RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals’ views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.05.25.21257683
DO 10.1101/2021.05.25.21257683
A1 Tiller, Jane
A1 Keogh, Louise
A1 McInerney-Leo, Aideen
A1 Belcher, Andrea
A1 Barlow-Stewart, Kristine
A1 Boughtwood, Tiffany
A1 Gleeson, Penny
A1 Dowling, Grace
A1 Prince, Anya E.R.
A1 Bombard, Yvonne
A1 Joly, Yann
A1 Delatycki, Martin B
A1 Winship, Ingrid
A1 Otlowski, Margaret
A1 Lacaze, Paul
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/29/2021.05.25.21257683.abstract
AB 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 AUD$500,000 of life 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-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.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://rdcu.be/ck58P Funding StatementThe project is supported by a grant from the Australian Government's 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).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This project was granted approval by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee on 11 March 2020, ID number 22576, and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesNumerous data are made available via supplementary materials. Additional data can be made available on reasonable request.