Genetic Testing - A moral dilemma or an insurance nightmare?

Norton Rose Fulbright - Medical Law Seminar - 2013

I attended the above seminar this week and found the talk by Sandra Sithole (a director at Norton Rose Fulbright) food for thought.

The issue we are faced with is the possibility that should we undergo genetic testing for our own peace of mind then do we also have a responsibility to inform our insurer that we are at a greater risk for one or another medical ailment?

The issue of non-disclosure clearly becomes problematic especially in light of life insurance policies and income continuation benefits as it could be said that the client is no longer bona fide (as was the scenario with non disclosure in income tax returns) and clients could insure for what will now possibly become a bigger reality.

The question is, should one be entitled to keep this information to oneself in terms of Privacy Laws or can the insurance industry argue that this will be to the detriment of the healthy members? And as many such conditions are hereditary would the impact not spread far and wide for generations to come?

Maybe this would be a hurdle that we can overcome like we did for the HIV/Aids pandemic. If clients are forced by their insurer (and paid for by them) to undergo genetic testing, can one then not argue that you would be in a much better position to plan your insurance cover and in many instances a good case can then be made out for any elective surgery that a client may want to undergo to minimize the impact of genetics (as was recently seen with the much publicized Angelina Jolie surgery)

I see this as an opportunity for insurance companies to assist individuals to make their lives healthier and to provide a platform for argument that elective surgery which is still considered cosmetic, should be allowed into the fold of covered expenses.

Some basic form of genetic profiling is already allowed by taking a family history from a client as it relates to heart disease etc. Why can both client and insurer not benefit from such phenomenal strides in the medical fraternity?

The exclusion of elective surgery as it relates to corrective eye surgery by insurers has always baffled me. Why pay on a continued basis for glasses and contact lenses when your client can have corrective eye surgery and save in the long run? Many more examples of this wide interpretation of "cosmetic surgery" can be given.

A further possibility could be a reduction in the premiums of healthy individuals as they would no longer be judged statistically but rather on actual chances. The opportunity for a contingency reduction (or increase) may change the scales of balance where 99% percent of the healthy insured pay for 1% of the less healthy.

Would this make insurance unaffordable for the sickly or genetically predisposed? Yes maybe, but it could also save their lives and open the doors for prevention.

Prevention is still better than cure.