May 20, 2008
Bar On Genetic "Bias" Could Harm Consumers
Analysis of:
Congress Passes Bill to Bar Bias Based on Genes | www.nytimes.com
This analysis is solely the work of the author. It has not been edited or endorsed by GLG.
Implications: This bill would limit innovative health insurance products which could actually lower rates for consumers.
Analysis:
Congress has now passed legislation to forbid employers and insurance companies of "discriminating" against people on the basis of information gleaned from tests of their genetic proclivity for disease. I haven't studied this in depth, but forbidding the marketplace to use valid information rubs me the wrong way.
Wouldn't the use of such information allow people with fewer genetic risk factors to obtain less expensive (and more accurately priced) insurance? How is this different from charging smokers more for health insurance? Is just that smoking is voluntary but we refuse to use information caused by involuntary factors?
Calling it genetic "discrimination" is in itself discriminatory/conclusory. Perhaps offering discounts to those without known genetic risk factors would serve to encourage people to get the tests -- and if they tested positive, they'd be better prepared to take protective action where possible.
I guess I'm in minority on this issue, though: No Senators voted against the bill, and the vote in the House was 414-1, with only Rep. Ron Paul opposed.
Analysis:
Congress has now passed legislation to forbid employers and insurance companies of "discriminating" against people on the basis of information gleaned from tests of their genetic proclivity for disease. I haven't studied this in depth, but forbidding the marketplace to use valid information rubs me the wrong way.
Wouldn't the use of such information allow people with fewer genetic risk factors to obtain less expensive (and more accurately priced) insurance? How is this different from charging smokers more for health insurance? Is just that smoking is voluntary but we refuse to use information caused by involuntary factors?
Calling it genetic "discrimination" is in itself discriminatory/conclusory. Perhaps offering discounts to those without known genetic risk factors would serve to encourage people to get the tests -- and if they tested positive, they'd be better prepared to take protective action where possible.
I guess I'm in minority on this issue, though: No Senators voted against the bill, and the vote in the House was 414-1, with only Rep. Ron Paul opposed.
Report a Concern
More GLG News in
Legal, Economic & Regulatory Affairs
Most Popular:
Source Article | Expert Analyses
Partial settlement reached in Exxon Valdez case
www.dallasnews.com
Court Decision: Tiffany v. eBay
www1.nysd.uscourts.gov
U.S. trade commission loses bid for Rambus appeal
www.reuters.com
Decision: 20th Century Fox v. Cablevision
www.eff.org
Billions Not for the Plaintiffs Bar
www.law.com
Exxon Settles!
September 1, 2008
Rambus Wins Again
August 29, 2008
Does Cablevision Matter?
August 29, 2008
From eBay, the Law Should Expect More
August 29, 2008
Afghanistan: March Back Naked, the Ultimate Concessions: Theirs or Ours.
August 25, 2008