Theres growing concern about genetic discrimination in New Zealand and the lack of Government intervention in this fast-moving field.

As genetictesting becomes more accessible than ever before, there are calls for a line in the sand to be drawn and a final answer toaquestionnot yet canvassed: should insurers be able to use our geneticinformation?

Genetic discrimination is using someones genetic information to discriminate against them to treat them in a way thats different to someone else because we know something about their genetics.

Currently,lifeand health insurance companies in New Zealand are allowed to use thisdatain determining coverand premiumsfor applicants something experts sayanecdotalevidence suggest hasledto increased premiums, or no cover at all.

While insurers may argue it's their right to know a person's medical history researchers say genetics is, in fact, not a part of one's history, but a part of their future.

There are a lot of complexities in determining someone's genetic makeup and whether they are prone to getting a disease later in life.

There are also ways to mitigate and change the outcome of a patient's health once becoming privy to this information. For example, getting a mastectomywill drastically limit the chances of getting breast cancer, but there are fears an insurer may refuse cover based on a positive BRCA gene test regardless.

University ofOtago law and bioethics lecturerDr Jeanne Snellingsaysif people do have the test,and its positive, they can do things tominimisedevelopment of the disease.

They can undergo surveillance, get prophylactic preventative treatment and their risk could be quite similar to someone elses in the end. But, the insurance company is taking this absolutist approach saying that a positive test disqualifies you from obtaining life insurance cover.

There aredoubts about whether an insurance company would have staff with the expertise on hand to dissect someones genetic information.

University of Aucklands Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences Professor Andrew Shelling says it usually takes acastofspecialists to trawl through the data of an entire persons genome.

Good luck to the insurance company if they can find something, let us know. Because we have an entire team of experts from the clinicians to thebioinformaticiansto the geneticists who sit in a multi-disciplinary clinic each week trying to discuss the outcomes of what theyre looking at.

Based on the increased complexity of genetic testing nowadays, there is also a risk of getting it wrong if you dont have the right expertise. Hesaid.

There'salsoconcernpeople will not opt for undergoing genetic testing purely based on the fact it could be used by insurers -- and thus, miss out on the opportunity to decreasefuturehealth risks.

Despite the life-saving prevention available through genetic testing, experts say people avoiditand research because they are afraid of insurance discrimination.

This not only limits what a person can do to better their health in future -- but stunts medical research, particularly in minority groups like Mori and Pasifika, whose genetics are an even greater enigma to researchers than Pakeha.

Professor Shelling says we know that Mori have been discriminated against for years and this may be another form of it.

We base a lot of our genetics on European DNA, so for our Mori and Pasific people we dont always know what their results mean in a clinical setting.

We have an extra responsibility as genomic scientists to support Mori and Pasific getting genetic testing and make sure they dont get further discriminated against.

In a lot of our research studies around New Zealand, we are trying to increase the number of Mori and Pasific participants.

He fears if they have any concerns about insurance, theyllturn away from being part of these studies.

It's a conflict Jane Tiller anethical, legal and social advisor for Public Health Genomics at Melbournes Monash University --has battled for five years in Australia where a moratorium's been put in place to try and curb the issue.

Now, in Australia, you can get life insurance up to $500,000. If you try and take out more, you have to then disclose your genetic test results. she said.

She says the moratoriums a good step towards consumer protection but its a fraught approach.

"It goes up to certain financial limits and is only five years. So, we dont know what will happen in 2024 when it ends.

We are still gathering data about how its [the moratorium]working. Were remaining concerned about the lack of Government regulations on this issue.We would like to see a complete ban, like in Canada.

The moratorium isalso self-regulated by the insurance industry.

Self-regulation has been shown to be conflicted and problematic, both in Australia and New Zealand.

Theres very little transparency on how insurance companies use this data.Because this is self-regulated, theres a lot of questions around how decisions are made and what data is relied on.

The newly formed AGenDA (Against Genomic Discrimination Aotearoa) group, is lobbying for Government attention on this issue.

AGenDasmessage is that genetic discrimination is not only aconsumer protection issue, but a human rights issue.

Theysay itsnot just about making sure insurers get the information they need todiscriminate; its about stopping them from discriminatingaltogether. Its about ensuring consumers can make decisions about healthcare and learn empowering information without fear of discrimination for themselves or their family members.

They say thesectorhas come to presume divulgence -- an expectation thats been born of our insurance industry over many years.

The Financial Services Councils Richard Kiplin says its not something companies will ask for but if a client has information, it's only fair that they disclose it.

Within the New Zealand sector organisation by organisation will make their own calls. he said.

Whats important for New Zealand consumers to understand is that this is a complex area, and life companies need to assess risk and theyll do that in an appropriate way.

Genetic testing,at this point of time, is not a standard part of that -- but thats obviously evolving and moving very fast.

I think if people have had a genetic test and have information then they know information that a life and health company would want to understand. And so thats a part of the disclosure process.

Kiplin says hes open to working with researchers and other parties in future to solidify guidelines around genetic testing.

We have a robust committee structure thats been looking at some of these issues and reviewing guidelines.

The sector is never static, theres always stuff you can change and this is one of the big areas of the future.Hesaid.

AGenDAis alsoconcerned at the lack of Government intervention.

The Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs David Clark points towards the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's Insurance Law Review.

"Insurer use of genetic testing results is one of many issues raised with MBIE during the course of the review, but it was not highlighted as a significant issue in the submissions (it was mentioned in two out of around 500 submissions received). Hesaid.

Clark mirrors the industrys openness to work with experts to understand the situation better.

Im told, the industryhavepreviously told my officials they are not seeing high levels of genetic testing, but I am open to further briefings on the matter.

The MBIEreview was promptedto ensure New Zealands insurance contract law is facilitating insurance markets that work well and enable individuals and businesses to effectively protect themselves against risk.

In November 2019 the Government agreed tothereform which includesmaking sure insurers ask consumers the right questions, the requirement for policies to be written and presented clearly, strengthening protection for consumers against unfair terms and extending powers to the Financial Markets Authority to monitor and enforce compliance.

Next steps for the review include release of an exposure draft Bill for consultation in late-2021.

Genetic testing has been described asa quantum leap for healthcare. A new kind ofapparatuswe can use to decode our future health.

In July 2021,the World Health Organization (WHO) provided the first global recommendations to help establish human genome editing as a tool for public health, with an emphasis on safety, effectiveness and ethics.

While their concerns are mainly based around the use of genetics to edit our DNA --WHO Director-General,Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, recognisedgenome editing and testing as a potential to advance our ability to treat and cure disease.

"But the full impact will only be realized if we deploy it for the benefit of all people, instead of fueling more health inequity between and within countries,Hesaid.

In September, the WHOrecommended DNA testing as a first-choice screening method for cervical cancer prevention.

It recognised DNA-based testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) has been shown to be more effective than todays commonly used screening methods aimed at detecting and preventing cervical cancer, a major cause of death among women worldwide.

Asgenetictestingbecomesmore mainstream,as the technologies mature,and as testsbecome moreprecise and affordable-- it evolves from being aniche offering tobecomingilluminatedon healthcarescentrestage.

And whilegenetictesting is applauded for its potential to become a part of our everyday health toolbox one question remains:should insurers be able to use our genetic information?

Go here to see the original:
Genetic discrimination: The next great health battle likely to wash up on NZ shores - Newstalk ZB