Life insurance: genomic stratification and risk classification.

With the development and increasing accessibility of new genomic tools such as next-generation sequencing, genome-wide association studies, and genomic stratification models, the debate on genetic discrimination in the context of life insurance became even more complex, requiring a review of current practices and the exploration of new scenarios. In this perspective, a multidisciplinary group of international experts representing different interests revisited the genetics and life insurance debate during a 2-day symposium 'Life insurance: breast cancer research and genetic risk prediction seminar' held in Quebec City, Canada on 24 and 25 September 2012. Having reviewed the current legal, social, and ethical issues on the use of genomic information in the context of life insurance, the Expert Group identified four main questions: (1) Have recent developments in genomics and related sciences changed the contours of the genetics and life insurance debate? (2) Are genomic results obtained in a research context relevant for life insurance underwriting? (3) Should predictive risk assessment and risk stratification models based on genomic data also be used for life insurance underwriting? (4) What positive actions could stakeholders in the debate take to alleviate concerns over the use of genomic information by life insurance underwriters? This paper presents a summary of the discussions and the specific action items recommended by the Expert Group.

Bad news about bad news: the disclosure of risks to insurability in research consent processes.

One of the phenomena associated with research is "incidental findings," that is, unexpected findings made during the research, and outside the scope of the research, which have potential health importance. One underappreciated risk of incidental findings is the potential loss of the research subject's insurability; or if a research subject fails to disclose incidental findings when applying for insurance, the insurance contract may be voidable by the insurer. In this article, we seek to explain the insurability risks associated with incidental findings and to make recommendations for how researchers and research ethics committees should address the issue of disclosure of these risks.

[Clinical autopsies. Practical approach, legal foundations and ethical considerations]. / Klinische Obduktionen. Praktisches Vorgehen, rechtliche Grundlagen und ethische Uberlegungen.

Only an autopsy can demonstrate topographical and morphological circumstances in detail and correlate the clinical and autopsy findings based on the examination of all organs. The practical approach in a fatality is described based on the example of the Lüdenscheid Hospital. A uniform legal regulation for dealing with corpses does not exist in Germany. There are two approaches to the question under which circumstances a clinical autopsy is allowed: the extended permission solution and the objection solution. Whether a clinical autopsy can be carried out is decided by the medical specialist selected on application. Autopsies can be necessary from insurance or administrative legal grounds or in the case of an anatomical autopsy is decided by the persons themselves. In order to guarantee the quality of an autopsy it is necessary to use a standardized approach with evaluation and assessment of the results, for example using a quality assurance protocol and the production of an autopsy report. Using this approach important information can be gained not only on the accuracy of the main diagnosis and cause of death but also on additional diseases, response to therapy and the course of the disease and under circumstances can lead to modifications in the approach.

Life insurance for living kidney donors: a Canadian undercover investigation.

Some living kidney donors encounter difficulties obtaining life insurance, despite previous surveys of insurance companies reporting otherwise. To better understand the effect of donation on insurability, we contacted offices of life insurance companies in five major cities in Canada to obtain $100 000 of life insurance (20-year term) for 40 fictitious living kidney donors and 40 paired controls. These profiles were matched on age, gender, family history of kidney disease and presence of hypertension. The companies were blinded to data collection. The study protocol was reviewed by the Office of Research Ethics. The main study outcomes were the annual premium quoted and total time spent on the phone with the insurance agent. All donor and control profiles received a quote, with no significant difference in the premium quoted (medians $190 vs. $209, p = 0.89). More time was spent on the phone for donor compared to control profiles, but the absolute difference was small (medians 9.5 vs. 7.0 min, p = 0.046). Age, gender, family history of kidney disease and new-onset hypertension had no further effect on donor insurability in regression analysis. We found no evidence that kidney donors were disadvantaged in the first step of applying for life insurance. The effect donation has on subsequent phases of insurance underwriting remains to be studied.

Is genetic information relevantly different from other kinds of non-genetic information in the life insurance context?

Within the medical, legal and bioethical literature, there has been an increasing concern that the information derived from genetic tests may be used to unfairly discriminate against individuals seeking various kinds of insurance; particularly health and life insurance. Consumer groups, the general public and those with genetic conditions have also expressed these concerns, specifically in the context of life insurance. While it is true that all insurance companies may have an interest in the information obtained from genetic tests, life insurers potentially have a very strong incentive to (want to) use genetic information to rate applicants, as individuals generally purchase their own cover and may want to take out very large policies. This paper critically focuses on genetic information in the context of life insurance. We consider whether genetic information differs in any relevant way from other kinds of non-genetic information required by and disclosed to life insurance companies by potential clients. We will argue that genetic information should not be treated any differently from other types of health information already collected from those wishing to purchase life insurance cover.

The transformation of morals in markets: death, benefits, and the exchange of life insurance policies.

This article adopts an institutional approach to describe the changing secondary market for life insurance in the United States. Since the 1990s, this market, in which investors buy strangers' life insurance policies, has grown in the face of considerable moral ambivalence. The author uses news reports and interviews to identify and describe three conceptions of this market: sacred revulsion, consumerist consolation, and rationalized reconciliation. Differences among the conceptions are considered in view of the institutional legacy of life insurance and its success in organizing practices, perceptions, and understandings about markets and death. From this case, the author draws implications for analyses of morals in markets, an important and emergent topic within economic sociology.

Genetic testing and private insurance--a case of "selling one's body"?

Arguments against the possible use of genetic test results in private health and life insurance predominantly refer to the problem of certain gene carriers failing to obtain affordable insurance cover. However, some moral intuitions speaking against this practice seem to be more fundamental than mere concerns about adverse distributional effects. In their perspective, the central ethical problem is not that some people might fail to get insurance cover because of their 'bad genes', but rather that some people would manage to get insurance cover because of their 'good genes'. This paper tries to highlight the ethical background of these intuitions. Their guiding idea appears to be that, by pointing to his favourable test results, a customer might make an attempt to 'sell his body'. The rationale of this concept is developed and its applicability to the case at issue is critically investigated. The aim is to clarify an essential objection against the use of genetic information in private insurance which has not yet been openly addressed in the academic debate of the topic.

Implications of genetic testing: discrimination in life insurance and future directions.

This article examines the possibility of genetic discrimination in life insurance and discusses the inability of current Australian legislation to deal adequately with genetic test result information. Genetic information has certain features that distinguish it from other medical information and thus a specialist legislative package is required to regulate its use. This article outlines how current practices in the life insurance industry are inconsistent with notions of human rights. Several legislative options are suggested and examined. Given the negative and damaging impact that adverse selection is likely to have on the life insurance industry should the use of all genetic test results be prohibited, an approach which modifies the current regime is recommended. This includes a comprehensive review scheme and the introduction of additional insurance products tailored to individuals suffering from various genetic illnesses or predispositions to future disease.