A
Anonymous
Guest
Nothing riles me more than whiney insurance providers who happily take your cash and then writhe and twist in order to never pay out. Now, it seems, we may have even more reasons to have this view, particularly if you're part of the Genetic Underclass.....
Do your genes fit?
As the end of the moratorium on DNA testing for insurance purposes approaches, Jill Phillip asks whether discrimination on the basis of our genes is just around the corner
Wednesday October 1, 2003
The use of genetic tests to assess risk and decide premiums for life, critical illness and income protection insurance could become a reality within the next three years. The implications for those perceived to be at greater risk of contracting common illnesses such as breast cancer and Alzheimer's disease are likely to be severe.
Currently, there is a five-year moratorium, negotiated between the Department of Health and the Association of British Insurers (ABI) in 2001, on the use of DNA testing for insurance purposes. Before this, an ABI code permitted the use of seven genetic tests, four of which have subsequently been judged unnecessary or insufficiently accurate.
In June the Department of Health published a white paper which set out a comprehensive strategy on how patients and the NHS could benefit from developments in genetics. But although it confirmed the government's commitment to the present moratorium, it gave no indication that this would be extended beyond its end-date of 2006.
According to a spokesperson for the Department of Health, no decision has yet been made on the future of the moratorium. She explained that, as the deadline draws nearer, the Genetics and Insurance Committee, which was responsible for drawing up the present agreement, will reconsider, taking into account the latest developments in genetics.
However, many medical and financial experts believe some tests, most probably those for breast cancer and Alzheimer's disease, will be reintroduced after 2006, and the white paper has been widely criticised by leading charities and pressure groups for failing to provide sufficient safeguards against genetic discrimination for those who may be identified as "genetically susceptible" to certain common illnesses.
Dr Helen Wallace, deputy director of the public interest group GeneWatch UK, has warned that the proposals in the white paper will not protect people from genetic discrimination. "There is a shocking lack of safeguards for people taking genetic tests and the increasing use of genetic testing could result in the creation of a genetic underclass, excluded from insurance and employment," she said.
These concerns are echoed by one of Britain's leading cancer charities. Charlotte Augst, CancerBACUP's genetic information project manager, believes that genetic information should be used to develop cures rather than to refuse financial provision. "We need to develop strategies to stop people falling through the net," she said. "The white paper does not contain effective safeguards for those who may be refused life cover for mortgages, for example."
Both Dr Wallace and Ms Augst also criticised the white paper for overemphasising the impact of genes on health. They were both keen to stress the fact that most cancers and forms of heart disease are far more likely to be influenced by lifestyle, poverty and diet.
"Genes are poor predictors of common illnesses, so genetic tests are likely to be useless, or misleading for most people," said Dr Wallace. "Genetics is not the cure for all ills and will not address the major social and environmental causes of ill health."
The Department of Health has stressed that the government is committed to ensuring that there are adequate safeguards and controls in place to prevent the inappropriate use of genetics. In particular, it points out that the health secretary, John Reid, has addressed some of the concerns over insurance by suggesting that the Consumer Support Networks (a DTI initiative to help people access good quality consumer advice) could liaise with agencies such as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the ABI. This would enable clients to be signposted to specialist information and advice on sources of affordable insurance.
Richard Walsh, head of health at the ABI, also underlines the insurance industry's continued support for the current moratorium. "We welcome all informed discussion on this complex and sensitive issue," he says. "The moratorium allows breathing space to ensure we get the policy right for the future." However, an ABI spokesperson could not comment on whether the insurance industry would support an extension of the moratorium after 2006. Furthermore, the present moratorium is only a voluntary agreement: there is no legal ban and no laws to prevent employers from using genetic test results to select employees.
Britain has so far refused to join 31 other European countries, including France, Spain, Italy and Sweden, who have signed the European convention on human rights and biomedicine, which prohibits genetic discrimination.
Along with many others, Charlotte Augst is not confident that the moratorium will be extended beyond 2006. "Insurance companies do need to make risk assessments, as that is the principle on which they are based," she says.
Her advice to anyone concerned about their genetic history is to sort their finances out first, then seek genetic counselling, before taking any genetic test.
http://money.guardian.co.uk/insurance_/lifeandhealth/story/0,1456,1053402,00.html
Do your genes fit?
As the end of the moratorium on DNA testing for insurance purposes approaches, Jill Phillip asks whether discrimination on the basis of our genes is just around the corner
Wednesday October 1, 2003
The use of genetic tests to assess risk and decide premiums for life, critical illness and income protection insurance could become a reality within the next three years. The implications for those perceived to be at greater risk of contracting common illnesses such as breast cancer and Alzheimer's disease are likely to be severe.
Currently, there is a five-year moratorium, negotiated between the Department of Health and the Association of British Insurers (ABI) in 2001, on the use of DNA testing for insurance purposes. Before this, an ABI code permitted the use of seven genetic tests, four of which have subsequently been judged unnecessary or insufficiently accurate.
In June the Department of Health published a white paper which set out a comprehensive strategy on how patients and the NHS could benefit from developments in genetics. But although it confirmed the government's commitment to the present moratorium, it gave no indication that this would be extended beyond its end-date of 2006.
According to a spokesperson for the Department of Health, no decision has yet been made on the future of the moratorium. She explained that, as the deadline draws nearer, the Genetics and Insurance Committee, which was responsible for drawing up the present agreement, will reconsider, taking into account the latest developments in genetics.
However, many medical and financial experts believe some tests, most probably those for breast cancer and Alzheimer's disease, will be reintroduced after 2006, and the white paper has been widely criticised by leading charities and pressure groups for failing to provide sufficient safeguards against genetic discrimination for those who may be identified as "genetically susceptible" to certain common illnesses.
Dr Helen Wallace, deputy director of the public interest group GeneWatch UK, has warned that the proposals in the white paper will not protect people from genetic discrimination. "There is a shocking lack of safeguards for people taking genetic tests and the increasing use of genetic testing could result in the creation of a genetic underclass, excluded from insurance and employment," she said.
These concerns are echoed by one of Britain's leading cancer charities. Charlotte Augst, CancerBACUP's genetic information project manager, believes that genetic information should be used to develop cures rather than to refuse financial provision. "We need to develop strategies to stop people falling through the net," she said. "The white paper does not contain effective safeguards for those who may be refused life cover for mortgages, for example."
Both Dr Wallace and Ms Augst also criticised the white paper for overemphasising the impact of genes on health. They were both keen to stress the fact that most cancers and forms of heart disease are far more likely to be influenced by lifestyle, poverty and diet.
"Genes are poor predictors of common illnesses, so genetic tests are likely to be useless, or misleading for most people," said Dr Wallace. "Genetics is not the cure for all ills and will not address the major social and environmental causes of ill health."
The Department of Health has stressed that the government is committed to ensuring that there are adequate safeguards and controls in place to prevent the inappropriate use of genetics. In particular, it points out that the health secretary, John Reid, has addressed some of the concerns over insurance by suggesting that the Consumer Support Networks (a DTI initiative to help people access good quality consumer advice) could liaise with agencies such as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the ABI. This would enable clients to be signposted to specialist information and advice on sources of affordable insurance.
Richard Walsh, head of health at the ABI, also underlines the insurance industry's continued support for the current moratorium. "We welcome all informed discussion on this complex and sensitive issue," he says. "The moratorium allows breathing space to ensure we get the policy right for the future." However, an ABI spokesperson could not comment on whether the insurance industry would support an extension of the moratorium after 2006. Furthermore, the present moratorium is only a voluntary agreement: there is no legal ban and no laws to prevent employers from using genetic test results to select employees.
Britain has so far refused to join 31 other European countries, including France, Spain, Italy and Sweden, who have signed the European convention on human rights and biomedicine, which prohibits genetic discrimination.
Along with many others, Charlotte Augst is not confident that the moratorium will be extended beyond 2006. "Insurance companies do need to make risk assessments, as that is the principle on which they are based," she says.
Her advice to anyone concerned about their genetic history is to sort their finances out first, then seek genetic counselling, before taking any genetic test.
http://money.guardian.co.uk/insurance_/lifeandhealth/story/0,1456,1053402,00.html