The Association of British Insurers and the Government signed up to the genetics moratorium in Nov...
The Association of British Insurers and the Government signed up to the genetics moratorium in November 2001. The result was that insurers cannot use predictive DNA genetic tests unless they have been approved by the Government's Genetics and Insurance Committee and even if they are approved they can only be used for very high-value policies. To date, the use of a predictive test for Huntington's disease for life insurance remains the only test the Committee has approved and it only applies to cover over £500,000.
Before the moratorium, there was concern from the Government that allowing the use of predictive tests for insurance would create a "genetics underclass". The science was new and some pundits predicted that everyone would be genetically tested and know their potential chances of suffering from diseases. The moratorium addressed those concerns while allowing the industry some protection from people taking out high-value policies. It is up for renewal in 2008.
A lot has happened since 2001. Looking at highly-predictive genetic tests, very few of these affect people of insurance-buying age in numbers significant enough to impact on premiums. And the numbers of positive predictive tests also remain small. Given the relative stability of knowledge about these kinds of tests why not just scrap them?
The next development has been the potential treatment of people with positive genetic tests. Researchers have recently discovered that a progressive and painful arthritic condition, ankylosing spondylitis, not only has a genetic element but also has a potential cure.
And, finally, the area of testing that applies to more and more people is not for highly-penetrative genes but for genes that indicate a propensity for a disease that can be managed and is not necessarily life threatening. So why single out genetic tests as special here? There remain concerns about the use of genetic tests by insurers even in these situations, but it should be possible to put in an audit process to ensure they are used fairly - such a system exists in Australia.
The moratorium has served us all well and we should retain and strengthen those aspects that prevent discrimination against people who have highly-predictive tests with a major health impact and explore the scope for allowing less significant tests to be treated like other medical tests subject to adequate safeguards.
Richard Walsh is managing director of SPPR Consulting
(The author negotiated the original moratorium with the Government and its last renewal.)