We’re on top of genetic issues, say life insurers
Life insurers have hit back at a report which identifies them as the main players in genetic discrimination.
Acting on behalf of its life insurer members, the Investment and Financial Services Association (IFSA) says findings in a study by the Centre for Genetics Education at the University of Tasmania are based on “somewhat dated” cases between five and eight years old.
“All of [the cases] have been resolved to varying degrees in concert with the insurance companies concerned,” IFSA Senior Policy Manager Life and Risk Emma Grainge told insuranceNEWS.com.au.
The research findings, published in the American journal Genetics in Medicine, examined 14 reported cases of alleged unlawful genetic discrimination in Australia where is it legal for life insurers and employers to use a person’s genetic information as long as they are able to justify their actions.
Nine of the cases related to life insurance applications and underwriting including income protection and trauma policies, two of which were successfully reversed.
Under an insurance industry genetic testing policy implemented in 2002, people cannot be required to undergo a genetic test when they apply for insurance, but they are required to make available on request the results of any previously undertaken genetics tests.
Among the cases examined in the study, two women with a faulty gene that put them at risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer individually applied for income protection cover from the same insurer – one in 2000 and the other in 2003. One application was denied but the other granted with a breast cancer exclusion.
The study team says IFSA explained the difference in decision in terms of updated information in 2003, upon which the underwriters would have relied.
“This case underscores how our understanding and use of genetic information is continually evolving and can consequently be misunderstood,” report co-author Associate Professor Kristin Barlow-Stewart said.
IFSA’s Emma Grainge says the industry is keeping up with the times and does not expect to face greater government scrutiny in the decisions it makes.
“Disputes have been virtually non-existent in the last 12 months, which means our members must be doing a good job at communicating the reasons for their decisions,” she said.
Ms Grainge says IFSA remains conscious of the fact that genetic testing technology is always evolving.
“All of our member companies have specialist medical panels who remain up to date with the latest advances in genetics medical technology,” she said.
“Their underwriting policies are coloured by the medical information they receive from those expert panels.”
Acting on behalf of its life insurer members, the Investment and Financial Services Association (IFSA) says findings in a study by the Centre for Genetics Education at the University of Tasmania are based on “somewhat dated” cases between five and eight years old.
“All of [the cases] have been resolved to varying degrees in concert with the insurance companies concerned,” IFSA Senior Policy Manager Life and Risk Emma Grainge told insuranceNEWS.com.au.
The research findings, published in the American journal Genetics in Medicine, examined 14 reported cases of alleged unlawful genetic discrimination in Australia where is it legal for life insurers and employers to use a person’s genetic information as long as they are able to justify their actions.
Nine of the cases related to life insurance applications and underwriting including income protection and trauma policies, two of which were successfully reversed.
Under an insurance industry genetic testing policy implemented in 2002, people cannot be required to undergo a genetic test when they apply for insurance, but they are required to make available on request the results of any previously undertaken genetics tests.
Among the cases examined in the study, two women with a faulty gene that put them at risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer individually applied for income protection cover from the same insurer – one in 2000 and the other in 2003. One application was denied but the other granted with a breast cancer exclusion.
The study team says IFSA explained the difference in decision in terms of updated information in 2003, upon which the underwriters would have relied.
“This case underscores how our understanding and use of genetic information is continually evolving and can consequently be misunderstood,” report co-author Associate Professor Kristin Barlow-Stewart said.
IFSA’s Emma Grainge says the industry is keeping up with the times and does not expect to face greater government scrutiny in the decisions it makes.
“Disputes have been virtually non-existent in the last 12 months, which means our members must be doing a good job at communicating the reasons for their decisions,” she said.
Ms Grainge says IFSA remains conscious of the fact that genetic testing technology is always evolving.
“All of our member companies have specialist medical panels who remain up to date with the latest advances in genetics medical technology,” she said.
“Their underwriting policies are coloured by the medical information they receive from those expert panels.”