Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:52:15.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic Information and Health Insurance: State Legislative Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Karen H. Rothenberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We may create a catch-22 so that only people who are unlikely to need health insurance can afford it.... Genetic risk testing is important because it exposes the logic of a system that provides access to health insurance to those least likely to need it.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , Winter 1995 , pp. 312 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Murray, T.H., “Genetics and the Moral Mission of Health Insurance,” Hastings Center Report, 22, no. 6 (1992): 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Genetic discrimination refers to discrimination directed against an individual or family based solely on an apparent or perceived genetic variation from the ‘normal’ human genotype.” Billings, P.R. et al., “Discrimination as a Consequence of Genetic Testing,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 50 (1992): At 476.Google Scholar
This is not to imply that fear of genetic discrimination is not an issue in the life and disability income insurance context as well. However, this article, like most legislative approaches to date, focuses on health insurance. But see Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 20-448 (1989); and Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-206 (1991) (life and disability insurance).Google Scholar
See Billings, et al., supra note 2. See also Hudson, K. et al., “Genetic Discrimination and Health Insurance: An Urgent Need for Reform,” Science, 270 (1995): 391–93.Google Scholar
State insurance reforms have addressed community rating, preexisting condition clauses, portability, guaranteed issue, and renewal. For a description of recent state legislative activity on health care reform, see generally Ladenheim, K. Lipson, L. Markus, A., Health Care Reform: 50 State Profiles (Washington, D.C.: George Washington University Intergovernmental Health Policy Project, 1994); and Parde, D. Popolo, C., Health Care Reform in the States: A Special Report on State Health Care Reform Initiatives (Alexandria: Council for Affordable Health Insurance, 1994).Google Scholar
This summary is based on two excellent discussions describing health insurance. See Advances in Genetic Information: A Guide for State Policy Makers (Lexington: Council of State Governments, 1993); and Genetic Information and Health Insurance (Bethesda: Task Force on Genetic Information and Insurance, NIH-DOE Working Group on Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Human Genome Research, 1993).Google Scholar
See Hudson, et al., supra note 4 (citing Employee Benefit Research Institute, Special Report SR-26, Issue Brief 158 (1995)).Google Scholar
See Hudson, et al., supra note 4, at 392.Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. (1974).Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 1011 (1988).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 12101–12213 (1990); and 42 U.S.C. § 12201 (1990).Google Scholar
On March 15, 1995, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission clarified that “disability” applies to individuals who are subjected to discrimination on the basis of genetic information relating to illness, disease, or other disorders. To illustrate their policy further, one example of genetic discrimination based on genetic information concerns an individual with an increased susceptibility to colon cancer. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Compliance Manual: Definition of the Term “Disability” (Mar. 15, 1995): § 902.Google Scholar
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-65-70 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 626.9707 (West 1978).Google Scholar
Md. Code Ann., Ins., § 223 (1986).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Cal. Ins. Code §§ 10123.2, 10123.3, 10123.31, 10123.35, 10140, 10140.1, 10140.5, 10147, 10148, 10149, 10149.1, 11512.95, 11512.96, 11512.965 (West 1994 & West 1995); and Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 1374.7, 1374.9 (West 1994 & West 1995).Google Scholar
Col. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1104.7 (1994).Google Scholar
Ga. Code Ann. § 33-54-1-8 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1995 Minn. Laws 251.Google Scholar
1995 N.H. Laws 101.Google Scholar
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1742.42, 1742.43, 3901.49, 3901.491, 3901.50, 3901.501 (Baldwin 1993).Google Scholar
1995 Or. Laws 680.Google Scholar
S. 576 and S. 299, Haw. 18th Leg. (1995); and H. 1556, Haw. 18th Leg. (1995).Google Scholar
H. 2251, Kan. Sess. (1995).Google Scholar
H. 4485, Mass. (1995).Google Scholar
H. 1662, Pa. 179th Gen. Assembly (1995–96).Google Scholar
1995 Or. Laws 680.Google Scholar
Cal. Ins. Code § 10147(b) (West 1994).Google Scholar
Wis. Stat. Ann. § 631.89 (West 1991).Google Scholar
1995 Minn. Laws 251.Google Scholar
Cal. Ins. Code § 10147(e) (West 1994).Google Scholar
1995 N.H. Laws 101.Google Scholar
A. 227, §§ 2 & 3, Wis. Leg. (1995–96).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
1995 N.H. Laws 101.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Wis. Stat. Ann. § 631.89(2)(b) (West 1991).Google Scholar
A. 227, Wis. Leg. (1995–96).Google Scholar
Special Comm. on Genetic and Medical Information, Wis. Joint Legis. Counsel (1994).Google Scholar
Cal. Ins. Code § 10149.1 (West 1994).Google Scholar
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1104.7(3)(a) (1994).Google Scholar
1995 Or. Laws 680; and Ga. Ann. Code § 33-54-1(1) (1995).Google Scholar
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 760.40 (West 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wis. Stat. Ann. § 631.89(3)(b) (West 1991).Google Scholar
1995 N.H. Laws 101.Google Scholar
1995 Minn. Laws 251.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Cal. Ins. Code § 10148(a)–(b) (West 1994).Google Scholar
H. 4485 § 1-E, Mass. (1995).Google Scholar
L. Res. 467, Neb. (1994). In addition, both Nebraska and Massachusetts have bills pending to establish commissions to study the utilization of genetic information. See L. 698, Neb. 94th Leg., 1st Sess. (1995); and S. 2045, Mass. 179th Gen. Court, 1st Sess. (1995).Google Scholar
H. 71 § 3, Ohio 120th Gen. Assembly (1993) (enacted).Google Scholar
S.J. Res. 372, Va. Reg. Sess. (1994–95).Google Scholar
H. 343, Tex. (1995).Google Scholar
A. 5892, N.Y. Reg. Sess. (1995).Google Scholar
A. 7839, N.Y. Reg. Sess. (1995–96).Google Scholar
A. 5796, N.Y. Reg. Sess. (1995–96).Google Scholar
See Hudson, et al., supra note 4, at 392.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See, for example, the Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995 (S. 1028), introduced by Senator Kassebaum on July 13, 1995. The Labor and Human Resources Committee on Senate Bill 1028 did state, however, that genetic information is to be included in its prohibitions against denying coverage based on health status or medical history. The Clinton administration's proposal for health care reform did prohibit limiting access or coverage on the basis of “existing medical conditions or genetic predisposition to medical conditions.” Id. (citing the Health Security Act, § 1516, S. 1757/H.R. 3600).Google Scholar
Hudson, et al., supra note 4, at 392.Google Scholar
The NIH-DOE ELSI Working Group has a “broad and diverse membership including genome scientists; medical geneticists; experts in law, ethics and philosophy; and consumers, to explore and propose options for the development of sound professional and public policies related to human genome research and its applications.” Id.Google Scholar
NAPBC is a “public-private partnership designed to eradicate breast cancer as a threat to the lives of American women,” and it “has identified genetic discrimination in health insurance as a high priority.” Id. at 393.Google Scholar
These recommendations have been endorsed by the National Advisory Council on Human Genome Research. Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. Furthermore, legislation should provide enforcement mechanisms, including civil and criminal liability, to assure that insurance entities comply with these provisions. For example, as noted earlier, California provides that negligent and willful disclosure of genetic test results without authorization is subject to civil and criminal liability. Cal. Ins. Code § 10147(b) (1994).Google Scholar
Since November 1995, a few federal bills that address genetic discrimination and privacy have been introduced; they include the Genetic Privacy and Nondiscrimination Act of 1995 (S. 1416), introduced by Senator Hatfield, and a similar bill (H.R. 2690), introduced by Representative Stearns. In addition, Representative Slaughter introduced the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1995 (H.R. 2748), which integrates the four recommendations developed by ELSI and NAPBC. Senator Feinstein is also considering the introduction of similar insurance legislation in the Senate. With respect to privacy, Senator Bennett has introduced the Medical Records Confidentiality Act of 1995 (S. 1360), which generally addresses health information and privacy, but does not specifically consider genetic information.Google Scholar