Slashdot Mirror
US Sues Over Genetic Testing for Insurance Claims
Marty writes "It appears the U.S. government is setting an excellent precident when it comes to genetic testing and insurance claims. According to the Chicago Tribune, The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad for "requiring genetic testing of employees who file claims for certain work-related hand injuries" on the basis of civil rights violations. The article states that the tests looked for chromosome 17 deletion, which some studies claim makes a person more susceptible to CTS (more info about the genetic link is available at hnpp.org). Contrast this to recent policies in the UK."
The employer is betting the insurance company here. The employee has no choice in this case.
This could progress to the point where an employer may not hire someone because they "failed" a genetic test. At that point, I wonder if the employee gets the choice to tell the employer that they don't have to pay for disability insurance in order to get the job.
All your dangifiknow are belong to us.
What if you have a genetic predisposition to getting hit by buses?
All your dangifiknow are belong to us.
Nothing's really gained by foisting the cost on employers per se, but the whole system of health insurance through the workplace is badly flawed to begin with. However, allowing insurers to screen people for genetic issues, and offering no alternatives, means that some people will be unemployable and uninsurable. If not for simple humanitarian concerns, the prospect of a large number of people who will never be granted an opportunity to participate in the economy -- and therefore to either be on welfare or have no choice but to, shall we say, live any way they can -- should make it clear why this kind of policy is just asking for trouble in the long run.
Life isn't an economic textbook folks.
Yes I do - it is a competive market. But it also is essentially a zero sum game, overall average premiums are set by overall health care costs and the profit margins the insurance companies are willing to make. So all things being the same, if my premiums go down, someone else's have to go up.
Finally, you equate smoking with genetic predispositions to illnesses. In the former case, it's a choice. In the latter, it's just bad luck. And the purpose of insurance is to financially protect people who are unlucky.
Fine, don't like that example? Should a person with Down's Syndrome who is the age of 29 be able to take out a million dollar life insurance policy and pay the same premiums I do? (I am also 29) Or a person with Cystic Fibrosis? Or a personal with Multiple Sclerosis? Certainly not, these people have drastically curtailed lifespans and to allow them the same insurance benefit for the same price amounts to giving them money. These genetic diseases just happen to have symptoms that manifest themselves without the need of a genetic test - but we have no problem treating these people differently with respect to insurance premiums. Why should we have a problem with any other genetic disease, once a test has revealed it's presence?
-josh
This is the flip side of the coin.
So what are the consequences? Well, if there is no genetic testing by insurance companies then there will be no insurance industry, because insurance is all about probability, and when as far as the customer is concerned there is no uncertainty, but as far as the company is concerned there is, and insurance agreement is unattainable, and even redundant completely anyway.
The problem is that only the most intelligent and wealthy of people (the two are directly related. cf The Bell Curve) will be able to afford genetic screening and so will inevitably become genetically perfect, like a master race, while the poor remain like old fashioned Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Do we want to see Homo Superior Plutocri overrun us all? I don't, so we must be careful what we do here.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
I think of little else but you.
Remember though, that any disadvantage will often have an upside. The "disadvantaged" are actually better in other areas. They shouldn't try to push themselves to where they don't belong. For example, deafness may be an immediate problem, but other senses are dramatically enhanced. In a job where hearing capabilities are not required, a deaf person can work better than a non-deaf person.
We must realize that just as people have mental preferences to certain work, their genes also have preferences.
Insurance companies may well need to discriminate on the basis of genetic testing. Whether this discrimination takes the form of higher premiums or outright refusal of coverage doesn't really matter, but the right of the company to make such discrimination should be considered.
Why?
Because the people they are insuring may have access to the same genetic testing information. This information may be direct, through the same sort of genetic testing, or indirect, through family history of ailments or such.
Consider life insurance: If anyone with a terminal illness could go and buy a million dollars in term life insurance, the life insurance companies would go bankrupt. Hence, most life insurance policies require some sort of health review to make sure you don't have some sort of known terminal illness.
It's a matter of having a level playing field. Insurance companies should be able to have as much medical information about you as you do. They need to be able to determine the risk of insuring you as well as you are able to determine the risk yourself.
Something to consider before complaining about evil privacy-invading mega-corporations.
While the Coalition against Insurance Fraud claims that 10% of all auto and home insurance claims are fraudulent ($79 billion per year they say), my quick review of the IRS data on the issue just doesn't seem to support that claim.
Considering the fact that in the State of Utah, there were an astounding 61 cases of insurance fraud in 1999 alone! WOW! 61 cases of fraud in one year coming from a state with 2,129,836 people. That's less than .01% of the population commiting insurance fraud.
Fraudulent zodiacs. The Linux Pimp
--It's Pimptastic!--
I am not against charging someone a higher rate if they have already been diagnosed with a disease. What I am against is compelling someone to take a genetic test, essentially adding information to their medical history, and then charging them a higher premium or denying them coverage if the test shows a predisposition to get a disease. If I apply for insurance, the decision as to whether to insure me and the premium I am assigned should be based solely on my existing medical history -- not some insurance company mandated test that attempts to predict whether I am more likely to contract a disease sometime in the future.
I am against charging people extra for risk factors that are beyond their control -- especially when the information is not already a part of their medical history. If they have a disease that has been diagnosed, that's a totally different matter.
Insurance is about creating a shared pool of risk. When the pool is large, some people are going to be charged disproportinately more compared to their actually risk. This is why insurance companies like to evaluate, as much as possible, the risk factors in the people that they insure. Are you a smoker? Well then, that puts you in a different pool with a higher premium. Not a smoker? Well then you pay less.
They do this in order to save money and give lower risk people lower premiums. Life insurance for a 20yr old should cost less than for a 60 year old. In many cases we consent to divulge our age, our sexual habits, our smoking and eating habits, and family history of disease so that insurance companies can determine what risk pool we belong in. We end up sharing the risk with people who are similar to ourselves and to most of us this ideas seems basically fair.
Now I am not defending the insurance companies or the employer in this particular case. I think genetic testing at this state in the games is far from an exact science. We have found some genes that likely lead to higher incidence of some diseases, but the evidence is sparse, and in most cases we have no clear cause and effect relationship. In all cases we have barely a clue how these genes work.
But this inexact science will improve and there is no stuffing the genie back into the bottle on this one. If the tests get better and statistical studies back them up, I see no reason why the insurance companies should not be privy to the same genetic information that you are.
I am not saying that they should be able to force you to take a particular test - but if you have taken a genetic test, they should have access to that information as well. Any other solution is essentially supporting insurance fraud, like lying about your smoking, or claiming you have no history of heart disease when both your grandfather's died of heart attacks at 45.
The decision to take a test should be your own. But the results of the test should be shared with your insurer, in just the same way you would share the information with your personal physician so that she can give you better care.
Granted, this may make some people essentially 'uninsurable' - well, this is where the federal government should step in. Either forcing private insurers to take lower profits and cover the extremely high risk folks, or covering them themselves under a federally funded plan.
Everyone assumes this will automatically mean higher premiums. For some yes, for others premiums will be cheaper. Suppose you have genetic resistance to AIDS (yes, there is such a thing), and no genetic predisposition to heart disease or cancer. Wouldn't you like a break on your premiums? Or maybe you are the type that would like to pay the same as a smoker does. Not me.
-josh
Are you pure enough to have insurance?
Now, I'm no communist/socialist/marxist, but I'm amazed that no one has mentioned what the root of the problem is. This whole genetic testing issue should be waking a lot of people up. Making peoples health a business (i.e. health insurance) is sick, and the U.S., although I'm glad is not allowing genetic testing, should employ a national healthcare program. I find it morally grotesque that someone will go to the hospital in need, and be turned away because they don't have the money or insurance. Sure, governments have never been as efficient as privitized organizations, and squandering can happen (see Canada), but at least everyone is treated equally.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
The reality is that 15% of the people are going to be sick 85% of the time while 85% of the people are going to be sick 15% of the time.
Those are the friggin' statistics.
However which people belong to the 85% and which people belong to the 15% change over time.
If the friggin' companies can't hack those numbers, they should get the fuck out of the fucking business. They don't belong there.
The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk and spread the wealth. Running it for profit is a mugs game.
You end up with the argument from the companies that if you need it you can't get it.
This type of testing will prove self-defeating because if you can get insurance, you aren't likely to need it so its a waste of money so don't buy any insurance.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
This is a day late and a dollar short, but better than nothing.
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
These tests are looking for a predisposition for a certain disease or ailment and using that to determine insurance policies. That means you could go through life without ever contracting a disease or health problem, but you still have to suffer discrimination against you as if you were definitely going to have a problem.
Are we fucking crazy here? What about the rights of the employees? What about the freedom to choose a career no matter what your talents or skills, or the genetic possibility that you might get hurt?
Thank you to the U.S. Government for taking a positive stand for personal freedom!
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Wow. Alot of people think this is the right thing to do...go Genetic Screening! Yea for big business!
/. change while I was at Chevy's this afternoon. Well...if discrimination against race is wrong...how can discrimination against genetics be right?
You don't know why this is bad? Because...it's a slippery slope, that's why.
Discrimination against race is wrong...right? Or did the whole demographic of
This is about a company testing people for a gene...do any of the people here cheering this on have any idea what might happen if this practice spreads?
Genetic testing to see if you might be an alcoholic and then denyed a drivers licence if you are. Genetic testing to see if you might have addictions to drugs and then increased police monitoring. Genetic testing to see if you might get cancer and denial of a job or health benifits.
Is it right to deny people of african ancestory jobs in cold weather conditions because of inceased risk of frostbite? No. of course not. Then why is it alright to start to deny people things because of other genetic traits? Today it's a minor insurance issue...tomarrow it will be a far, far greater issue.
I am appalled by the people who see nothing wrong with genetic testing for insurance. These are often the same people who are infuriated when e-commerce companies violate their privacy by tracking their web surfing habits. If genetic testing is not a violation of your privacy, what is? Do insurers have a right to get the records of your grocery purchases to look for unhealthy foods? Should they be able to test your sexual partners for diseases prior to issuing insurance coverage to you? Do they have a right to the medical history of every member of your immediate family?
Insurance and Society
Insurance is valuable to society. It prevents a certain percentage of society from being financially ruined, unable to pay their mortgage, car loan, or even grocery bills. It is not in society's best interest for those people that most need insurance to be denied it. The argument that anything that increases the profits of insurance companies is good is a ludicrous, amoral one. The interests of society outweigh the bottom line of the insurance industry.
Your Premiums
There is another argument made claiming that it is unfair for "healthy" people to pay higher premiums to provide coverage for those that would be screened out by a genetic test. In addition to being incredibly self-centered and greedy, it shows a basic ignorance and denial. Some percentage of these self-proclaimed healthy people that have some genetic predisposition to some disease. They just don't know it yet. Now, ask yourself when your insurance company every lowered your medical premiums because they had better screening for risks.
The Myth that Genetic Testing is a Necessity
Insurance existed and thrived for decades before there was genetic testing. To claim now that the entire industry will be bankrupt if they cannot subject each and every applicant to a barrage of genetic tests as part of the application is preposterous.
The Role of Government
Because the goals of the insurance industry are often not in line with the best interests of society, the government needs to put limits on the insurance companies. In this case, the government has a duty to step in and prevent large portions of society from being denied medical coverage, or even employment, because of a genetic predisposition to an illness.
Applying for medical insurance, whether individually or through an employer, should not trigger a form of genetic Russian Roulette where you go in for a battery of tests and are faced with financial ruin if one comes up positive. While insurance companies need unfettered access to your existing medical records in order to write health insurance policies, the government should deny them the ability to create new health records through additional testing -- genetic and otherwise.
If we permit genetic testing, should infants be tested and, if found to have a gene for some devastating illness, be put into an uninsurable genetic underclass -- destined to be financially ruined? Would we carry it further and deny them schooling, Medicare, and social programs (why spend tax dollars on someone who will probably die at a young age?). Should employers be allowed to refuse to hire them in order to keep from training someone who will probably die soon. Should family members be forced into bankruptcy in order to pay for the medical care of their genetically-flawed loved one?
As I have said before, we are supposed to be members of a civilization, not pack animals that leave the weak to fend for themselves and die.
Landlords have no incentive to make their units energy-efficient if the tennents pay the utility bills.
Corporations (and individuals) have no direct financial incentive to avoid polluting the environment.
People have no incentive to reduce health care expenditures when they are covered by insurance.
It's that last point that is the problem here. Insurance breaks down the laws of supply and demand, because cost is no longer an issue. Hence, government regulation is necessary to correct the situation, either by regulating the market, or by altering the rules of the market to restore supply and demand.