Search

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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Fear of insurance discrimination can inhibit genetic research participation. In 2019, an industry-led partial moratorium on using genetic results in Australian life insurance underwriting was introduced. This mixed-methods study used online surveys (n = 59 participants) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22 participants) to capture researchers' perceptions about the moratorium. 66% (n = 39/59) were aware of the moratorium before the survey. Of researchers returning genetic results, 56% (n = 22/39) reported that insurance implications were mentioned in consent forms, but a minority reported updating consent forms post-moratorium (n = 13/39, 33%). Most researchers reported that concerns regarding life insurers utilizing research results inhibited recruitment (35/59, 59%), and few perceived that the moratorium positively influenced participation (n = 9/39, 23%). These findings were supported by qualitative findings which revealed that genetic discrimination concerns were a major issue for some individuals, though these concerns could be eclipsed by the promise of a diagnosis through research participation. The majority thought a regulatory solution should be permanent (n = 34/51, 67%), have financial limits of at least ≥1,000,000 AUD (37/51, 73%), and involve government oversight/legislation (n = 44/51, 86%). In an era where an increasing number of research studies involve genomics as a primary or secondary objective, it is crucial that we have regulatory solutions to address participants' hesitation., (© 2024 The Authors. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Aims: Genetic discrimination in insurance is a significant clinical, research and consumer issue. Recently, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium on the use of genetic test results. However, in Aotearoa New Zealand, both life and health insurers can still use genetic results legally to discriminate against applicants. We aimed to document experiences and concerns of New Zealand-based health professionals (HPs) around the potential misuse of genetic test results for insurance purposes., Methods: We administered an online survey to New Zealand HPs who discuss genetic testing with patients, their experiences regarding the use of genetic test results in insurance and views on regulation., Results: Twenty-three New Zealand HPs responded, 15 of whom worked in genetics clinics, representing >60% of the total New Zealand clinical genetics workforce. Eleven respondents reported having patients who experienced adverse outcomes related to insurance based on genetic results. Respondents reported patients sometimes/often delayed (n=11) or refused (n=4) genetic testing due to insurance concerns. Over 80% of those who answered (n=17/21) believe insurers' use of genetic results should be legally regulated., Conclusion: New Zealand HPs have concerns about insurance companies using genetic test results in underwriting, including the effect on patients, and strongly believe government legislation is required., Competing Interests: Nil, (© PMA.)

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., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objectives and importance of study: Genetic discrimination is a health policy issue of international concern to clinicians, patients, researchers, and policy makers, and threatens the success of genomic medicine. In Australia, genetic discrimination in life insurance is legal and leads to public health harms, including deterring at-risk individuals from clinically indicated testing. In 2018, a Parliamentary Joint Committee recommended an urgent ban on the use of predictive genetic test results in life insurance underwriting in Australia, to be implemented in a form similar to the UK Code on genetic testing and life insurance. In 2019, the insurance industry, through the Financial Services Council (FSC), introduced a self-regulated moratorium that applies until 2024, but only to life insurance policies up to certain financial limits. The FSC moratorium will be reviewed in late 2022, but has no government oversight., Study Type: Policy implementation evaluation Methods: We used policy evaluation methods to 1) summarise the key recommendations of the 2018 Parliamentary Committee that are directed towards practical aspects of policy development and content; and 2) assess the level of disparity between the implemented moratorium and the recommendations of the Committee., Results: There is a substantial disparity between the Australian moratorium and the Parliamentary Committee recommendations across key areas, including addressing self-regulation, co-development of policy, protection of tests taken during its term, and similarity with the UK Code. The FSC moratorium offers less protection to consumers than the UK Code on a number of measures, including the level of financial coverage, the involvement of government, certainty provided to individuals who have genetic testing, and the treatment of research results., Conclusions: The FSC moratorium is a step forward for Australia, but falls short of the Parliamentary recommendations. Further regulation by the Australian Government may be required to achieve the aims of the Parliamentary recommendations and ensure the intended level of consumer protection., Competing Interests: None declared.

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are becoming increasingly available in clinical practice to evaluate cancer risk. However, little is known about health professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and expectations of PRS. An online questionnaire was distributed by relevant health professional organisations predominately in Australia, Canada and the US to evaluate health professionals' knowledge, views and expectations of PRS. Eligible participants were health professionals who provide cancer risk assessments. Results from the questionnaire were analysed descriptively and content analysis was undertaken of free-text responses. In total, 105 health professionals completed the questionnaire (genetic counsellors 84%; oncologists 6%; clinical geneticists 4%; other 7%). Although responses differed between countries, most participants (61%) had discussed PRS with patients, 20% had ordered a test and 14% had returned test results to a patient. Confidence and knowledge around interpreting PRS were low. Although 69% reported that polygenic testing will certainly or likely influence patient care in the future, most felt unprepared for this. If scaled up to the population, 49% expect that general practitioners would have a primary role in the provision of PRS, supported by genetic health professionals. These findings will inform the development of resources to support health professionals offering polygenic testing, currently and in the future., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S . Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The increasing popularity of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) is thought to be creating a burden on clinical genetic services worldwide. However, no Australian studies have collected recent evidence regarding this impact. We surveyed Australian clinical genetics services about DTCGT-related referrals over the past 10 years. Eleven publicly-funded services reported over 100 DTCGT-related referrals. Most (83%) involved general practitioners seeking interpretation of DTCGT results. More than 30% involved imputed risk estimates from third-party software tools. Services reported low validation rates for DTCGT results (<10%), and variable procedures for managing DTCGT referrals, with most (8/11) lacking specific procedures. Our study helps quantify the impact of DTCGT on clinical genetics services, and highlights the impact of imputed risk estimates., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Genetic testing offers great benefit for the diagnosis of genetic conditions and to identify and manage risk for conditions such as familial breast cancer. However, potential personal insurance implications exist for some patients who undergo genetic testing in Australia. Currently, insurance companies offering risk-rated products such as life insurance can use genetic test results to discriminate, which may adversely affect applicants' ability to secure a policy. Many comparable countries have banned or restricted life insurers' use of genetic results, while Australia still permits it. However, the industry proposes to introduce a moratorium limiting the use of genetic results for life insurance underwriting in mid-2019., Objective: This paper explores the implications of genetic testing for risk-rated insurance for the general practice workforce in Australia., Discussion: Advancements in technology and decreasing costs have resulted in rapid expansion in genetic/genomic testing, which is set to become part of mainstream healthcare. General practitioners (GPs) in Australia will have an increasingly significant part to play in the expanded use of this testing, and it is therefore important that GPs are aware of these issues.

Background: Regulating the use of genetic information in insurance is an issue of ongoing international debate. In Australia, providers of life and other mutually rated insurance products can request applicants to disclose all results from any genetic test. Insurers can then use this information to adjust premiums and make policy decisions. The Australian Financial Services Council (FSC; an industry body) developed and maintains the relevant industry standard, which was updated in late 2016. Aims/Objective: To review the 2016 FSC Standard in light of relevant research and determine the legitimacy of the Australian regulatory environment regarding use of genetic information by insurers., Results: We identified five concerns arising from the 2016 FSC Standard: (1) use of results obtained from research; (2) the requirement for an applicant to disclose whether they are "considering" a genetic test; (3) failure to account for genome sequencing and other technology developments; (4) limited evidence regarding adverse selection; and (5) the inappropriateness of industry self-regulation., Conclusion: Industry self-regulation of the use of genetic information by life insurers, combined with a lack of government oversight, is inappropriate and threatens to impede the progress of genomic medicine in Australia. At this critical time, Australia requires closer government oversight of the use of genetic information in insurance., (© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel.)