"Uninsurable because of a genetic test": a qualitative study of consumer views about the use of genetic test results in Australian life insurance.

Genetic testing can provide valuable information to mitigate personal disease risk, but the use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is known to deter many consumers from pursuing genetic testing. In 2019, following Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry recommendations, the Financial Services Council (FSC) introduced an industry-led partial moratorium, prohibiting life insurance companies from using genetic test results for policies up to $AUD500,000. We used semi-structured interviews to explore genetic test consumers' experiences and views about the FSC moratorium and the use of genetic results by life insurers. Individuals who participated in an online survey and agreed to be re-contacted to discuss the issue further were invited. Interviews were 20-30-min long, conducted via video conference, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis. Twenty-seven participants were interviewed. Despite the moratorium, concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance were prevalent. Participants reported instances where life insurers did not consider risk mitigation when assessing risk for policies based on genetic results, contrary to legal requirements. Most participants felt that the moratorium provided inadequate protection against discrimination, and that government legislation regulating life insurers' use of genetic results is necessary. Many participants perceived the financial limits to be inadequate, given the cost-of-living in Australia. Our findings indicate that from the perspective of participants, the moratorium has not been effective in allaying fears about genetic discrimination or ensuring adequate access to life insurance products. Concern about genetic discrimination in life insurance remains prevalent in Australia.

Secondary use of genomic data: patients' decisions at point of testing and perspectives to inform international data sharing.

International sharing of genomic data files arising from clinical testing of patients is essential to further improve genomic medicine. Whilst the general public are reluctant to donate DNA for research, the choices patients actually make about sharing their clinical genomic data for future re-use (research or clinical) are unknown. We ascertained the data-sharing choices of 1515 patients having genomic testing for inherited conditions or cancer treatment from clinical consent forms. To understand the experiences and preferences of these patients, surveys were administered after test consent (RR 73%). Almost all patients (98%) consented to share their data. Survey respondents' decision recall was high (90%), but poorer if English was an additional language (p < 0.001). Parents deciding on behalf of children were over-represented amongst data-sharing decliners (p = 0.047) and decliners were more likely to believe that stored data could be easily reidentified (p < 0.001). A quarter of respondents did not know if reidentification would be easy and 44% of them were concerned about this possibility. Of those willing to share data overseas (60%), 23% indicated the recipient researcher's country would affect their decision. Most respondents (89%) desired some ongoing control over research use of their data. Four preliminary data-sharing profiles emerged; their further development could inform tailored patient resources. Our results highlight considerations for establishment of systems to make clinical genomic data files available for reanalysis locally and across borders. Patients' willingness to share their data - and value of the resulting research - should encourage clinical laboratories to consider sharing data systematically for secondary uses.

Community concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance persist in Australia: A survey of consumers offered genetic testing.

Fears of genetic discrimination in life insurance continue to deter some Australians from genetic testing. In July 2019, the life insurance industry introduced a partial, self-regulated moratorium restricting the use of genetic results in underwriting, applicable to policies up to certain limits (eg AUD$500,000 for death cover).We administered an online survey to consumers who had taken, or been offered, clinical genetic testing for adult-onset conditions, to gather views and experiences about the moratorium and the use of genetic results in life insurance, including its regulation.Most respondents (n = 367) had undertaken a genetic test (89%), and had a positive test result (76%; n = 243/321). Almost 30% (n = 94/326) reported testing after 1 July 2019. Relatively few respondents reported knowing about the moratorium (16%; n = 54/340) or that use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is legal (17%; n = 60/348). Only 4% (n = 14/350) consider this practice should be allowed. Some respondents reported ongoing difficulties accessing life insurance products, even after the moratorium. Further, discrimination concerns continue to affect some consumers' decision-making about having clinical testing and applying for life insurance products, despite the Moratorium being in place. Most respondents (88%; n = 298/340) support the introduction of legislation by the Australian government to regulate this issue.Despite the introduction of a partial moratorium in Australia, fears of genetic discrimination persist, and continue to deter people from genetic testing. Consumers overwhelmingly consider life insurers should not be allowed to use genetic results in underwriting, and that federal legislation is required to regulate this area.

Financial Advisers' and Key Informants' Perspectives on the Australian Industry-Led Moratorium on Genetic Tests in Life Insurance.

INTRODUCTION: Genetic discrimination (GD) in the context of life insurance is a perennial concern in Australia and internationally. To address such concerns in Australia, an industry self-regulated Moratorium on Genetic Tests in Life Insurance was introduced in 2019 to restrict life insurers from using genetic test results in underwriting for policies under certain limits. Financial advisers (FAs) are sometimes engaged by clients to provide financial advice and assist them to apply for life insurance. They are therefore well-placed to comment on GD and the operation of the Moratorium. Despite this, the financial advising sector in Australia has yet to be studied empirically with regards to GD and the Moratorium. This study aims to capture this perspective by reporting on interviews with the financial advising sector. METHODS: Ten semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with FAs and key informants and were analysed using thematic analysis. CONCLUSION(S): Participants' level of awareness and understanding of the Moratorium varied. Participants reported mixed views on the Moratorium's effectiveness, how it operates in practice, and perceived industry compliance. Participants also provided reflections on Australia's current approach to regulating GD, with most participants supporting the concept of industry self-regulation but identifying a need for this to be supplemented with external oversight and meaningful recourse mechanisms for consumers. Our results suggest that there is scope to increase FAs' awareness of GD, and that further research, consultation, and policy consideration are required to identify an optimal regulatory response to GD in Australia.

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 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.

A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals' views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium.

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, $500 000 of death 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 and 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.

A Panacea for Australia's COVID-19 Crisis? Weighing Some Legal Implications of Mandatory Vaccination.

Although Australia's rates of infection, illness and mortality from COVID-19 have been relatively low, they have escalated with the rapid transmission of the Delta variant. Restrictions imposed on people's liberties to curb the spread of the virus in several Australian States have engendered economic hardship, mental health challenges, and collective exhaustion and impatience. Several vaccines have been developed and approved for use in Australia that have proven effective in reducing the likelihood that the vaccinated will contract COVID-19 and, if infected, transmit and suffer serious illness and/or die from it. Public debate has thus centred on whether mandatory vaccination could be the panacea for Australia's COVID-19 crisis, and several Australian governments and employers have already imposed vaccination requirements. This article explores some potentially significant implications of mandatory vaccination for two areas of the law - human rights and employers' liability - to consider whether, from a legal perspective, mandatory vaccination could constitute a viable solution to Australia's present predicament.

Medicinal cannabis and driving: the intersection of health and road safety policy.

BACKGROUND: Recent shifting attitudes towards the medical use of cannabis has seen legal access pathways established in many jurisdictions in North America, Europe and Australasia. However, the positioning of cannabis as a legitimate medical product produces some tensions with other regulatory frameworks. A notable example of this is the so-called 'zero tolerance' drug driving legal frameworks, which criminalise the presence of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) in a driver's bodily fluids irrespective of impairment. Here we undertake an analysis of this policy issue based on a case study of the introduction of medicinal cannabis in Australia. METHODS: We examine the regulatory approaches used for managing road safety risks associated with potentially impairing prescription medicines and illicit drugs in Australian jurisdictions, as well as providing an overview of evidence relating to cannabis and road safety risk, unintended impacts of the 'zero-tolerance' approach on patients, and the regulation of medicinal cannabis and driving in comparable jurisdictions. RESULTS: Road safety risks associated with medicinal cannabis appear similar or lower than numerous other potentially impairing prescription medications. The application of presence-based offences to medicinal cannabis patients appears to derive from the historical status of cannabis as a prohibited drug with no legitimate medical application. This approach is resulting in patient harms including criminal sanctions when not impaired and using the drug as directed by their doctor, or the forfeiting of car use and related mobility. Others who need to drive are excluded from accessing a needed medication and associated therapeutic benefit. 'Medical exemptions' for medicinal cannabis in comparable jurisdictions and other drugs included in presence offences in Australia (e.g. methadone) demonstrate a feasible alternative approach. CONCLUSION: We conclude that in medical-only access models there is little evidence to justify the differential treatment of medicinal cannabis patients, compared with those taking other prescription medications with potentially impairing effects.

Study protocol: the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium-monitoring the effectiveness and response (A-GLIMMER) project.

BACKGROUND: The use of genetic test results in risk-rated insurance is a significant concern internationally, with many countries banning or restricting the use of genetic test results in underwriting. In Australia, life insurers' use of genetic test results is legal and self-regulated by the insurance industry (Financial Services Council (FSC)). In 2018, an Australian Parliamentary Inquiry recommended that insurers' use of genetic test results in underwriting should be prohibited. In 2019, the FSC introduced an industry self-regulated moratorium on the use of genetic test results. In the absence of government oversight, it is critical that the impact, effectiveness and appropriateness of the moratorium is monitored. Here we describe the protocol of our government-funded research project, which will serve that critical function between 2020 and 2023. METHODS: A realist evaluation framework was developed for the project, using a context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) approach, to systematically assess the impact of the moratorium for a range of stakeholders. Outcomes which need to be achieved for the moratorium to accomplish its intended aims were identified, and specific data collection measures methods were developed to gather the evidence from relevant stakeholder groups (consumers, health professionals, financial industry and genetic research community) to determine if aims are achieved. Results from each arm of the study will be analysed and published in peer-reviewed journals as they become available. DISCUSSION: The A-GLIMMER project will provide essential monitoring of the impact and effectiveness of the self-regulated insurance moratorium. On completion of the study (3 years) a Stakeholder Report will be compiled. The Stakeholder Report will synthesise the evidence gathered in each arm of the study and use the CMO framework to evaluate the extent to which each of the outcomes have been achieved, and make evidence-based recommendations to the Australian federal government, life insurance industry and other stakeholders.