Slashdot Mirror
IBM Vows Not to Genetically Discriminate
An anonymous reader writes "Today the New York Times is reporting that IBM announced the addition of genetic makeup (Genetic Registration Required) to its non-discrimination policy. It appears that IBM is the first company worldwide to do this. With congress considering genetic privacy legislation, and with projects like the National Geographic Genographic Project, are we nearing the time when we all need to worry about our genetic privacy?"
addition of genetic makeup (Genetic Registration Required) to its non-discrimination policy
Until the company goes down the crapper because all the other companies are making billions by having lower health care costs and hiring people that correctly match their genetic makeup (yeah 3005 stuff).
The companies that should institute such a policy are the Aetna's, KaiserPermanente's, and MetLife's of the world. However, that would not be wise, given the business models of said companies.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
More likely, "Sorry, but you had a genetic predisposition for carpal tunnel syndrome which makes it a pre-existing condition that our health care plan will not fund."
steampunk web design
With Huntington's disease ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntingtons_disease ) in the family, this has been one of my worries. Who would insure us, since we can be proven to have a catastrophic illness that we cannot hope to pay for the care of.
As an example, my mom's nursing home costs more than her salary from when she was working. We need the help of big insurance, but they don't want to cover us. And if I get tested they will want to withold both life and health insurance, since I would be proven to be a poor risk.
I can only hope that other companies follow IBM's lead. We need to have genetic privacy legislation.
meh
The time is coming when people will alter themselves or their kids. They are actually working on super drugs to increase brain power, muscle power etc. Like it or not, this is coming. Genetic research is coming along too. So... in 20 years or so, if it will give your kid a leg up (or allow him/her) to keep up, will you do it? If not, what happens? A two-tier society. The enhanced and unenhanced. Who will companies prefer to hire? Someone with enhancements to help them work longer and be more effective - or a standard human. Who will be able to afford the treatments? What will happen to those that can't? What will become of those that choose not to do it?
The axiom of science is that if it can be done, it will be done. This declaration by IBM may be early, but in time it may be required.
It just means that they can outsource all of their jobs to ethnic Indians and it's right there in their company policy.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Ok: 1) Referring to the movie Gattica? Come on, can't we do better. How about not refer to a movie, or at least not one so lame.
2) While it is great IBM does this now. Two things to note: a) they can always change this policy b) imagine this scenario - the gov't allows genetic testing, and thusly discrimination - now it becomes an insurance companies policy "you want insurance, it is twice as expensive w/o a genetic test"...IBM may be forced to change their policy to avoid paying twice as much in insurance costs.
I am happy IBM is doing this and hopefully it will push Congress to pass anti-genetic discrimination laws (which they should). In the end, what Congress does will make the difference.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Healthcare costs are a huge expense for employers, and this is good news for tons of workers -- genetic markers that indicate higher risk for disease, and therefore higher healthcare expenses for employers, will not be a factor in hiring/promotion practices.
However, this doesn't give someone with bad genetics a free ride. If your genetics are expressed in a negative way that could be detrimental to your performance, then you can be discriminated against. It's only the alleles, not the expression, that won't be discriminated against.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
If it's 100% correlation, then they don't hire you because you ARE a sociopath, not because you're predisposed to sociopathy.
This is a brave stance, but they will end up having to weasel out of it, otherwise they will end up hovering up the shallow end of the gene pool
There are some interesting sides to this though, as it might be more cost-effective to hire people who tend to die early, as long as they have no sick leave before hand. It would certainly save on pensions/ superannuation.
Genetic health screening is already done to an extent when doctors ask you about illnesses in the family, what age did your relatives die, have you got any chronic health problems. Genetic screening will come in gradually as an extension to this, and I think companies will find themselves forced to use it by the market.
People with a positive genetic test for something long and expensive like MS, mental health problems, or early Alzheimers would be pretty much unemployable, even before they developed the clinical signs of the disease. As all tests are fallible, some of them would not go on to develop the disease anyway. These sort of problems will need legislation to protect people from the worst excesses of such testing, but I don't see how we are going to stop it.
As the developing world catches us up, and plenty of companies with no compunction about using such tests, I would be surprised if IBM is still saying the same thing in 20 years time.
Humorous signatures are over-rated.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only difference between a company that discriminates based on that (like in Gattaca) and one that doesn't (every company today) the fact that one had that little blood analysis machine at the door and the rest don't?
Great, IBM won't discriminate based on genetic makeup, but they will plaster RFID tags to track you in museums, shopping malls, etc. Big Blue sounds more and more like Big Brother. The very fact that they say they won't discriminate makes me believe that they will indeed be looking at employees genetic makeup.
As much as I feel for you, can you really blame them? This would be like a casino putting in a slot machine that paid out to "unlucky" people. For a profit to be made (and incentive to keep on doing business), insurance HAS to issue policies in where the general perception is that the policy holder will be paying out more than they will ever get back. As unfair as it is, it makes perfect sense.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
I thought the point of insurance was to spread risk. Since noody can afford the treatment for certain catastrophic illnesses, the idea is to put everyone in a pool to share the risk. If insurers are allowed to cherry pick, why bother even having insurance, other than for accidental trauma?
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
... it's a really slipery situation now isn't it.
... well, more more money than I care to think about on insurance, and I've never used a dime of benefit to my recollection. Last time I did anything medical was when I was exiting military service, after that, I've managed to get by on bandaids(tm) and off-the-shelf remedies.... and even those are used with some rarity. (I did cut my finger last night though...so there's a bandaid(tm) on my finger now) But the point of my rambling is this: while we (USA people) don't really have an effective social medical system, competitive insurance is as close as we'll come I think. So I don't mind paying for health insurance even if I never utilize the benefits -- I recognize that I might one day and that there are people who need it now.
But I have to wonder, though, if at the same time we arrive at a notion of "genetic health" and such how far off we will be from also being able to heal or correct such problems on a permanant basis? Would we be able to, then, repair everything from crooked teeth to a crooked spine?
And if we could make such corrections, would descrimination be an issue? I suppose the very notion of a cure for genetic problem disposes of the idea of descrimination doesn't it... So far, I feel pretty lucky... my problems are somewhat mild -- one ear slightly (though barely noticably) higher than the other and crowded teeth... other than that, I'm a pretty healthy guy... as far as I know. Then again, my next genetic profile might reveal something more devastating right?
Let's make sure that the insurance game remains as it is -- a gamble for the industry. After all, as gambling goes, they win more often than not. But the more they remove uncertainty from their game, the less valuable their services are -- if only "healthy" people can get insurance, then nobody needs it! Just build a large enough interest-bearing investment portfolio and never pay another premium again! In my life, I've probably paid
As an example, my mom's nursing home costs more than her salary from when she was working. We need the help of big insurance, but they don't want to cover us. And if I get tested they will want to withold both life and health insurance, since I would be proven to be a poor risk.
My deepest sympathies go out to you and your family for this misfortune, but at the same time I would be remiss if I didn't point out that that's pretty much the point of insurance in a capitalist society - it's essentially a bet, and nobody who doesn't have a burning desire to lose money is going to bet on somebody with this disease.
Remember, the topic of whether or not the citizenry should collectively bear the costs of caring for someone with this catastrophic illness is a different debate. If we work under the assumption of insurance companies operating within a capitalist framework, then it's just business. People start insurance businesses to make money by offering you a bet that you will get sick disproportionate to their estimate of the actual odds of that happening. Under normal circumstances, it's designed to cover accidents and acts of god, not things they can see coming a mile away - and if they can see it coming a mile away, then the price for their service goes up in proportion to the estimated cost of treating your ailment (which is why nobody except smokers really complains when their insurance company asks them whether or not they use tobacco).
Taking out policies when they know them to be losing bets will lose the insurance company money, and drives up prices for everybody (usually disproportionately to the loss they've taken to boot - people generally see a loss of $5 as a good opportunity to jack up the price $6), which means the citizenry is effectively collectively paying for that health insurance anyway.
Asking companies to insure someone whom they know will have this disease in the future is the same as going up to a doctor and asking him to operate for free. We can debate about whether or not the state should get involved and operate health care as a collective, but under a capitalist framework that policy, while pleasant-sounding, is at its core unfair (after all, let us be honest here: if you ran an insurance company, you wouldn't want to have an estimate of your customers' total cost of care that is orders of magnitude more accurate than the one you currently have?)
They already have "rebates" for non smokers, I can foresee
where volunteer genetic testing also results in additional
rebates.
As long as its voluntary, there won't be a problem, of course
if you don't volunteer your health insurance might be 10X
that of a volunteer, but that's your problem.
BUT, being a sociopath provides you with the perfect skill set for a career in marketing!
"It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
So, in other words, if you're susceptible, then there's no possible way for you to get the job of your choice. In fact, you'd probaly end up getting stuck making fries for or asking "paper or plastic" for the rest of your life.
The argument that it saves the company money is useless to these people that it would be discriminating against. It isn't your fault if your genetics make you more prone to sickness. Should your genetics be the deciding factor to whether or not your child eats that week, whether or not you get to live in a nice house or you're stuck in the projects. Just look at the title of the article: the word Discriminate is there for a reason
Family history isn't genetic screening; it's a substitute, really. Neither is asking about current health problems, since that's asking about the ailments themselves.
A genetic screen would require sequencing the DNA and looking for genes that are linked to ailments, not asking about the ailments themselves. In some cases, the linkages may not be firmly understood or the genes may not be sufficient to cause an ailment by themselves. There's the real ugly area; while it's pretty much guaranteed that trisomy-21 leads to Down's syndrome with all its symptoms IIRC, there may be genes that are associated with a slightly higher probability of some cardiovascular disease or cancer or so forth. Such a gene -may- be related to a later impairment that could generate increased health costs or impair performance, but how should one act regarding such a gene? And if the person's behavior takes the risk into account -- eating a careful diet if one has a genetic predisposition to obesity, say -- should its presence be considered just as hazardous?
Should we ask employees about their driving history, and treat them differently if they have a higher risk of being involved in a not-on-the-job auto accident? Or if they frequently go to McDonalds with the kids and eat Big Macs and drink sodas? Or if they go rock climbing, hang gliding, or bungee jumping?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
That is being a bit sensationalistic and innacruate. IBM Polish subsidiaries supplied equipment to the Nazis, who then used it to track Jews (amoung other things... the equipment could have been used to track anything). And lets remember that the people working for the subsidiaries in Poland were given "an offer they couldn't refuse". (i.e. there is no question that they and their families would have been tortured and killed if they refused to supply the Nazis with what they wanted).
To illustrate the double standard, China uses Linux based equipment to run it's police state. No-one is saying that Linus Torvolds is responsible for China oppression. (and yes, Linus Torvolds has the power to explicitly forbid the use by specific governments by changing the licence... which he has chosen not to do. And he most certainly knows that China uses Linux to facilitate oppressive policies.) The only difference is that no open-source geeks and their families are going to be tortured and killed if Linus forbid the use of Linux by China... which makes Linus far more responsible than IBM.
Once again, people blaming someone else for the oppressive policies of governments. No-one will dare blame genocide or oppression commited by governments ON GOVERNMENTS... because most people are in love with big oppressive governments in some form or another.
I think I would be remiss not to point out that we are not just and only a capitalist society.
Is money the only thing of value to our society? I know it has a high value, but
are there not other things we value?
No, I am not arguing that insurance companies should be money losing ventures, but I am
saying that *part* of the analysis needs to be the social issues. I think that is why
we find ourselves with a society that is part capitalism and part socialist. Because neither,
alone, are really very good societies to live in.
emt 377 emt 4
Indeed, uses that have already started. Women with a particular BRCA-1 marker have an 80% chance of developing breast cancer before age 65. Assuming a cheap test, most women should probably be tested. Even with a more expensive test, women with a family history should probably be tested. Positive test results may indicate that differences in health monitoring and/or treatment are appropriate. It seems likely that as tests for genetic markers become cheap, they will be incorporated along with other mandatory blood tests performed on newborns -- eg, PKU screening.
I'm beginning to think that it's a national disgrace that the US will be spending energy on the question "How do we keep this technology from being used to deny people health care?" while the rest of the industrialized countries get to ask "How can we use this technology to provide cost-effective health care?"
Or perhaps care would be limited by civil war: treat everybody, until government mismanagement causes the citizenry to storm Congress, pitchforks and torches in hand.
Or perhaps care would be limited by race/culture: those who are or are descended from persecuted minorities get first dibs. (As a descendent of French Canadians, I'm all for this.) Note that this would only work until everybody intermarries or suddenly discovers non-white non-Europeans in their family history.
Or perhaps care would be limited by political persuasion: members of "the party" (whichever party or coalition is currently in power) get first dibs (while members of "the other party", if it exists, are stuck at the end of the line.) Rank within the party would need to be taken into account once everybody tries to join the party.
If they insure everybody, then there is no such thing as a preexisting condition.
I'd take the opposite approach, cut out all the middlemen and make health care something between a person and their doctor again. Individualizing health care will reduce healthcare costs and will lessen the interest of the business we work for in our health. If businesses don't pay directly, then they will have less interest in our health.
Pay for health care directly either through individual health plans or directly to a doctor's office on an ad hoc basis. The power of the purse will mean less interference and more privacy from both government and business interests.
Most doctors office visits would cost less than one month's health insurance premiums. When individuals that rarely see a doctor are paying $400 a month out of their paychecks there is something wrong. Making it mandatory and collecting through the IRS won't make the situation better. If some condition is costing more than $4000 a year to treat, then is it really in society's interest to treat it?
That said if you want to give kids some level of basic health care (immunizations, antibiotics for infections, cold medicine, etc I am willing to consider that.
Pretty damn progressive for the stereotypical big, uncaring megacorp.
Back in the day, IBM had quite the reputation for taking good care of its employees--lifetime employment, great pension plans, good benefits, etc. Many saw it as a community and family they were part of. Only after IBM had its big falling-apart (after it completely lost in the PC market circa late 80s, early 90s) did it become more stereotypical. All the same, still a great place to work in the tech industry.