Over the last few days, I have heard two discussions – one on the radio and the other at the Indiana University Center for Bioethics – that have given me a new and deeper understanding of the meaning of health insurance and of the challenges of incorporating Predictive Health information into healthcare. These two presentations came together to give me a new understanding of the spiritual dimension of health insurance.
The first discussion occurred on the NPR program "Speaking of Faith," hosted by Krista Tippett. This week the program featured an interview with Parker Palmer, a Quaker writer and educator, and focused on themes related to the current economic meltdown. When discussion turned to the role of greed in causing the crisis, Palmer commented that greed stems at least partly from a sense of isolation and a lack of feeling of being part of a community. If a person feels that he cannot rely on others for help at times of need, he will understandably develop the impulse to acquire as much as possible, to attempt to amass a sort of fortress against possible danger to him and his family.
This immediately reminded me of the state of healthcare and health insurance in this country. As premiums rise and increasing numbers of businesses cut back on health insurance for employees and retirees, more and more Americans are living without health insurance or facing the very real possibility of this. And what could cause a greater feeling of isolation – of living without support from others – than finding yourself without available or affordable health insurance? Even those of us who do have health insurance must feel insecure as we observe the growing ranks of uninsured and underinsured people. The historic economic downturn has made the trend only worse, of course.
Palmer’s comment highlights one of the many destructive effects of fearfulness. And it highlights the importance of making health insurance available and affordable. In short, universal health insurance, in my view, would play a significant role in helping to combat the feeling of isolation and helplessness that many feel in the current situation.
And here’s where Predictive Health information comes into the picture. Predictive Health Research (PHR) promises to provide new ways to identify individuals’ specific level of health risk and provide new, more targeted medical care. A healthcare system that provided excellent preventive care, guided by breakthroughs in PHR, could greatly reduce mortality and morbidity. We could improve the sense of safety and trust that supports a healthy spiritual life. But here’s where the fly lands in the ointment. At our biweekly meeting of the PredictER program this week at the IU Center for Bioethics, Eleanor Kinney JD, MPH, and Jennifer Girod JD, PhD, RN, presented a talk about the ways that Predictive Health information threatens to undermine the current system of health insurance. In short, identifying people’s risk levels creates perverse incentives for patients and for insurance companies. Individuals with lower risk have less reason to join the insurance “pool,” since their premiums disproportionately support care for others, rather than themselves. At the same time, insurance companies have the incentive of excluding those at higher risk, or at least charging them higher premiums. As Kinney and Girod pointed out, there are various schemes for blocking this destructive dynamic, although things get difficult pretty fast.
But sitting there listening to them, I realized that once again we were talking about the challenge of how to bind us together as a society and take care of everybody – the high risk and the low risk alike. How tragic if the same scientific breakthroughs that could allow for improved preventive care for all were to result in worse care and isolation for those at the highest risk. That would truly be a situation where isolation, not trust and community, would have its day.
Peter Schwartz, MD, PhD
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
Medical Records, Insurance and Prediction: GINA Will Not Keep this Fox Out of the Henhouse
In a recent Washington Post article (4 August 2008), "Prescription Data Used to Access Consumers", Ellen Nakashima writes about the availability of medical records for data mining. Insurance companies have begun to use databases of prescription records to assess the risks of insuring individuals or when deciding to pay for a treatment. For example, a report could show that an "individual has been on the highest does of the cholesterol-reducing drug Zocor for 18 months" and an insurance company could determine that the patient has "a very high, near-intractable cholesterol problem … and could avoid a costly blood test". The article also points out that these records are more honest than many applicants for insurance and could reduce the cost of insurance while facilitating faster decision making. While HIPAA stipulates that patient consent must be acquired before these records can be accessed, "HIPAA does not give the Department of Health and Human Services the ability to directly investigate or hold accountable … pharmacy benefit managers". Nakashima reports that the increasing availability of electronic records will result in a market in which data mining organizations compete to sell the most complete and cheapest sources of patient data to insurers. Joy Pritts, of the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute observes that "Most people don't even know these organizations exist . . . ." Privacy consultant, Bob Gellman notes that "consumers will likely continue to have no real meaningful choices if they want insurance". Richard Dick, a database designer, suggests better privacy tools for consumers which would allow patients to be more specific when consenting to release medical information, "Otherwise … you have the fox in charge of the henhouse".
I want to know what incentives motivate patients to consent to release this information in the first place. I'm guessing that insurance coverage may depend upon consent; if so, is this real "consent"? – J.O.
I want to know what incentives motivate patients to consent to release this information in the first place. I'm guessing that insurance coverage may depend upon consent; if so, is this real "consent"? – J.O.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
The Best Predictive Health Ethics Blogs - May 2008
It was a busy month for predictive health news: the president signed GINA, Francis Collins announced his eminent retirement, bloggers reported from important conferences at Case Western and Cold Spring Harbor, and Google announced the debut of Google Health. These events, and others, are reflected in this month's edition of the best blogs on the ethical issues of predictive health.
Are you diseased? Pre-diseased? Potentially diseased? Greg Dahlmann, blog.bioethics.net. 6 May 2008.
In this insightful post, Dahlmann examines how predictive health is changing our concept of disease. When, exactly, does increased risk = illness? Dahlmann writes:
So we're moving from the concept of disease as a state of impaired function to it representing particular sets of probabilities. In the past you were sick when you had a heart attack. Today, you're sick -- or pre-sick, perhaps -- when you have high cholesterol. What about when it's possible to identify constellations of genes that significantly increase your chances of having high cholesterol, or a heart attack. Would that be considered a disease?
Also see Dahlmann's follow up post on "previvors": Blood Matters. Greg Dahlmann, blog.bioethics.net. 11 May 2008.
NHGRI Director Francis Collins to Step Down on August 1. Hsien-Hsien Lei, Eye on DNA. 28 May 2008.
Lei shares the news the Francis Collins will retire from his post this summer and that Alan E. Guttmacher will become acting director. Lei also some thoughts on Collins' book The Language of God.
In All Fairness. Fred Trotter, Fred Trotter: My life and thoughts, often about FOSS in medicine. 23 May 2008.
Following the news coverage on the release of Google Health, Fred Trotter weighs in on the privacy questions. Trotter argues that Google is not a health care provider and is, therefore, not covered by HIPAA. He writes:
Both Google Health and HealthVault are designed to make the process of dissemination of your health information to people you want them to be disseminated to easier. Are they doing that in a secure, privacy respecting way? Excellent question; fodder for further posts. Should they be covered by the same laws that cover your healthcare providers? No.
Workman's Compensation, Stereotypes and GATTACA. Steve Murphy, Gene Sherpas: Personalized Medicine and You. 10 May 2008.
Murphy addresses a few of the potential social consequences of predictive medicine, by examining the following scenario:
Young person goes to 23andME/Navigenics/ETC (They just may add this immediately)....gets predictive testing indicating that he is at a 300 fold increased risk of herniating a disc in his back. Avoids manual labor (plays video games all day) never herniates the disc. Did we do society a service?
23andMe, deCODEme and Navigenics at Cold Spring Harbor. Daniel MacArthur, Genetic Future. 9 May 2008.
MacArthur reports, first hand, from the "Biology of Genomes" meeting at Cold Spring Harbor. In addition to the big players in the consumer genomics movement, the speakers at the event included some ethics and policy experts, like Kathy Hudson from Johns Hopkins. Hudson, MacArthur notes, "responded to the problem of patients being given data of very limited predictive value with a very sensible solution: 'In the absence of demonstrable harm, the default should be to provide the information.'"
Genetic testing ethics - consent forms becoming incomprehensible. Elaine Warburton, Genetics and Health. 7 May 2008.
Warburton covers the Translating ELSI, Ethical Legal Social Implications of Human Genetics Research conference at Case Western University in Cleveland. In this entry she reports on Laura Beskow's comments regarding informed consent and the attitudes and concerns of research participants. Also see Warburton's related coverage of pediatric research ethics discussions at the conference in her post: Genetic Ethics - testing and storing our kids’ DNA. Genetics and Health. 7 May 2008.
The FDA ditches the Declaration of Helsinki. Stuart Rennie, Global Bioethics Blog. 6 May 2008.
Stuart Rennie of Global Bioethics Blog examines the implications of the FDA's decision to abandon the Declaration of Helsinki. While Rennie focuses on the potential impact of this decision on US research overseas, and not specifically on predictive health research, this decision may have far reaching consequences on clinical trials of any sort. Rennie concludes with the following verdict: "the decision would seem to encourage pharmaceutical companies to cut ethical corners when working abroad".
GINA Series: Irrational Bureaucratic Risk Abhorrence [Page 1]. Andrew Yates, Think Gene. 24 May 2008.
This is the first post of a (thus far) four part series on GINA. Each post begins with the introduction:
Recently, President Bush signed GINA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, into law. GINA makes it illegal for employers or health insurers to discriminate based on genetics. Virtually the entire genetics community has lauds this legislation, yet few have written why it's wrong that employers and services review objective facts to make decisions. … “It’s not fair…” but why?
The Puzzling Consensus in Favor of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Eric Posner, The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog. 6 May 2008.
In what may be the most influential post covered in this edition of the best predictive health ethics blogs, Chicago Law professor Eric Posner examines the GINA and asks some compelling questions:
Should the insurance company be permitted to offer the cheap insurance policy only to people who obtain a doctor's certification that a genetic test shows that they belong to the low-risk group? If you think that insurers should be able to discriminate on the basis of visible markers and on the basis of simple doctors' tests for the presence of dangerous diseases, then you should think they should be able to discriminate on the basis of genetic tests. There is no morally relevant distinction between looking at a person's blood for the evidence of infection and looking at his DNA for evidence of susceptibility to a disease. ... The only explanation for the enthusiasm for GINA is that there is an inchoate feeling among people that there is something wrong with the way the insurance market operates.
Medical Genetics Is Not Eugenics. Gabriella Coleman ("biella"), What Sorts of People. 16 May 2008.
Coleman responds to Ruth Cowan’s article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Medical Genetics Is Not Eugenics”. Although Cowan sees little value in thinking about the similarities of modern medical genetics and the mid-century eugenics movement, Coleman cautions:
Even if, as [Cowan] rightly states that genetic testing is oriented primarily toward easing human suffering, genetic testing is still entangled with fraught ethical questions about what types of life we value, what is acceptable human life, and what is not—the very sorts of questions central to eugenics.
Are you diseased? Pre-diseased? Potentially diseased? Greg Dahlmann, blog.bioethics.net. 6 May 2008.
In this insightful post, Dahlmann examines how predictive health is changing our concept of disease. When, exactly, does increased risk = illness? Dahlmann writes:
So we're moving from the concept of disease as a state of impaired function to it representing particular sets of probabilities. In the past you were sick when you had a heart attack. Today, you're sick -- or pre-sick, perhaps -- when you have high cholesterol. What about when it's possible to identify constellations of genes that significantly increase your chances of having high cholesterol, or a heart attack. Would that be considered a disease?
Also see Dahlmann's follow up post on "previvors": Blood Matters. Greg Dahlmann, blog.bioethics.net. 11 May 2008.
NHGRI Director Francis Collins to Step Down on August 1. Hsien-Hsien Lei, Eye on DNA. 28 May 2008.
Lei shares the news the Francis Collins will retire from his post this summer and that Alan E. Guttmacher will become acting director. Lei also some thoughts on Collins' book The Language of God.
In All Fairness. Fred Trotter, Fred Trotter: My life and thoughts, often about FOSS in medicine. 23 May 2008.
Following the news coverage on the release of Google Health, Fred Trotter weighs in on the privacy questions. Trotter argues that Google is not a health care provider and is, therefore, not covered by HIPAA. He writes:
Both Google Health and HealthVault are designed to make the process of dissemination of your health information to people you want them to be disseminated to easier. Are they doing that in a secure, privacy respecting way? Excellent question; fodder for further posts. Should they be covered by the same laws that cover your healthcare providers? No.
Workman's Compensation, Stereotypes and GATTACA. Steve Murphy, Gene Sherpas: Personalized Medicine and You. 10 May 2008.
Murphy addresses a few of the potential social consequences of predictive medicine, by examining the following scenario:
Young person goes to 23andME/Navigenics/ETC (They just may add this immediately)....gets predictive testing indicating that he is at a 300 fold increased risk of herniating a disc in his back. Avoids manual labor (plays video games all day) never herniates the disc. Did we do society a service?
23andMe, deCODEme and Navigenics at Cold Spring Harbor. Daniel MacArthur, Genetic Future. 9 May 2008.
MacArthur reports, first hand, from the "Biology of Genomes" meeting at Cold Spring Harbor. In addition to the big players in the consumer genomics movement, the speakers at the event included some ethics and policy experts, like Kathy Hudson from Johns Hopkins. Hudson, MacArthur notes, "responded to the problem of patients being given data of very limited predictive value with a very sensible solution: 'In the absence of demonstrable harm, the default should be to provide the information.'"
Genetic testing ethics - consent forms becoming incomprehensible. Elaine Warburton, Genetics and Health. 7 May 2008.
Warburton covers the Translating ELSI, Ethical Legal Social Implications of Human Genetics Research conference at Case Western University in Cleveland. In this entry she reports on Laura Beskow's comments regarding informed consent and the attitudes and concerns of research participants. Also see Warburton's related coverage of pediatric research ethics discussions at the conference in her post: Genetic Ethics - testing and storing our kids’ DNA. Genetics and Health. 7 May 2008.
The FDA ditches the Declaration of Helsinki. Stuart Rennie, Global Bioethics Blog. 6 May 2008.
Stuart Rennie of Global Bioethics Blog examines the implications of the FDA's decision to abandon the Declaration of Helsinki. While Rennie focuses on the potential impact of this decision on US research overseas, and not specifically on predictive health research, this decision may have far reaching consequences on clinical trials of any sort. Rennie concludes with the following verdict: "the decision would seem to encourage pharmaceutical companies to cut ethical corners when working abroad".
GINA Series: Irrational Bureaucratic Risk Abhorrence [Page 1]. Andrew Yates, Think Gene. 24 May 2008.
This is the first post of a (thus far) four part series on GINA. Each post begins with the introduction:
Recently, President Bush signed GINA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, into law. GINA makes it illegal for employers or health insurers to discriminate based on genetics. Virtually the entire genetics community has lauds this legislation, yet few have written why it's wrong that employers and services review objective facts to make decisions. … “It’s not fair…” but why?
The Puzzling Consensus in Favor of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Eric Posner, The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog. 6 May 2008.
In what may be the most influential post covered in this edition of the best predictive health ethics blogs, Chicago Law professor Eric Posner examines the GINA and asks some compelling questions:
Should the insurance company be permitted to offer the cheap insurance policy only to people who obtain a doctor's certification that a genetic test shows that they belong to the low-risk group? If you think that insurers should be able to discriminate on the basis of visible markers and on the basis of simple doctors' tests for the presence of dangerous diseases, then you should think they should be able to discriminate on the basis of genetic tests. There is no morally relevant distinction between looking at a person's blood for the evidence of infection and looking at his DNA for evidence of susceptibility to a disease. ... The only explanation for the enthusiasm for GINA is that there is an inchoate feeling among people that there is something wrong with the way the insurance market operates.
Medical Genetics Is Not Eugenics. Gabriella Coleman ("biella"), What Sorts of People. 16 May 2008.
Coleman responds to Ruth Cowan’s article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Medical Genetics Is Not Eugenics”. Although Cowan sees little value in thinking about the similarities of modern medical genetics and the mid-century eugenics movement, Coleman cautions:
Even if, as [Cowan] rightly states that genetic testing is oriented primarily toward easing human suffering, genetic testing is still entangled with fraught ethical questions about what types of life we value, what is acceptable human life, and what is not—the very sorts of questions central to eugenics.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Retirement and Risk: Betting on Your Genes?
Jane Sarasohn-Kahn of Health Populi points to an interesting report from the Society of Actuaries. In a survey of Americans age 45 to 80 both pre-retirees and current retirees are most concerned about the cost of health care in retirement. Pre-retirees worry about paying for "adequate care" and current retirees worry about paying for "long-term care". (These do not seem like mutually exclusive categories to me, but maybe I need to re-read the document: Understanding and Managing the Risks of Retirement: 2007 Risks and Process of Retirement Survey Report.) From a predictive health perspective, I wonder how personalized genetic information might change the risk perceptions and behaviors of those making retirement plans. Would, for example, a pre-retiring employee opt to work longer after acquiring a genetic test indicating an increased risk for a specific kind of cancer? If such a pre-retiree also learned that the peek incidence for almost all cancers is in late middle age and tapers off after about 70 years of age, they might work an extra decade just to be more certain that cancer wasn't "in the cards". On the other hand, would current retirees with genetic information that suggested a long (if not painless) lifespan purchase more aggressive insurance for long-term care? - J.O.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Texas: Your Boss, Your Medical Records and the Information Economy
According to the CDC's Public Health Law News (19 March 2008) and the Houston Chronicle, Texas is now the first state in the nation to require (as of Jan. 1, 2008) that insurance providers hand over employees' health records to their employers. Currently, employees have no way of knowing of (or resisting) their bosses' efforts to acquire their medical records.
This new Texas law, HB 2015 [PDF], passed the legislature despite the opposition of the insurance industry. Thus, at least this time, the insurance industry was arguing in favor of protecting patient privacy rights. As L. M. Sixel writes in the Houston Chronicle: "Medical privacy has been protected for years by the most unlikely guardians: insurance companies." But, before we imagine the insurance industry as a giant defending the front lines in the battle to secure the privacy of medical records, we should think about what was really at stake in this legislative tussle: information in the information economy.
Employers argued that they needed access to their employees' medical records to better assess and more wisely purchase health plans for their workforce. Insurers, on the other hand, would want to restrict access to information they already possess; information, which allows them (and not their customers) to make better bets on their investments. Of course, many worry that employers will misuse medical information about their employees, but I doubt that the insurance industry cares much about discriminatory employment practices. Would, for example, the insurer suffer if employees with increased health risks were some how trimmed from an employer's payroll?
Readers of this blog will want to know what this means for the exchange of genetic and other predictive medical information between insurers and employers. According to the Houston Chronicle, there's nothing to fear in Texas, because "employers still cannot obtain health information protected by other state or federal laws, such as HIV status, genetic test results or mental illness". I'm not a legal scholar, so this was news to me. Do we already have federal protections against the discriminatory use of genetic information in the work place? If so, how will the much discussed GINA add to these protections? - J.O.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Who Do You Trust ... With Your Genetic Information?
A recent post by Jane Sarasohn-Kahn of Health Populi summarizes the findings of the 2008 Edelman Trust Barometer. For those of us interested in the progress of predictive health research, who "we" trust is a key question. If participants and the community at large, including the legislators representing the community, do not trust the researchers who form biobanks and enroll participants in longitudinal studies, support will decline: the money will begin to dry up, adverse legislations will be passed, and (most importantly) potential research participants will do something else with their time and good will. Researchers will be relieved, therefore, to discover that the "Biotech/Life sciences" industry is one of the most trusted sectors in North America - a few points ahead of "Banks" and a few points behind "Technology".
One must remember, however, that the survey is limited to what the PR firm calls "opinion elites" - people Edelman's considers to be influential or, even, trend-setters. I suspect that most medical researchers hope for a more diverse demographic. Of course, even if the survey had measured the attitudes of a broader population, the findings would not be all good news for the future of predictive health research studies. The "Insurance" industry ranked only above "Media companies" on the trust-barometer in North America, and was ranked last in the global survey. Will people, even "opinion elites", be willing to participate in research if they anticipate that the results may be used unscrupulously (or to their personal disadvantage) by a distrusted insurance industry? Would you? - J.O.
One must remember, however, that the survey is limited to what the PR firm calls "opinion elites" - people Edelman's considers to be influential or, even, trend-setters. I suspect that most medical researchers hope for a more diverse demographic. Of course, even if the survey had measured the attitudes of a broader population, the findings would not be all good news for the future of predictive health research studies. The "Insurance" industry ranked only above "Media companies" on the trust-barometer in North America, and was ranked last in the global survey. Will people, even "opinion elites", be willing to participate in research if they anticipate that the results may be used unscrupulously (or to their personal disadvantage) by a distrusted insurance industry? Would you? - J.O.
Friday, March 14, 2008
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
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
Thursday, February 21, 2008
GINA and the "Axis of Evil"?
Although the status of S. 358, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), has not changed, [Senator Tom Coburn (Rep., Oklahoma) continues to block the bill], its place in legislative limbo still draws the attention of editors and bloggers. Earlier this month Nature reminded readers of the struggle to unblock the bill and provocatively named Coburn a "rogue senator". Coburn's expressed opposition to GINA evolves, but his strongest argument may be that he wants to protect insurers and employers from (as Nature writes) "an avalanche of frivolous litigation". Several states, however, have passed similar legislation and have not encountered the predicted avalanche in the civil courts. Many writers, including the editors of Nature, worry that Coburn's opposition to the bill is slowing the progress of personalized medicine. In response, therefore, the Nature editorial implicitly calls for the genetic research community to lobby on behalf of the bill. The editors note that "scientists should tell" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to break Coburn's hold. Reid could bring the bill to a vote by allowing 30 hours of Senate debate on the topic. However, as the Senate has many bills to address, Reid is unlikely to find 30 hours for GINA.
Among other responses, a post in a widely read political blog, Daily Kos, picked up the story and (like many observers in the United States) quickly assumed the worst of the health insurance industry: "actuaries across the coverage denial sector are salivating at the prospect of putting your genetic information to work for their bosses". Is the insurance industry really that pernicious? Yes, they make money by gambling on the health of individuals … and sometimes they refuse to take a bet, but are they (with Coburn) really worthy of Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric. Although I have to admit that I wouldn't volunteer my genetic information (assuming that I had it) to potential insurance providers, do we really know that insurance companies are eager to access our genetic information? Don't they already have good predictors and other data to use when assessing the odds of gambling on our health? (Smoking comes to mind.) In the immediate future, I wouldn't be surprised if the consumer genomics market will result in an increase in purchases of insurance policy upgrades. Given that the "predictive" value of genomic testing is very far from absolute, isn't it possible that many will overact to their new found "risks" and subsequently go impulse-shopping for more insurance? Perhaps the insurance companies would use genetic information to market more aggressive and supplemental coverage … would this be unjust "discrimination"? - J.O.
Among other responses, a post in a widely read political blog, Daily Kos, picked up the story and (like many observers in the United States) quickly assumed the worst of the health insurance industry: "actuaries across the coverage denial sector are salivating at the prospect of putting your genetic information to work for their bosses". Is the insurance industry really that pernicious? Yes, they make money by gambling on the health of individuals … and sometimes they refuse to take a bet, but are they (with Coburn) really worthy of Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric. Although I have to admit that I wouldn't volunteer my genetic information (assuming that I had it) to potential insurance providers, do we really know that insurance companies are eager to access our genetic information? Don't they already have good predictors and other data to use when assessing the odds of gambling on our health? (Smoking comes to mind.) In the immediate future, I wouldn't be surprised if the consumer genomics market will result in an increase in purchases of insurance policy upgrades. Given that the "predictive" value of genomic testing is very far from absolute, isn't it possible that many will overact to their new found "risks" and subsequently go impulse-shopping for more insurance? Perhaps the insurance companies would use genetic information to market more aggressive and supplemental coverage … would this be unjust "discrimination"? - J.O.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Ethics Meetings at PredictER
PredictER holds a semi-regular weekly meeting to discuss the ethical, legal and social issues relevant to the latest predictive health research. These meetings frequently include presentations from distinguished guest speakers. Recent speakers have included:
Greg Sachs, M.D. - Chief of the Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine.
Anantha Shekhar, M.D., Ph.D. - Associate Dean for Translational Research, Indiana University School of Medicine.
David W. Crabb, M.D. - Director of the Indiana Alcohol Research Center, Chair of the Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine.
Eric Wright, Ph.D. – Director, Center for Health Policy, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis.
Eleanor DeArman Kinney, J.D., M.P.H. - Hall Render Professor of Law, Co-director of the William S. and Christine S. Hall Center for Law and Health, Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis.
Jim Wolf, M.S. - Director, Survey Research Center, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis.
Most recently, Jennifer Girod, J.D., Ph.D., R.N. (IU Center for Bioethics/Sommer Barnard, PC) introduced and moderated a discussion of PredictER’s developing agenda for predictive health policy research. Four domains for potential public policy research were identified: the growing life sciences research and development sector, predictive health information and the future of insurance underwriting, the use and misuse of modestly predictive health information in clinical settings (including patient understanding of risk and related professional liabilities), and the impact of genomic information on public health.
The schedule for the rest of the month includes:
February 18 – 3:00: Elda Railey, Cynthia Burkhardt and Mary Lou Smith from the Research Advocacy Network will present their current activities and will discuss the influence advocates have had on tissue banking.
February 25 – 3:00: Anna Maria Storniolo, M.D., (Director, Catherine Peachey Breast Cancer Prevention Program) will share the progress of the Mary Ellen Tissue Bank.
If you are in the Indianapolis area and would like to attend, visit the Indiana University Center for Bioethics website for more information. - J.O.
Greg Sachs, M.D. - Chief of the Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine.
Anantha Shekhar, M.D., Ph.D. - Associate Dean for Translational Research, Indiana University School of Medicine.
David W. Crabb, M.D. - Director of the Indiana Alcohol Research Center, Chair of the Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine.
Eric Wright, Ph.D. – Director, Center for Health Policy, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis.
Eleanor DeArman Kinney, J.D., M.P.H. - Hall Render Professor of Law, Co-director of the William S. and Christine S. Hall Center for Law and Health, Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis.
Jim Wolf, M.S. - Director, Survey Research Center, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis.
Most recently, Jennifer Girod, J.D., Ph.D., R.N. (IU Center for Bioethics/Sommer Barnard, PC) introduced and moderated a discussion of PredictER’s developing agenda for predictive health policy research. Four domains for potential public policy research were identified: the growing life sciences research and development sector, predictive health information and the future of insurance underwriting, the use and misuse of modestly predictive health information in clinical settings (including patient understanding of risk and related professional liabilities), and the impact of genomic information on public health.
The schedule for the rest of the month includes:
February 18 – 3:00: Elda Railey, Cynthia Burkhardt and Mary Lou Smith from the Research Advocacy Network will present their current activities and will discuss the influence advocates have had on tissue banking.
February 25 – 3:00: Anna Maria Storniolo, M.D., (Director, Catherine Peachey Breast Cancer Prevention Program) will share the progress of the Mary Ellen Tissue Bank.
If you are in the Indianapolis area and would like to attend, visit the Indiana University Center for Bioethics website for more information. - J.O.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Insurance Underwriting and Healthcare Limbo
Baring our Genomes to Insurers
“As medieval European Christians feared to have their souls bared for public examination, lest they be suspected of heresy, so modern, secular Westerners fear the baring of the nearest thing to their individual essences that science has come up with: their genomes.” – The Economist, August 2007
As the article correctly suggests, the public’s preoccupation with their genetic information as it relates to their insurability reflects a deep concern of life-altering discrimination based on immutable characteristics. If a person bares their “soul” by taking a genetic screening test and discovers the existence of a genetic disorder, they may be subject to insurance underwriting which increases the premium, excludes certain medical conditions from coverage, or shortens the benefit period. Despite this clever analogy, the article’s conclusion (an eventual system overhaul) leaps over the public’s very real concerns regarding coverage during the transition to a reformed insurance industry.
A False Sense of Confidence: Underwriting with Imperfect Facts
The principle of individual underwriting relies on assessing future risk to determine eligibility and rates. These have traditionally been based on imperfect or external factors rather than highly certain predispositions. Several opponents of genetic exceptionalism, such as Mark Rothstein (35 J. Law. Med. & Ethics 59 (2007)), argue that genetics serve as an imperfect predictor of health. They remind us that the interplay between a genetic predisposition and environmental factors will affect a disorder’s severity and manifestation. Rothstein proposes a general increase in the privacy of health information rather than separately regulating genetic information.
Until Reform: Assessing the Current Legal Framework and Possible Effects
Although idealistic, waiting to pass a more perfect and encompassing federal regulation relating to information privacy in these contexts will not adequately address shortcomings in our current treatment of genetic information in the insurance arena. While no federal law exists to prohibit this practice by health insurance companies, state laws offer disparate protections and are widely misinterpreted. Several states expressly differentiate between health, disability, or life insurance, allowing discrimination for some coverage based on sound actuarial principles. If, at the same time, insurance companies and others misinterpret the significance of genetic test results, this confusion, as Hsien-Hsien Lei of Eye On DNA reminds us, would not be good news for future of predictive health care.
Despite the fact that genetics may serve as an imperfect proxy to assess future risk, insurance companies’ business interests dictate the compilation of as much information as possible to assess risk occurrence. Although no insurance companies currently require applicants to submit genetic tests for underwriting purposes, Nancy Kass and Amy Medley (35 J. Law. Med. & Ethics 66 (2007)) suggest that future insurance companies may adopt these procedures. A Kaiser Family Foundation Study conducted in 2001, which reported insurance company responses to hypothetical applicants, suggests that applications with a high predisposition to severe incurable illness would result in complete coverage denial. In such a scenario, as David P. Hamilton at VentureBeat suggests, individuals may be relegated to profitable and unprofitable segments. On the other hand, integrating genetic tests in the risk-rating process may eventually reach a status quo--that is, all individuals are predisposed to some illness or condition and coverage will eventually disperse.
While waiting for the hypothetical day in which insurance coverage (post-genetic testing) returns to status quo, state laws that allow underwriting (either by statute or via absence of legislation) based on an individual’s genetic information in any insurance context must be re-examined. Should we be concerned that a risk-calculating business may formulate assessments based on such imperfect data and with such severe consequences? Current legislative status suggests that insurance companies have no legal duty preventing them from using genetic information or perceived genetic characteristics as a basis for coverage, benefits, or denials in some contexts. Although no cases exist to document conflicts related to insurance, several notable cases in the employment context suggest it is imperative for the law to recognize a duty and a remedy to potentially injured individuals. Without the legal recognition of such rights, courts' conservative jurisprudence could prevent any legal remedy by dismissing plaintiffs’ claims. In such a context, health care and insurance consumers would sink from the medieval limbo The Economist describes to dire region of despair. -- K.D.
“As medieval European Christians feared to have their souls bared for public examination, lest they be suspected of heresy, so modern, secular Westerners fear the baring of the nearest thing to their individual essences that science has come up with: their genomes.” – The Economist, August 2007
As the article correctly suggests, the public’s preoccupation with their genetic information as it relates to their insurability reflects a deep concern of life-altering discrimination based on immutable characteristics. If a person bares their “soul” by taking a genetic screening test and discovers the existence of a genetic disorder, they may be subject to insurance underwriting which increases the premium, excludes certain medical conditions from coverage, or shortens the benefit period. Despite this clever analogy, the article’s conclusion (an eventual system overhaul) leaps over the public’s very real concerns regarding coverage during the transition to a reformed insurance industry.
A False Sense of Confidence: Underwriting with Imperfect Facts
The principle of individual underwriting relies on assessing future risk to determine eligibility and rates. These have traditionally been based on imperfect or external factors rather than highly certain predispositions. Several opponents of genetic exceptionalism, such as Mark Rothstein (35 J. Law. Med. & Ethics 59 (2007)), argue that genetics serve as an imperfect predictor of health. They remind us that the interplay between a genetic predisposition and environmental factors will affect a disorder’s severity and manifestation. Rothstein proposes a general increase in the privacy of health information rather than separately regulating genetic information.
Until Reform: Assessing the Current Legal Framework and Possible Effects
Although idealistic, waiting to pass a more perfect and encompassing federal regulation relating to information privacy in these contexts will not adequately address shortcomings in our current treatment of genetic information in the insurance arena. While no federal law exists to prohibit this practice by health insurance companies, state laws offer disparate protections and are widely misinterpreted. Several states expressly differentiate between health, disability, or life insurance, allowing discrimination for some coverage based on sound actuarial principles. If, at the same time, insurance companies and others misinterpret the significance of genetic test results, this confusion, as Hsien-Hsien Lei of Eye On DNA reminds us, would not be good news for future of predictive health care.
Despite the fact that genetics may serve as an imperfect proxy to assess future risk, insurance companies’ business interests dictate the compilation of as much information as possible to assess risk occurrence. Although no insurance companies currently require applicants to submit genetic tests for underwriting purposes, Nancy Kass and Amy Medley (35 J. Law. Med. & Ethics 66 (2007)) suggest that future insurance companies may adopt these procedures. A Kaiser Family Foundation Study conducted in 2001, which reported insurance company responses to hypothetical applicants, suggests that applications with a high predisposition to severe incurable illness would result in complete coverage denial. In such a scenario, as David P. Hamilton at VentureBeat suggests, individuals may be relegated to profitable and unprofitable segments. On the other hand, integrating genetic tests in the risk-rating process may eventually reach a status quo--that is, all individuals are predisposed to some illness or condition and coverage will eventually disperse.
While waiting for the hypothetical day in which insurance coverage (post-genetic testing) returns to status quo, state laws that allow underwriting (either by statute or via absence of legislation) based on an individual’s genetic information in any insurance context must be re-examined. Should we be concerned that a risk-calculating business may formulate assessments based on such imperfect data and with such severe consequences? Current legislative status suggests that insurance companies have no legal duty preventing them from using genetic information or perceived genetic characteristics as a basis for coverage, benefits, or denials in some contexts. Although no cases exist to document conflicts related to insurance, several notable cases in the employment context suggest it is imperative for the law to recognize a duty and a remedy to potentially injured individuals. Without the legal recognition of such rights, courts' conservative jurisprudence could prevent any legal remedy by dismissing plaintiffs’ claims. In such a context, health care and insurance consumers would sink from the medieval limbo The Economist describes to dire region of despair. -- K.D.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Other Blogs of Interest: The Personal Genome; Eye On DNA; The Genetic Genealogist
From Jason Bobe's The Personal Genome: Genomics as a medical tool and lifestyle choice:
"Camping Around Health Insurance Discrimination".
From Hsien-Hsien Lei's Eye On DNA:
"Amerindian DNA Sells for 55 Dollars".
From Blaine Bettinger's The Genetic Genealogist:
The Genographic Project Public Participation Mitochondrial DNA Database:
"Camping Around Health Insurance Discrimination".
- People who offer solutions to the genetics and health insurance issue, tend to fall into three camps:
- 1. the patient advocates
2. the free-market purists
3. the ignotarians
From Hsien-Hsien Lei's Eye On DNA:
"Amerindian DNA Sells for 55 Dollars".
- Clearly, scientists and others asking indigenous populations to donate biological samples need to do a better of job of communicating the overarching goals and benefits such studies can achieve. Judith Greenberg, director of genetics and developmental biology at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences:
- This is sort of a balancing act. We don’t want to do something that makes a whole tribe or people unhappy or angry. On the other hand, the scientific community is using these samples, which were accepted and maintained under perfectly legitimate procedures, for the benefit of mankind.
Legitimate for us maybe, but not necessarily for the Karitiana people.
From Blaine Bettinger's The Genetic Genealogist:
The Genographic Project Public Participation Mitochondrial DNA Database:
- An overview of-- The Genographic Project Public Participation Mitochondrial DNA Database. Behar DM, Rosset S, Blue-Smith J, Balanovsky O, Tzur S, et al. PLoS Genetics Vol. 3, No. 6, e104. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030104.
Bettinger notes: "This paper is all about the mtDNA sequences they have obtained through the project. In the first 18 months of the project, they have collected an amazing 78,590 mtDNA genotypes!!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)