Cargando…
Health professionals’ views and experiences of the Australian moratorium on genetic testing and life insurance: A qualitative study
Australian life insurance companies can legally use genetic test results in underwriting, which can lead to genetic discrimination. In 2019, the Financial Services Council (Australian life insurance industry governing body) introduced a partial moratorium restricting the use of genetic testing in un...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9626480/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35902697 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01150-6 |
_version_ | 1784822742288171008 |
---|---|
author | Dowling, Grace Tiller, Jane McInerney-Leo, Aideen Belcher, Andrea Haining, Casey Barlow-Stewart, Kristine Boughtwood, Tiffany Gleeson, Penny Delatycki, Martin B. Winship, Ingrid Otlowski, Margaret Jacobs, Chris Keogh, Louise Lacaze, Paul |
author_facet | Dowling, Grace Tiller, Jane McInerney-Leo, Aideen Belcher, Andrea Haining, Casey Barlow-Stewart, Kristine Boughtwood, Tiffany Gleeson, Penny Delatycki, Martin B. Winship, Ingrid Otlowski, Margaret Jacobs, Chris Keogh, Louise Lacaze, Paul |
author_sort | Dowling, Grace |
collection | PubMed |
description | Australian life insurance companies can legally use genetic test results in underwriting, which can lead to genetic discrimination. In 2019, the Financial Services Council (Australian life insurance industry governing body) introduced a partial moratorium restricting the use of genetic testing in underwriting policies ≤ $500,000 (active 2019–2024). Health professionals (HPs), especially clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors, often discuss the implications of genetic testing with patients, and provide critical insights into the effectiveness of the moratorium. Using a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, we interviewed 23 Australian HPs, who regularly discuss genetic testing with patients and had previously completed an online survey about genetic testing and life insurance. Interviews explored views and experiences about the moratorium, and regulation, in greater depth. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Two key themes emerged from views expressed by HPs during interviews (about matters reported to or observed by them): 1) benefits of the moratorium, and 2) concerns about the moratorium. While HPs reported that the moratorium reassures some consumers, concerns include industry self-regulation, uncertainty created by the temporary time period, and the inadequacy of the moratorium’s financial limits for patients’ financial needs. Although a minority of HPs felt the current industry self-regulated moratorium is an adequate solution to genetic discrimination, the vast majority (19/23) expressed concern with industry self-regulation and most felt government regulation is required to adequately protect consumers. HPs in Australia are concerned about the adequacy of the FSC moratorium with regards to consumer protections, and suggest government regulation is required. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9626480 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96264802022-11-03 Health professionals’ views and experiences of the Australian moratorium on genetic testing and life insurance: A qualitative study Dowling, Grace Tiller, Jane McInerney-Leo, Aideen Belcher, Andrea Haining, Casey Barlow-Stewart, Kristine Boughtwood, Tiffany Gleeson, Penny Delatycki, Martin B. Winship, Ingrid Otlowski, Margaret Jacobs, Chris Keogh, Louise Lacaze, Paul Eur J Hum Genet Article Australian life insurance companies can legally use genetic test results in underwriting, which can lead to genetic discrimination. In 2019, the Financial Services Council (Australian life insurance industry governing body) introduced a partial moratorium restricting the use of genetic testing in underwriting policies ≤ $500,000 (active 2019–2024). Health professionals (HPs), especially clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors, often discuss the implications of genetic testing with patients, and provide critical insights into the effectiveness of the moratorium. Using a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, we interviewed 23 Australian HPs, who regularly discuss genetic testing with patients and had previously completed an online survey about genetic testing and life insurance. Interviews explored views and experiences about the moratorium, and regulation, in greater depth. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Two key themes emerged from views expressed by HPs during interviews (about matters reported to or observed by them): 1) benefits of the moratorium, and 2) concerns about the moratorium. While HPs reported that the moratorium reassures some consumers, concerns include industry self-regulation, uncertainty created by the temporary time period, and the inadequacy of the moratorium’s financial limits for patients’ financial needs. Although a minority of HPs felt the current industry self-regulated moratorium is an adequate solution to genetic discrimination, the vast majority (19/23) expressed concern with industry self-regulation and most felt government regulation is required to adequately protect consumers. HPs in Australia are concerned about the adequacy of the FSC moratorium with regards to consumer protections, and suggest government regulation is required. Springer International Publishing 2022-07-28 2022-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9626480/ /pubmed/35902697 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01150-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Dowling, Grace Tiller, Jane McInerney-Leo, Aideen Belcher, Andrea Haining, Casey Barlow-Stewart, Kristine Boughtwood, Tiffany Gleeson, Penny Delatycki, Martin B. Winship, Ingrid Otlowski, Margaret Jacobs, Chris Keogh, Louise Lacaze, Paul Health professionals’ views and experiences of the Australian moratorium on genetic testing and life insurance: A qualitative study |
title | Health professionals’ views and experiences of the Australian moratorium on genetic testing and life insurance: A qualitative study |
title_full | Health professionals’ views and experiences of the Australian moratorium on genetic testing and life insurance: A qualitative study |
title_fullStr | Health professionals’ views and experiences of the Australian moratorium on genetic testing and life insurance: A qualitative study |
title_full_unstemmed | Health professionals’ views and experiences of the Australian moratorium on genetic testing and life insurance: A qualitative study |
title_short | Health professionals’ views and experiences of the Australian moratorium on genetic testing and life insurance: A qualitative study |
title_sort | health professionals’ views and experiences of the australian moratorium on genetic testing and life insurance: a qualitative study |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9626480/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35902697 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01150-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dowlinggrace healthprofessionalsviewsandexperiencesoftheaustralianmoratoriumongenetictestingandlifeinsuranceaqualitativestudy AT tillerjane healthprofessionalsviewsandexperiencesoftheaustralianmoratoriumongenetictestingandlifeinsuranceaqualitativestudy AT mcinerneyleoaideen healthprofessionalsviewsandexperiencesoftheaustralianmoratoriumongenetictestingandlifeinsuranceaqualitativestudy AT belcherandrea healthprofessionalsviewsandexperiencesoftheaustralianmoratoriumongenetictestingandlifeinsuranceaqualitativestudy AT hainingcasey healthprofessionalsviewsandexperiencesoftheaustralianmoratoriumongenetictestingandlifeinsuranceaqualitativestudy AT barlowstewartkristine healthprofessionalsviewsandexperiencesoftheaustralianmoratoriumongenetictestingandlifeinsuranceaqualitativestudy AT boughtwoodtiffany healthprofessionalsviewsandexperiencesoftheaustralianmoratoriumongenetictestingandlifeinsuranceaqualitativestudy AT gleesonpenny healthprofessionalsviewsandexperiencesoftheaustralianmoratoriumongenetictestingandlifeinsuranceaqualitativestudy AT delatyckimartinb healthprofessionalsviewsandexperiencesoftheaustralianmoratoriumongenetictestingandlifeinsuranceaqualitativestudy AT winshipingrid healthprofessionalsviewsandexperiencesoftheaustralianmoratoriumongenetictestingandlifeinsuranceaqualitativestudy AT otlowskimargaret healthprofessionalsviewsandexperiencesoftheaustralianmoratoriumongenetictestingandlifeinsuranceaqualitativestudy AT jacobschris healthprofessionalsviewsandexperiencesoftheaustralianmoratoriumongenetictestingandlifeinsuranceaqualitativestudy AT keoghlouise healthprofessionalsviewsandexperiencesoftheaustralianmoratoriumongenetictestingandlifeinsuranceaqualitativestudy AT lacazepaul healthprofessionalsviewsandexperiencesoftheaustralianmoratoriumongenetictestingandlifeinsuranceaqualitativestudy |