GINA at 10 years: the battle over 'genetic information' continues in court

Ten years ago, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ('GINA') came into law. While it was unclear how prevalent genetic discrimination was, GINA was enacted preemptively to prevent discrimination in insurance and employment. It also created uniform protections to remedy a confusing patchwork of state and federal protections. Finally, Congress hoped GINA would allay public fears of genetic discrimination that discouraged people from undergoing genetic testing and participating in genetics research. To address those fears, Congress enacted robust protections against genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment, in part, by defining 'genetic information' as broadly as possible. Over the last ten years, however, the courts have been battling over the meaning of 'genetic information'. One interpretive approach adheres strictly to GINA's statutory language; the second interprets the definition restrictively and contrary to the plain meaning of GINA and its underlying goals. While this interpretive conflict demonstrates the difficulty of distinguishing genetic information from non-medical information, this article argues for the broader interpretation. Such an interpretation reflects Congress's choice among imperfect definitional options and it furthers the goal of creating strong protections in health insurance and employment. Finally, definitional consistency is necessary to achieve uniform protections against genetic discrimination.

A new twist on an old problem: primary care physicians and results from direct-to-consumer genetic testing

With the costs of genomic and genetic testing rapidly decreasing, private companies have begun to offer consumers, including minors, the opportunity to receive a genetic analysis of their DNA. The availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) will inevitably result in patients approaching their healthcare providers for interpretation of results, referrals for follow-up tests or provision of personalized medicine. As most healthcare systems require a referral for access to a specialist, the patients are likely to approach primary care providers. The issue of what the professional obligations are for the primary care physician in the case where they did not order the test is not new. The growing DTC-GT movement will add a 'new twist to an old problem.' Best practice recommendations regarding the value of DTC-GT, as well as the identification of current ethical, legal and social implications are urgently needed.