1
|
Tiller J, McInerney-Leo A, Belcher A, Boughtwood T, Gleeson P, Delatycki M, Barlow-Stewart K, Winship I, Otlowski M, Keogh L, Lacaze P. Study protocol: the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium-monitoring the effectiveness and response (A-GLIMMER) project. BMC Med Ethics 2021; 22:63. [PMID: 34020638 PMCID: PMC8138092 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-021-00634-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2021] [Accepted: 05/12/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jane Tiller
- Public Health Genomics, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. .,Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia. .,Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
| | - Aideen McInerney-Leo
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Andrea Belcher
- Australian Genomics, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Tiffany Boughtwood
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,Australian Genomics, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | | | - Martin Delatycki
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Kristine Barlow-Stewart
- Northern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Ingrid Winship
- Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,Genomic Medicine and Family Cancer Clinic, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Margaret Otlowski
- Faculty of Law and Centre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
| | - Louise Keogh
- Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia
| | - Paul Lacaze
- Public Health Genomics, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Parkman AA, Foland J, Anderson B, Duquette D, Sobotka H, Lynn M, Nottingham S, Dotson WD, Kolor K, Cox SL. Public awareness of genetic nondiscrimination laws in four states and perceived importance of life insurance protections. J Genet Couns 2015; 24:512-21. [PMID: 25242499 PMCID: PMC4702480 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-014-9771-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2014] [Accepted: 08/27/2014] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
Genetic testing has grown dramatically in the past decade and is becoming an integral part of health care. Genetic nondiscrimination laws have been passed in many states, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was passed at the federal level in 2008. These laws generally protect individuals from discrimination by health insurers or employers based on genetic information, including test results. In 2010, Connecticut, Michigan, Ohio, and Oregon added four questions to their Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey to assess interest in genetic testing, awareness of genetic nondiscrimination laws, concern about genetic discrimination in determining life insurance eligibility and cost, and perceived importance of genetic nondiscrimination laws that address life insurance. Survey results showed that awareness of genetic nondiscrimination laws was low (less than 20 % of the adult population), while perceived importance of these types of laws was high (over 80 % of respondents rated them as very or somewhat important). Over two-thirds of respondents indicated they were very or somewhat concerned about life insurance companies using genetic test results to determine life insurance coverage and costs. Results indicate a need for more public education to raise awareness of protections provided through current genetic nondiscrimination laws. The high rate of concern about life insurance discrimination indicates an additional need for continued dialogue regarding the extent of legal protections in genetic nondiscrimination laws.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alicia A Parkman
- Genetics Program, Oregon Public Health Division, 800 NE Oregon St, Ste 370, Portland, OR, 97232, USA,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Prince AER, Roche MI. Genetic information, non-discrimination, and privacy protections in genetic counseling practice. J Genet Couns 2014; 23:891-902. [PMID: 25063358 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-014-9743-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2014] [Accepted: 07/04/2014] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
The passage of the Genetic Information Non Discrimination Act (GINA) was hailed as a pivotal achievement that was expected to calm the fears of both patients and research participants about the potential misuse of genetic information. However, 6 years later, patient and provider awareness of legal protections at both the federal and state level remains discouragingly low, thereby, limiting their potential effectiveness. The increasing demand for genetic testing will expand the number of individuals and families who could benefit from obtaining accurate information about the privacy and anti-discriminatory protections that GINA and other laws extend. In this paper we describe legal protections that are applicable to individuals seeking genetic counseling, review the literature on patient and provider fears of genetic discrimination and examine their awareness and understandings of existing laws, and summarize how genetic counselors currently discuss genetic discrimination. We then present three genetic counseling cases to illustrate issues of genetic discrimination and provide relevant information on applicable legal protections. Genetic counselors have an unprecedented opportunity, as well as the professional responsibility, to disseminate accurate knowledge about existing legal protections to their patients. They can strengthen their effectiveness in this role by achieving a greater knowledge of current protections including being able to identify specific steps that can help protect genetic information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anya E R Prince
- Center for Genomics and Society, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Brierley KL, Bonadies DC, Moyer A, Matloff ET. "Would you test your children without their consent?" and other sticky dilemmas in the field of cancer genetic testing. Fam Cancer 2014; 13:345-50. [PMID: 24804937 DOI: 10.1007/s10689-014-9723-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
Cancer genetic testing is surrounded by myriad ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications which are being revisited as testing expands into an everyday practice and into more complicated areas like whole exome and direct-to-consumer testing. We chose to survey cancer genetic counselors and physicians from a wide range of non-genetics specialties to determine what they would do if faced with the complex decisions associated with cancer genetic testing, how their views compare, and how they align with current guidelines and data. Genetic counselors were significantly more likely than non-genetics physicians to bill their insurance for testing (94.9 vs. 86.8 %; p = 0.001) and purchase life insurance before testing (86.6 vs. 68.6 %; p = 0.000) and were less likely to use an alias (3.2 vs. 13.2 %; p = 0.000) or order testing on their own DNA (15.3 vs. 24.2 %; p = 0.004). They were also less likely to test their minor children (0.9 vs. 33.1 %; p = 0.000) or test their children without their knowledge and consent/assent (1.4 vs.11.5 %; p = 0.000). The results of our study indicate that there is wide variation regarding what clinicians predict they would do in the areas of ethical, legal and psychosocial issues in cancer genetic testing. Cancer genetic counselors' choices are more aligned with professional guidelines, likely due to their experience in the field and awareness of current guidelines. These data are a starting point for a broader discussion of who should offer cancer genetic counseling and testing to patients, particularly as the complexity of the available testing options and associated issues increase with whole exome sequencing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karina L Brierley
- Cancer Genetic Counseling, Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, 55 Church Street, Suite 402, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|