Genetics and Insurance
How would you feel if you were refused life
insurance, because the insurance company felt your genes made you a
bad risk? Opinion polls have shown that people are hostile to the
idea that insurers should have access to their private genetic
information, yet until recently some companies have been using
genetic test results albeit for a very small number of people. In the US this has already
led to many cases of genetic discrimination.
On October 23rd the government and
the Association of British Insurers (ABI) jointly announced the
agreement of a voluntary five year moratorium on the use of genetic
test results by insurance companies, except for life policies over
£500,000 and critical illness/long term care policies over
£300,000. Unlike
previous moratoria, this will not be entirely self policed (and
hence widely flouted) - the government's Genetics and Insurance
committee (GAIC) will be involved in monitoring it. The announcement resolved a
year of intense politicking over the issue, that was sparked in
August 2000 by the uproar over approval of the use by insurers of
genetic tests for Huntington's Disease, by GAIC
Much of the political heat attached to the
issue was no doubt connected to the election. For the Labour Party,
allowing the issue to become high profile let them play to their
core vote by making threating noises towards the popularly disliked
insurance industry.
These noises, and indeed the current resolution of the issue
have cost the government and industry very little: as the enquiries by both the
select committee on Science and Technology, and the Government's
official genetics advisers, the Human Genetics Commission have made
clear, because the numbers of people involved are still very small
(there are still very few genetic tests that can reliably predict
early death), so are the financial stakes. The industry always argues
that it needs genetic test results to prevent consumers who know
they are going to die young with taking out huge policies. For at least 5 years, the
magnitude of such so-called adverse selection would be tiny, even if
there were any evidence that it was actually occurring, or was
likely to in future.
Such effects might theoretically become
significant if predictive genetic tests for major killers like
cancer and heart disease were to become available. This is a very big if: many scientists doubt that
genetic tests will ever give clear, reliable predictions because of
the complexity of the way both genes and environment influence
disease susceptibility.
The insurance industry's strategy is clear, and is actually
well served by the moratorium.
Its aim is to prevent a 'premature' statutory ban on the use
of genetic tests results, until such time that the scientific issues
becomes clearer. A
moratorium neatly takes the political heat out of the issue and
gives both government and industry breathing space. If heart disease prediction
tests do become available, we will see the industry really starting
to play hardball.
An issue that has become key is the use by
insurers of family history evidence. A typical life insurance
form asks whether your immediate family have suffered from cancer,
hypertension, stroke, heart disease etc. Although family history
information is notoriously inaccurate, insurers have used this
information for many years to increase premiums for about 4% of
people and exclude 1% entirely (known in the industry as
underwriting). They
argue that family history is a form of genetic information, and
since they use that, there is therefore no reason for them not to
use genetic test results.
They are afraid that a ban on using genetic test results will
also inevitably lead to a ban on family history, which, they
suggest, would destroy the industry or lead to a massive rise in
premiums for everyone, as those with normal risks subsidise the bad
risks. In fact a recent
research paper said that insurance premiums would rise about 10%,
which does not seem too much to bear. While a number of European
countries and many US states ban the use of genetic tests, fewer ban
underwriting. The Human
Genetics Commission plans to address this issue during the
moratorium.
A
related issue concerns the medical information which insurers
sometimes request from people's GPs. The industry argues that
genetic information is just another piece of medical information, no
different from information about existing conditions, or from
cholesterol levels, which also have predictive value. The question of whether
genetic information is special is a major focus of the wider debate
on genetic privacy.
Many commentators argue that it is hard to find clear
qualitative differences between genetics and other types of medical
information.
Such technical and philosophical arguments are
part of an attempt to depoliticise the issue. What they miss is the
broader social context, which creates very different meanings for
genetic information and cholesterol level information. While the latter is just a
fact about their body, most people feel that genetic information
defines something important about their existence, identity and
uniqueness, which makes it especially personal and private. And unlike the experts, most
people have an intuitive grasp of the social meaning of
genetics. They
understand that genetics has an ability to stigmatise and
marginalize people which fits well with free market tendencies to
destroy social solidarity.
Competitive use of genetics by insurers would be likely, for
example to lead to destruction of the existing system of pooling
good and bad risks.
Insurers are already showing tendencies to 'cherry picking' -
giving lower premiums to those judged robust and healthy - and would
conversely like to exclude more bad risks. Taken to an extreme this
could lead to a 'genetic underclass'of people unable to have access
to insurance and the social goods that are dependent upon it, such
as mortgages. Thus the
public's hostility to the use of genetic tests by insurers is not
based on 'hysteria' as industry and some politicians like to argue,
but rather on an intuitive understanding that discrimination by
insurers is just the sharp end of a much larger eugenic tendency
that may be returning, along with the new ascendancy of
genetics.
Human Genetics Alert believes that genetic
discrimination by insurers is wrong in principle, benefits no one
except insurance companies and should be banned. People should not lose out
because of their genes, over which they have no control. There is already evidence
that people are refusing to take genetic tests, which may benefit
their health, for fear that they will lose their insurance. If genetics does, in the
future provide reliable predictions of disease susceptibility, the
social consequences of allowing widespread genetic discrimination
are frightening.
The government should bite the bullet sooner
rather that later, and introduce a clear ban, along with legislation
guaranteeing privacy of genetic information. Once clear rules are in
place, measures can be taken to protect the insurance industry from
financial loss.
Dr David King is a former geneticist. He is Coordinator of Human
Genetics Alert, a watchdog group campaigning for democratic and
responsible use of genetics.
For more information, write to HGA Unit 112 Aberdeen House,
22-24 Highbury Grove, London N5 2EA, call 020 7704 6100 or visit www.hgalert.org
About us | Join/Contact us | Publications | Issues | Press releases| Links | Home
|