A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals' views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium

Jane M. Tiller, Louise A. Keogh, Aideen M. McInerney-Leo, Andrea Belcher, Kristine Barlow-Stewart, Tiffany Boughtwood, Penny Gleeson, Grace Dowling, Anya Prince, Yvonne Bombard, Yann Joly, Martin Delatycki, Ingrid M. Winship, Margaret Otlowski, Paul Lacaze

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium (ban) limiting the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. The moratorium is industry self-regulated and applies only to policies below certain financial limits (eg, $500 000 of death cover). METHODS: We surveyed Australian health professionals (HPs) who discuss genetic testing with patients, to assess knowledge of the moratorium; reported patient experiences since its commencement; and HP views regarding regulation of genetic discrimination (GD) in Australia. RESULTS: Between April and June 2020, 166 eligible HPs responded to the online survey. Of these, 86% were aware of the moratorium, but <50% had attended related training/information sessions. Only 16% answered all knowledge questions correctly, yet 69% believed they had sufficient knowledge to advise patients. Genetics HPs' awareness and knowledge were better than non-genetics HPs' (p<0.05). There was some reported decrease in patients delaying/declining testing after the moratorium's introduction, however, 42% of HPs disagreed that patients were more willing to have testing post-moratorium. Although many (76%) felt the moratorium resolved some GD concerns, most (88%) still have concerns, primarily around self-regulation, financial limits and the moratorium's temporary nature. Almost half (49%) of HPs reported being dissatisfied with the moratorium as a solution to GD. The majority (95%) felt government oversight is required, and 93% felt specific Australian legislation regarding GD is required. CONCLUSION: While the current Australian moratorium is considered a step forward, most HPs believe it falls short of an adequate long-term regulatory solution to GD in life insurance.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)817-826
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Medical Genetics
Volume59
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2022

Keywords

  • ethics
  • genetic counseling
  • health
  • human genetics
  • public health

Cite this