GINA, The Good News: Engaging the Public

This is the third post in a series of posts in which I share what I see as the ups and downs of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA or H.R. 493). In this post I address a potential positive:

A little discussed portion of GINA may be cause for celebration. Title II, Section 208, Subsection (b) of GINA calls for the establishment of the Genetic Nondiscrimination Study Commission after GINA has been enacted for six years. The purpose of the Commission is to evaluate the status of genetic science, genetic discrimination, public perception, and other factors, and to make recommendations to Congress regarding possible future legislation. Here, it would seem as though Congress has exercised a reasonable amount of foresight. Scientific knowledge is expanding at an amazing rate; faster than society and its laws can react, resulting in public fear and apprehension. Public fears are important and they must be listened to; public fears shouldn't always determine legislative action, but they cannot be brushed aside or ignored. In this case, Congress seemed to understand this dichotomy. They did the research. They listened to experts, and they acted. – Sam Beasley

GINA, The Bad News: Adverse Selection

This is the second post in a series of posts in which I share what I see as the ups and downs of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA or H.R. 493).

Although the legislation will hopefully do much to encourage research and protect predictive health patients, GINA is not all roses. The legislation has numerous critics who have good reasons to be critical. For starters, it sets the stage for adverse selection to occur in the health insurance industry.

Adverse selection happens when an information gap emerges between the beneficiary and the insurer; if the beneficiary knows much more than the insurer, then the insurer is unable to accurately assess the beneficiary’s risk. This information imbalance results in more claims being made than the insurer reasonably predicted. GINA facilitates this phenomenon by allowing beneficiaries access to genetic information, but denying it to insurers. If, for example, a beneficiary finds out from a genetic test that he has a significantly increased risk of developing prostate cancer, he would use that information in deciding whether or not to purchase insurance, but the insurer would be unaware of that increased risk in deciding in which group the individual should be placed, what rate he should be charged, etc.

This is potentially a big problem in the insurance industry, because insurers need to be able to accurately determine risk in order to prevent claims exceeding predicted levels. In the long run, inaccurate risk predictions in the industry will result in rate hikes, and rate hikes will drive healthier participants out of groups. In a the worst case scenario, this could start a downward spiral in the direction of group or insurer insolvency. - Sam Beasley

The Good News: GINA; The Bad News ... ?

A few weeks ago, congress passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), a much anticipated piece of legislation, nearly thirteen years in the making. Since the first version of the bill prohibiting genetic discrimination was introduced in Congress in 1995, the legislation has received significant bipartisan support and support from both the Clinton and Bush White Houses. Until recently, however, even in the face of all of that support, just a few members of Congress were able to block the legislation's progress. An agreement has finally been reached, and GINA is now the law of the land; it was signed by President Bush on Wednesday, May 21st.

Regular readers of PredictER Blog know that we have been following GINA; now that it has been signed, it's time to kick the tires and to see what we've got. This is the first of a series of posts in which I share what I see as the ups and downs of this legislation. I'll alternate between the good news and the bad news and conclude with an overall "thumbs up" or "thumbs down". For this post, some good news:

GINA really is a big deal, in the legislative sense. It provides (at least in theory) significant protection from discrimination based upon genetic information in the employment and health insurance contexts. Studies by the NIH and other institutions have revealed that the vast majority of the American public is afraid of being discriminated against in these arenas and believes that it would be wrong for employers and insurers to do so. Furthermore, additional studies have revealed that a significant number of people who would be likely to benefit medically from genetic tests choose to forgo them for fear that they will lose their job, or health care coverage depending upon the results. Along the same lines, many people are choosing not to participate in important research that requires subjects to undergo genetic testing out of fear of discrimination. Clearly, then, GINA should help to allay public apprehensions and to encourage both the pace of research and the practice of personalized medicine.

But … stay tuned for the "bad news". – Sam Beasley

Insurance and Incentives: Private or Public?

[Sam Beasley, a law and bioethics student here at Indiana University, is a new member of the PredictER team. I asked him, as a way of introducing himself to PredictER's readers and friends, to share his thoughts on any topic relevant to the future of predictive health and personalized medicine. I think this is a good post and I hope that we will see more of Sam's contributions to PredictER Blog in the weeks to come. – Jere Odell]

Now, before I begin, I need to state upfront that this is the first blog post I have ever written and I am in no way an expert in politics, public policy, health care provision, insurance. I am also new to the PredictER project, and will be working with Jennifer Girod to investigate the legal and policy implications of predictive medicine. I hope that this experience will broaden and deepen my understanding of health care and public policy. Jere asked me to share what's on my mind, so here it is:

Following the publication of "Insurance Fears Lead Many to Shun DNA Tests" in The New York Times (24 February 2008), the blogosphere lit up with comments on the need to protect people from discrimination—protection that would be, presumably, provided by S. 358, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). A few, like David Dooling of PolITiGenomics, observed that the status-quo of insurance provision in the United States may seriously discourage the progress of medical research and personalized medicine. I'd like to take this discussion and move it an inch or two away from the worthy topic of discrimination. Let's think about the research and health care climate:

Which insurance system provides the most incentive to pursue predictive and preventative forms of medicine: a public-funded system or the current private system—one, in which private companies sell insurance to individuals?

As I said, I am certainly not an expert on these issues, but it seems to me that the major means of preventing chronic disease are, in large measure, socially, culturally and politically influenced (think food subsidies, health education in public schools, etc.). If eating a healthy diet, exercising regularly, getting scheduled medical exams, and avoiding unhealthy habits such as smoking and drug abuse are indeed foundational in the pursuit of life-long health, then public ownership would seem to be the way to go.

Public is superior to private because by spreading the bill for health care over the entire population, you would provide increased incentive for voters to support public programs that promote preventative health measures. In private systems where like-situated individuals are pooled together, the healthy will remain concerned about their own health, and not the health of their neighbors. Only when the health of all affects the individual, will the individual begin to care. And if we’ve learned anything in America, the quickest way to get people to care is through their wallet.

I am not arguing here that this is the “fairest” way to do things, (although my liberal leaning makes me inclined to think that basic health care for all is a social good worth our investment) to the contrary; some may abuse the system and choose not to pursue healthy living practices simply because they know that the cost to them will be subsidized by everyone else. I merely intend to say that if we want to stem the tide of deteriorating health in this country, we have got to find a way to make healthy living a social value. Broad-reaching social programs can do a lot to influence individual practices. If we can teach people to live in a way conducive to health, provide incentives for doing so, and get them the care that they need before minor problems turn into major ones [note: emergency room care will never be the most cost-effective means of providing basic health care needs], then we might be able to turn things around. Of course, this is just one piece in a complicated puzzle, but we have got to do better by ourselves, and if a public health care system is a step in the right direction, then we should pursue it. – Sam Beasley