Patients' fear of genetic discrimination by health insurers: the impact of legal protections

Purpose: The impact of laws restricting health insurers' use of genetic information has been assessed from two main vantage points: (1) whether they reduce the extent of genetic discrimination and (2) whether they reduce the fear of discrimination and the resulting deterrence to undergo genetic testing. A previous report from this study concluded that there are almost no well-documented cases of health insurers either asking for or using presymptomatic genetic test results in their underwriting decisions, either before or after these laws, or in states with or without these laws. This report evaluates the perceptions and the resulting behavior by patients and clinicians.Methods: A comparative case study analysis was performed in seven states with different laws respecting health insurers' use of genetic information (no law, new prohibition, mature prohibition). Semistructured interviews were conducted in person with five patient advocates and with 30 experienced genetic counselors or medical geneticists, most of whom deal with adult-onset disorders. Also, multiple informed consent forms and patient information brochures were collected and analyzed using qualitative methods.Results: Patients' and clinicians' fear of genetic discrimination greatly exceeds reality, at least for health insurance. It is uncertain how much this fear actually deters genetic testing. The greatest deterrence is to those who do not want to submit the costs of testing for reimbursement and who cannot afford to pay for testing. There appears to be little deterrence for tests that are more easily affordable or when the need for the information is much greater. Fear of discrimination plays virtually no role in testing decisions in pediatric or prenatal situations, but is significant for adult-onset genetic conditions.Conclusion: Existing laws have not greatly reduced the fear of discrimination. This may be due, in part, to clinicians' lack of confidence that these laws can prevent discrimination until there are test cases of actual enforcement. Ironically, there may be so little actual discrimination that it may not be possible to initiate good test cases.

[1]  W. Neufeld-Kaiser,et al.  Predisposition genetic testing for late-onset disorders in adults. A position paper of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. , 1997, JAMA.

[2]  P. Barton,et al.  Experiences and attitudes concerning genetic testing and insurance in a Colorado population: a survey of families diagnosed with fragile X syndrome. , 1996, American journal of medical genetics.

[3]  M R Natowicz,et al.  Discrimination as a consequence of genetic testing. , 1992, American journal of human genetics.

[4]  J. Brandt,et al.  Psychological costs and benefits of predictive testing for Huntington's disease. , 1994, American journal of medical genetics.

[5]  B. Trock,et al.  BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. A prospective study of patient decision making and outcomes. , 1996, JAMA.

[6]  B. Wilfond,et al.  Genetic Testing for Susceptibility to Adult-Onset Cancer: The Process and Content of Informed Consent , 1997 .

[7]  N Mays,et al.  Qualitative Research: Rigour and qualitative research , 1995 .

[8]  A. Nakashima,et al.  Effect of HIV reporting by name on use of HIV testing in publicly funded counseling and testing programs. , 1998, JAMA.

[9]  S. Loader,et al.  Prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis carriers: an economic evaluation. , 1998, American journal of human genetics.

[10]  G. Lenoir,et al.  An update on DNA-based BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic counseling in hereditary breast cancer. , 1999, Cancer genetics and cytogenetics.

[11]  Emily White,et al.  Genetic Testing for Cancer Risk: A Population Survey on Attitudesand Intention , 1999, Public Health Genomics.

[12]  Marvin R Natowicz,et al.  Individual, family, and societal dimensions of genetic discrimination: A case study analysis , 1996, Science and engineering ethics.

[13]  W J Hall,et al.  Women's receptivity to testing for a genetic susceptibility to breast cancer. , 1995, American journal of public health.

[14]  C. Kozma,et al.  Genetic Discrimination: Perspectives of Consumers , 1996, Science.

[15]  C. Barash,et al.  Genetic Discrimination and Screening for Hemochromatosis , 1994, Journal of public health policy.

[16]  Colby Ja.  An analysis of genetic discrimination legislation proposed by the 105th congress. , 1998 .

[17]  M. Hall.  Restricting Insurers’ Use of Genetic Information , 1999 .

[18]  M. Morris,et al.  Reluctance to undergo predictive testing: the case of Huntington disease. , 1993, American journal of medical genetics.

[19]  W. Burke,et al.  Testing for inherited susceptibility to breast cancer: a survey of informed consent forms for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing. , 1998, American journal of medical genetics.

[20]  K H Rothenberg,et al.  Genetic Discrimination and Health Insurance: An Urgent Need for Reform , 1995, Science.

[21]  S. Holtzman,et al.  Ethical issues in genetic research: disclosure and informed consent , 1997, Nature Genetics.

[22]  M A Hall,et al.  Laws restricting health insurers' use of genetic information: impact on genetic discrimination. , 2000, American journal of human genetics.

[23]  K. Vranizan,et al.  Multistate evaluation of anonymous HIV testing and access to medical care. Multistate Evaluation of Surveillance of HIV (MESH) Study Group. , 1998, JAMA.

[24]  B. Biesecker.  Future Directions in Genetic Counseling: Practical and Ethical Considerations , 1998, Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal.

[25]  J. A. Colby.  An Analysis of Genetic Discrimination Legislation Proposed by the 105th Congress , 1998, American Journal of Law & Medicine.