TY - JOUR
T1 - “Uninsurable because of a genetic test”
T2 - a qualitative study of consumer views about the use of genetic test results in Australian life insurance
AU - Muller, Cassandra
AU - Gallacher, Lyndon
AU - Keogh, Louise
AU - McInerney-Leo, Aideen
AU - Boughtwood, Tiffany
AU - Gleeson, Penny
AU - Barlow-Stewart, Kristine
AU - Delatycki, Martin B.
AU - Winship, Ingrid
AU - Nowak, Kristen J.
AU - Otlowski, Margaret
AU - Lacaze, Paul
AU - Tiller, Jane
N1 - Funding Information:
It is critical to monitor whether the FSC moratorium is achieving its goal of ensuring consumer access to life insurance, and meeting the aims of the PJC recommendations, including reducing the fear of GD and hesitation surrounding genetic testing. The Australian Government (via the Medical Research Future Fund) funded the Australian Genetics and Life Insurance Moratorium: Monitoring the Effectiveness and Response (A-GLIMMER) project to conduct this task from 2020\u20132023 [, ]. The present study is a part of the A-GLIMMER project and adds to the findings of an earlier paper from the A-GLIMMER project which reports findings from a survey with consumers []. Our research question in the present study was to explore at a deeper level the understanding, views, and experiences of consumers regarding the FSC moratorium and the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. Here we report the analysis of qualitative interviews with consumers who have undergone or been offered genetic testing.
Funding Information:
The project is supported by a grant from the Australian Government\u2019s Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF), ref 76721. AML is funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship (ID 1158111). PL is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (ID 102604). Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85190696815
U2 - 10.1038/s41431-024-01602-1
DO - 10.1038/s41431-024-01602-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 38637700
AN - SCOPUS:85190696815
SN - 1018-4813
VL - 32
SP - 827
EP - 836
JO - European Journal of Human Genetics
JF - European Journal of Human Genetics
ER -