Financial advisers' and key informants' perspectives on the Australian industry-led Moratorium on Genetic Tests in Life Insurance.
Journal
Public health genomics
ISSN: 1662-8063
Titre abrégé: Public Health Genomics
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101474167
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
18
04
2023
accepted:
07
08
2023
medline:
14
8
2023
pubmed:
14
8
2023
entrez:
13
8
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Genetic discrimination (GD) in the context of life insurance is a perennial concern in Australia and internationally. To address such concerns in Australia, an industry self-regulated Moratorium on Genetic Tests in Life Insurance was introduced in 2019 to restrict life insurers from using genetic test results in underwriting for policies under certain limits. Financial advisers (FAs) are sometimes engaged by clients to provide financial advice and assist them to apply for life insurance. They are therefore well-placed to comment on GD and the operation of the Moratorium. Despite this, the financial advising sector in Australia have yet to be studied empirically with regards to GD and the Moratorium. This study aims to capture this perspective by reporting on interviews with the financial advising sector. Ten semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with FAs and key informants and analysed using thematic analysis. Discussion/ conclusion(s): Participants' level of awareness and understanding of the Moratorium varied. Participants reported mixed views on the Moratorium's effectiveness and how it operates in practice, and perceived industry compliance. Participants also provided reflections on Australia's current approach to regulating GD, with most participants supporting the concept of industry self-regulation but identifying a need for this to be supplemented with external oversight and meaningful recourse mechanisms for consumers. Our results suggest that there is scope to increase FAs' awareness of GD, and that further research, consultation and policy consideration are required to identify an optimal regulatory response to GD in Australia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37573782
pii: 000533532
doi: 10.1159/000533532
pmc: PMC10614474
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Références
Eur J Hum Genet. 2003 Dec;11 Suppl 2:S123-42
pubmed: 14718940
Am J Bioeth. 2019 Jan;19(1):13-15
pubmed: 30676900
Eur J Hum Genet. 2020 Jan;28(1):108-113
pubmed: 31281182
BMC Med. 2013 Jan 31;11:25
pubmed: 23369270
Med J Aust. 2021 Mar;214(4):157-159.e1
pubmed: 33550592
Univ N S W Law J. 2003;26(3):764-9
pubmed: 16617530
Front Public Health. 2018 Nov 23;6:333
pubmed: 30542646
Aust J Gen Pract. 2019 Mar;48(3):96-99
pubmed: 31256467
Inquiry. 2007 Fall;44(3):350-68
pubmed: 18038869
Med J Aust. 2013 Sep 2;199(5):363-6
pubmed: 23992195
Eur J Hum Genet. 2014 May;22(5):575-9
pubmed: 24129434
J Hum Genet. 2016 Apr;61(4):275-82
pubmed: 26740237
Am J Med Genet A. 2003 Jul 30;120A(3):359-64
pubmed: 12838555
Clin Genet. 2008 Jul;74(1):20-30
pubmed: 18492091
J Med Ethics. 2008 Jul;34(7):548-51
pubmed: 18591292
Public Health Genomics. 2017;20(4):247-256
pubmed: 29069661
JAMA. 2014 Nov 12;312(18):1855-6
pubmed: 25387181
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 May 21;22(1):63
pubmed: 34020638
Front Public Health. 2017 Dec 13;5:330
pubmed: 29322039
Med J Aust. 2009 Sep 7;191(5):255-8
pubmed: 19740045
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 29;372(5):397-9
pubmed: 25629736
J Hum Genet. 2021 May;66(5):539-542
pubmed: 33177703
Eur J Hum Genet. 2022 Nov;30(11):1262-1268
pubmed: 35902697
Clin Genet. 2021 Oct;100(4):430-439
pubmed: 34216141
Am J Hum Genet. 1993 Jul;53(1):33-45
pubmed: 8317496
J Genet Couns. 2015 Dec;24(6):1022-36
pubmed: 25925606
J Med Ethics. 2021 Apr 15;:
pubmed: 33858946
J Behav Med. 2017 Aug;40(4):583-594
pubmed: 28197815
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2012;13:433-54
pubmed: 22607273
J Med Genet. 2022 Aug;59(8):817-826
pubmed: 34544841
Public Health Res Pract. 2022 Dec 13;32(4):
pubmed: 36509687