Academics Urge Government to Ban Genetic Discrimination by Life Insurers

Life insurers are allowed to use genetic test results to raise the cost of premiums or refuse insurance based on genetic risk factors.

A technician working on a DNA test at a company laboratory in Southampton on May 2, 2009, shown in this file photo. Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images

Two Australian academics have called on the government to bar life insurers from discriminating people based on genetic tests results.

Under the current law, firms providing insurance for death, income protection, and disability can use genetic tests to provide life insurance coverage, raise the cost of premiums or place exclusions on a customer’s coverage based on risk factors.

This includes travel insurance but not health insurance as it is not risk-related.

Genetic tests aim to diagnose disease, prompt early screening, as well as monitor, treat, and prevent disease.

However, genetic discrimination can discourage people from undertaking genetic testing due to concerns that the result would be used by insurance company, according to Jane Tiller, adviser at Public Health Genomic, and Paul Lacaze, associate professor at Chronic Disease and Ageing at Monash University in Melbourne.

They noted that research projects such as the DNA Screen study are piloting the offer of DNA screening to the whole population and would identify risk factors for cancer and heart disease.

“However, we have to tell people when they sign up about potential life insurance discrimination, and many of them change their minds about being part of our study,” they wrote on Monash Lens.

“As genetic testing offers may expand to the whole population in the future, every person being offered genetic testing will have to consider the implications for their life insurance.”

Genetic Testing Linked To Chinese Regime

Concerns have been raised over security risks linked to genetic tests.

An investigation by Reuters in 2021 has discovered that Chinese gene company distributing prenatal tests worldwide had been sending the data to the Chinese regime to advance its economic and military advantages.

Chinese gene firm Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) Group was exposed to have amassed genomic data from pregnant women across 52 countries and transferred it to Beijing.

The company has also provided COVID-19 testing kits to 180 countries, including the U.S. and Australia. It had sent requests to several states to establish testing labs, which would give them firm access to the DNA of U.S. citizens.

Genetic Testing Legislation In Australia

In Australia, the life insurance industry had introduced a self-regulated moratorium on using genetic results following recommendations from parliament, but Ms. Tiller and Mr. Lacaze argued that it was not sufficient.

“We had concerns about its terms and the fact that it was self-regulated, with no government oversight,” they said. “We found the industry moratorium did not meet the expectations of the parliamentary recommendations.”

In September, federal MP Josh Burns, Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, introduced a motion to prevent life insurers from discriminating against customers based on genetic test results.

Mr. Burns said that many illnesses are strongly influenced by genetic factors, genetic testing can identify health risks.

“It should be welcomed but in the case of genetic testing the issue raised is the possibility of discrimination against people found to have a genetic pre-disposition to a particular medical condition,” he said during the Federal Chamber Proceedings.

“The motion before us ... discusses one particular issue, the impact of genetic testing on the availability of life insurance, specifically the fact that a positive genetic tests may result adversely in a person’s ability to secure a life insurance policy.”

Labor MP Louise Miller-Frost supported the motion, arguing that Australians “should be able to make these decisions based on their health needs, not financial ones, and we have the opportunity to make that a reality.”

“Self-regulation is clearly not sufficient to protect our interests. I believe legislation is required,” she said.