Methodological Considerations in the Study of Genetic Discrimination

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.

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

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

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.

Perception, experience, and response to genetic discrimination in Huntington's disease: the Australian results of The International RESPOND-HD study

AIMS

This study examines elements of genetic discrimination among an at-risk, clinically undiagnosed Huntington's disease (HD) population.

METHODS

Sixty at-risk individuals, either positive or negative for the HD genetic mutation, completed a survey regarding their experiences of genetic discrimination, adverse and unfair treatment, and knowledge about existing laws and policies surrounding genetic discrimination.

RESULTS

Sixty eight percent of participants reported feeling "Great benefit" from knowing their genetic test results. Reported benefits of knowledge included planning for the future, making decisions, and many individuals found meaning in active participation in the HD community and in advocating for themselves or families at risk for HD. Many individuals found personal meaning and a sense of community from knowledge of this information and from the ability to participate in research. Despite these positive feelings toward gene testing, results demonstrated that 33% of participants perceived experiences of genetic discrimination, which occurred repeatedly and caused great self-reported distress. Significantly, more gene-positive respondents reported experiencing incidents of genetic discrimination, compared to gene-negative respondents. At least 58 separate incidents of discrimination were reported, the number of incidents ranged from 1 to 10, with 45% of individuals (9/20 respondents) indicating more than one event. Of the most significant events of discrimination, 58% were related to insurance, 21% to employment, 16% to transactions of daily life, and 5% to relationships.

CONCLUSION

Results contribute toward validation of empirical data regarding genetic discrimination.

In their own words: reports of stigma and genetic discrimination by people at risk for Huntington disease in the International RESPOND-HD study

Genetic discrimination may be experienced in the day-to-day lives of people at risk for Huntington disease (HD), encompassing occurrences in the workplace, when seeking insurance, within social relationships, and during other daily encounters. At-risk individuals who have tested either positive or negative for the genetic expansion that causes HD, as well as at-risk persons with a 50% chance for developing the disorder but have not had DNA testing completed the International RESPOND-HD (I-RESPOND-HD) survey. One of the study's purposes was to examine perceptions of genetic stigmatization and discrimination. A total of 412 out of 433 participants provided narrative comments, and 191 provided related codable narrative data. The core theme, Information Control, refers to organizational policies and interpersonal actions. This theme was found in narrative comments describing genetic discrimination perceptions across employment, insurance, social, and other situations. These reports were elaborated with five themes: What They Encountered, What They Felt, What Others Did, What They Did, and What Happened. Although many perceptions were coded as hurtful, this was not true in all instances. Findings document that reports of genetic discrimination are highly individual, and both policy as well as interpersonal factors contribute to the outcome of potentially discriminating events.

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.

Views of discrimination among individuals confronting genetic disease

Though the US passed the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, many questions remain of how individuals confronting genetic disease view and experience possible discrimination. We interviewed, for 2 hours each, 64 individuals who had, or were at risk for, Huntington's Disease, breast cancer, or Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Discrimination can be implicit, indirect and subtle, rather than explicit, direct and overt; and be hard to prove. Patients may be treated "differently" and unfairly, raising questions of how to define "discrimination", and "appropriate accommodation". Patients were often unclear and wary about legislation. Fears and experiences of discrimination can shape testing, treatment, and disclosure. Discrimination can be subjective, and take various forms. Searches for only objective evidence of it may be inherently difficult. Providers need to be aware of, and prepared to address, subtle and indirect discrimination; ambiguities, confusion and potential limitations concerning current legislation; and needs for education about these laws. Policies are needed to prevent discrimination in life, long-term care, and disability insurance, not covered by GINA.

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.

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.

Ethical and clinical practice considerations for genetic counselors related to direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests

Several companies utilize direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising for genetic tests and some, but not all, bypass clinician involvement by offering DTC purchase of the tests. This article examines how DTC marketing strategies may affect genetic counselors, using available cardiovascular disease susceptibility tests as an illustration. The interpretation of these tests is complex and includes consideration of clinical validity and utility, and the further complications of gene-environment interactions and pleiotropy. Although it is unclear to what extent genetic counselors will encounter clients who have been exposed to DTC marketing strategies, these strategies may influence genetic counseling interactions if they produce directed interest in specific tests and unrealistic expectations for the tests' capacity to predict disease. Often, a client's concern about risk for cardiovascular diseases is best addressed by established clinical tests and a family history assessment. Ethical dilemmas may arise for genetic counselors who consider whether to accept clients who request test interpretation or to order DTC-advertised tests that require a clinician's authorization. Genetic counselors' obligations to care for clients extend to interpreting DTC tests, although this obligation may be fulfilled by referral or consultation with specialists. Genetic counselors do not have an obligation to order DTC-advertised tests that have minimal clinical validity and utility at a client's request. This can be a justified restriction on autonomy based on consideration of risks to the client, the costs, and the implications for society.

Exploring the concept of genetic discrimination

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