Skip to main content

Australians Can be Denied Life Insurance Based on Genetic Test Results, and There is Little Protection

A parliamentary inquiry is currently underway into Australia’s life insurance industry, which has raised several issues including discrimination by insurers against people with mental health problems. In our submission to the inquiry, we argue comparable discrimination is possible based on genetics, with insurers denying applicants life insurance and raising premiums inappropriately based on genetic test results.


There is a concerning lack of law over using genetic facts through the Australian existence coverage industry. Insurance companies are allowed to use genetic take a look at effects to discriminate towards applicants for life, everlasting incapacity, and earnings safety coverage (which all come under the life-insurance product category), with little unbiased oversight or client transparency.
This discrimination can deter people from getting genetic tests and being concerned in scientific research that would prove useful for his or her destiny health and scientific know-how of illnesses.


Genetic discrimination
Australian insurers can increase premiums, exclude insurance cover for certain conditions such as cancer, or refuse insurance cover altogether purely based on your genetic test results.
Genetic tests look at DNA, the material that contains the instructions for our bodies to grow, develop and function. Some DNA changes cause diseases such as cystic fibrosis or Huntington’s Disease, while others can make us more susceptible to conditions such as cancer. Doctors can refer patients to a genetics service if they consider such tests might be of value due to family or personal history.
Although cases of genetic discrimination are difficult to identify, they have been documented in Australia. In one case, a woman with a BRCA gene, which is known to increase breast cancer risk, elected to have both breasts removed to reduce her risk. However, the consequent, significant risk reduction wasn’t taken into account by the insurer. When she applied for death and critical illness cover, the insurer excluded any cancer cover and imposed a 50% premium loading for death cover.
In another case, a man whose mother had bowel cancer was found to carry a gene increasing his risk of also developing bowel cancer. He was refused cancer cover despite proactively seeking increased surveillance through colonoscopies, which reduced his risk back down to population average. The man eventually obtained cover, but only after taking a complaint to the Human Rights Commission.

Lack of regulation

Under Australian law, life insurance applicants must disclose any known genetic test results if requested by the insurer. This includes results from approved clinical genetic tests, but also less reliable findings from research or direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests, if they are known to the applicant.
Direct-to-purchaser genetic tests are a brand new concept wherein consumers have genes examined directly via a private agency with out scientific consultation. Although maximum of those lack evidence of any predictive scientific value, the law does not distinguish between forms of genetic checks.


Australian life insurance companies are technically required by law to justify decisions based on genetic results. In practice, however, consumers have no way of requiring insurers to provide information about how decisions are made.
The Australian government leaves the life insurance industry to self-regulate its policy through the Financial Services Council (FSC). This essentially means the insurance industry writes its own rules on the use of genetic data, raising obvious conflicts of interest. Recently the FSC updated its genetic testing policy to suggest that insurance companies ask applicants if they are considering having a genetic test. This is a concerning development.
Many other countries have protected consumers by restricting or banning the use of genetic information for insurance altogether. In the UK, a moratorium established in 2001 sets out an agreement between the government and the insurance industry not to ask for, or use, genetic test results (except for Huntington’s Disease for policies worth over £500,000).
Canada has just passed legislation prohibiting insurance companies from asking for any genetic test results. And many European countries such as Belgium, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Lithuania, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden have implemented outright bans or other regulation in accordance with the Council of Europe’s Oviedo (human rights and biomedicine) Convention.

Implications

In Australia, the situation is very different. Patients considering predictive or family-based clinical genetic testing are frequently advisedto review their life insurance situation prior to taking the test, due to the obligation to disclose results to insurers.
The fear of unknown insurance implications deters some of these people from having this testing. This can sometimes mean passing up critical information that can be used to help prevent cancers and other serious diseases.
For example, one study looked at patients at risk of bowel cancer due to family history. It found more than double the patients, who had been advised of the possible effect of having a positive test on their insurance claim, declined testing compared with patients who had not been advised of this possible effect.


Some participants are also being deterred from involvement in medical research, which can sometimes involve the return of genetic findings. Fortunately, this issue only affects life insurance and related policies in Australia, not private health insurance, which is treated differently. However, this distinction isn’t always understood by consumers, who may mistakenly believe that these issues affect all insurance types.
As genetic testing becomes more widespread in our society and offers increased potential to help manage patient risk, we must find a way of regulating the insurance implications.
The Australian government must take action towards an immediate ban (moratorium) on the use of genetic test results in insurance, until adequate long-term regulation is in place. This would bring us in line with other countries.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Bitcoin Fever Hits US Real Estate Market

MIAMI (AFP) - Bitcoin fever has hit the USA actual property market, specifically that of Florida, presenting overseas investors a way to steer clear of forex controls at domestic and US economic sanctions. As of the give up of ultimate 12 months, the digital forex turned into listed as a manner to pay for a few seventy five residences on the market, particularly in south Florida and California, in keeping with the actual property company Redfin. "Bitcoin generic" is a message now visible in the description of homes for sale within the Miami region. One vendor goes even farther, pronouncing he'll take only bitcoin (33 of them to be genuine) for his half of-million-greenback downtown rental within the Florida metropolis. As of the stop of remaining year, the virtual currency changed into indexed as a way to pay for a few seventy five residences on the market, specifically in south Florida and California, consistent with the real estate company Redfin. "Bitcoin typic...

Bitcoin Ban Expands Across Credit Cards as Big U.S. Banks Recoil

A growing number of big U.S. credit-card issuers are deciding they don’t want to finance a falling knife.  JPMorgan Chase & Co. ,  Bank of America Corp.  and  Citigroup Inc.  said they’re halting purchases of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies on their credit cards. JPMorgan, enacting the ban Saturday, doesn’t want the credit risk associated with the transactions, company spokeswoman Mary Jane Rogers said.  A growing number of big U.S. credit-card issuers are deciding they don’t want to finance a falling knife. Safe Link Converter Encrypting your link and protect the link from viruses, malware, thief, etc! Made your link safe to visit. Well done! you have successfully gained access to Decrypted Link. Your link show here JPMorgan Chase & Co. ,  Bank of America Corp.  and  Citigroup Inc.  said they’re halting purchases of Bitcoin and other cryptocurren...

How To Start a Hedge Fund In the United States

The United States offers one of the best business environments in the world to start a hedge fund. In the first half of 2014 alone, 39 new hedge fund firms with at least $50 million dollars in assets under management were incorporated and managing in total more than $15.3 billion dollars. Given the growth and popularity of the hedge fund industry, here are the general steps for establishing a U.S.-based hedge fund. ( Related   7 Hedge Fund Manager Startup Tips )  What is a Hedge Fund? The term  hedge fund  refers to any type of private investment company that is operating under certain exemptions from registration requirements under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. (Ironically,  hedge funds  may use investment strategies that have nothing to do with hedging.) Given these exemptions, it is much easier to start a hedge fund firm rather than a firm that manages more highly regulated investment options such as mutu...