coping was beneficial in reducing support gaps, and ultimately stress. Dyadic analysis of married adults (N = 266, 133 couples), in which one person had the genetic risk for serious illness, showed that perceived discrimination predicted more frequent conflicts about AATD-related treatment, privacy boundaries, and finances, which, in turn, predicted wider gaps in emotion and esteem support, and greater stress for both spouses. Communal coping predicted lower support gaps for both partners and marginally lower stress.

Breast Cancer Risk Estimation and Personal Insurance: A Qualitative Study Presenting Perspectives from Canadian Patients and Decision Makers

Genetic stratification approaches in personalized medicine may considerably improve our ability to predict breast cancer risk for women at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Notwithstanding these advantages, concerns have been raised about the use of the genetic information derived in these processes, outside of the research and medical health care settings, by third parties such as insurers. Indeed, insurance applicants are asked to consent to insurers accessing their medical information (implicitly including genetic) to verify or determine their insurability level, or eligibility to certain insurance products. This use of genetic information may result in the differential treatment of individuals based on their genetic information, which could lead to higher premium, exclusionary clauses or even the denial of coverage. This phenomenon has been commonly referred to as "Genetic Discrimination" (GD). In the Canadian context, where federal Bill S-201, An Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination, has recently been enacted but may be subject to constitutional challenges, information about potential risks to insurability may raise issues in the clinical context. We conducted a survey with women in Quebec who have never been diagnosed with breast cancer to document their perspectives. We complemented the research with data from 14 semi-structured interviews with decision-makers in Quebec to discuss institutional issues raised by the use of genetic information by insurers. Our results provide findings on five main issues: (1) the reluctance to undergo genetic screening test due to insurability concerns, (2) insurers' interest in genetic information, (3) the duty to disclose genetic information to insurers, (4) the disclosure of potential impacts on insurability before genetic testing, and (5) the status of genetic information compared to other health data. Overall, both groups of participants (the women surveyed and the decision-makers interviewed) acknowledged having concerns about GD and reported a need for better communication tools discussing insurability risk. Our conclusions regarding concerns about GD and the need for better communication tools in the clinical setting may be transferable to the broader Canadian context.

Endogenous information, adverse selection, and prevention: Implications for genetic testing policy

We examine public policy toward the use of genetic information by insurers. Individuals engage in unobservable primary prevention and have access to different prevention technologies. Thus, insurance markets are affected by moral hazard and adverse selection. Individuals can choose to take a genetic test to acquire information about their prevention technology. Information has positive decision-making value, that is, individuals may adjust their behavior based on the result of the test. However, testing also exposes individuals to uncertainty over the available insurance contract, so-called classification risk, which lowers the value of information. In our analysis we distinguish between four different policy regimes, determine the value of information under each regime and associated equilibrium outcomes on the insurance market. We show that the policy regimes can be Pareto ranked, with a duty to disclose being the preferred regime and an information ban the least preferred one.

Social and Communicative Functions of Informed Consent Forms in East Asia and Beyond

The recent research and technology development in medical genomics has raised new issues that are profoundly different from those encountered in traditional clinical research for which informed consent was developed. Global initiatives for international collaboration and public participation in genomics research now face an increasing demand for new forms of informed consent which reflect local contexts. This article analyzes informed consent forms (ICFs) for genomic research formulated by four selected research programs and institutes in East Asia – the Medical Genome Science Program in Japan, Universiti Sains Malaysia Human Research Ethics Committee in Malaysia, and the Taiwan Biobank and the Taipei Medical University- Joint Institutional Review Board in Taiwan. The comparative text analysis highlights East Asian contexts as distinct from other regions by identifying communicative and social functions of consent forms. The communicative functions include re-contact options and offering interactive support for research participants, and setting opportunities for family or community engagement in the consent process. This implies that informed consent cannot be validated solely with the completion of a consent form at the initial stage of the research, and informed consent templates can facilitate interactions between researchers and participants through (even before and after) the research process. The social functions consist of informing participants of possible social risks that include genetic discrimination, sample and data sharing, and highlighting the role of ethics committees. Although international ethics harmonization and the subsequent coordination of consent forms may be necessary to maintain the quality and consistency of consent process for data-intensive international research, it is also worth paying more attention to the local values and different settings that exist where research participants are situated for research in medical genomics. More than simply tools to gain consent from research participants, ICFs function rather as a device of social communication between research communities and civic communities in liaison with intermediary agents like ethics committees, genetic counselors, and public biobanks and databases.

Traceback: A Proposed Framework to Increase Identification and Genetic Counseling of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers Through Family-Based Outreach

In May 2016, the Division of Cancer Prevention and the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, convened a workshop to discuss a conceptual framework for identifying and genetically testing previously diagnosed but unreferred patients with ovarian cancer and other unrecognized BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers to improve the detection of families at risk for breast or ovarian cancer. The concept, designated Traceback, was prompted by the recognition that although BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are frequent in women with ovarian cancer, many such women have not been tested, especially if their diagnosis predated changes in testing guidelines. The failure to identify mutation carriers among probands represents a lost opportunity to prevent cancer in unsuspecting relatives through risk-reduction intervention in mutation carriers and to provide appropriate reassurances to noncarriers. The Traceback program could provide an important opportunity to reach families from racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups who historically have not sought or been offered genetic counseling and testing and thereby contribute to a reduction in health disparities in women with germline BRCA mutations. To achieve an interdisciplinary perspective, the workshop assembled international experts in genetics, medical and gynecologic oncology, clinical psychology, epidemiology, genomics, cost-effectiveness modeling, pathology, bioethics, and patient advocacy to identify factors to consider when undertaking a Traceback program. This report highlights the workshop deliberations with the goal of stimulating research and providing a framework for pilot studies to assess the feasibility and ethical and logistical considerations related to the development of best practices for implementation of Traceback studies.

Comparative Approaches to Genetic Discrimination: Chasing Shadows?

Genetic discrimination (GD) is one of the most pervasive issues associated with genetic research and its large-scale implementation. An increasing number of countries have adopted public policies to address this issue. Our research presents a worldwide comparative review and typology of these approaches. We conclude with suggestions for public policy development.

Living with a Rare Health Condition: The Influence of a Support Community and Public Stigma on Communication, Stress, and Available Support

People affected by rare diseases often have limited coping resources and sometimes face stigma. They build communities with others who share their conditions, but not all members may benefit from these communities. This study investigated how adults with a rare genetic health condition (Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency; AATD) think about both the Alpha-1 community and public stigma about AATD, and how these cognitions were associated with their communication responses and well-being. The results showed that people with AATD encountered stigmatization from various sources, including family, employers, healthcare providers, and insurance companies. Stronger public stigma predicted more secrecy, more stress, and less available support. Stronger group identification with the Alpha-1 community predicted less secrecy; stronger group activism predicted more available support and more communication to challenge stigmatizers. Post-hoc analyses showed significant interactions between public stigma and group cognitions on communication to challenge stigmatizers. Practical implications for bolstering communities to improve the well-being of people with rare diseases were discussed.

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.