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.
Genetic Testing Linked To Chinese Regime
Concerns have been raised over security risks linked to genetic tests.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.
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.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.
“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.