Distinguishing genetic from nongenetic medical tests: Some implications for antidiscrimination legislation

Genetic discrimination is becoming an increasingly important problem in the United States. Information acquired from genetic tests has been used by insurance companies to reject applications for insurance policies and to refuse payment for the treatment of illnesses. Numerous states and the United States Congress have passed or are considering passage of laws that would forbid such use of genetic information by health insurance companies. Here we argue that much of this legislation is severely flawed because of the difficulty in distinguishing genetic from nongenetic tests. In addition, barring the use by insurance companies of a genetic test but not a nongenetic test (conceivably for the same multifactorial disease) raises issues of fairness in health insurance. These arguments suggest that ultimately the problems arising from genetic discrimination cannot be solved by narrowly focused legislation but only by a modification of the entire health care system.     

Changes in Specialists’ Perspectives on Cancer Genetic Testing,Prophylactic Surgery and Insurance Discrimination: Then and Now

We surveyed cancer genetics specialists in 1998 to learn what they would do if at 50 % risk to carry a BRCA or Lynch syndrome mutation. We chose to repeat our study 14 years later, to examine how perspectives have changed with the extensive data now available. In July 2012 we surveyed the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Cancer Special Interest Group via an internet based survey. We found statistically significant increases in the percentage of specialists who: would undergo BRCA testing (p?=?0.0006), opt for prophylactic bilateral mastectomy (p =0.0001), opt for prophylactic removal of their uterus and ovaries for Lynch syndrome (p =0.0057 and P?=?0.0090, respectively), and bill testing to insurance (p >0.0001). There were also statistically significant decreases in the percentage of participants who would have their colon removed for Lynch syndrome (p?=?0.0002) and use an alias when pursuing testing (p?>?0.0001). Over the past 14 years there has been a major change in perspective amongst cancer genetic specialists regarding genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination.     

An Investigation of Genetic Counselors' Discussions of Genetic Discrimination with Cancer Risk Patients

Twenty-five genetic counselors who see familial cancer risk patients were interviewed about their definitions of genetic discrimination, perceptions of patient risk for discrimination, frequency and type of discrimination experienced by their patients, sources of information about discrimination, and what they tell patients about genetic discrimination. There was variability in participant definitions and content of discussions of genetic discrimination. Although 82% regarded risk to be low to theoretical, 40% reported possible instances of genetic discrimination, including insurance companies requiring results to cover procedures, denial of life/health insurance, social discrimination, and employment discrimination. Ninety-six percent of the sample reported always or almost always discussing genetic discrimination, and one or more of the following: insurance discrimination risks, protective legislation, no known cases positively documenting discrimination, strategies to avoid discrimination, and uncertainty of protective measures. The majority use current literature and research as information sources. Practice, policy, and research implications are discussed.     

Large,Prospective Analysis of the Reasons Patients Do Not Pursue <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA</Emphasis> Genetic Testing Following Genetic Counseling

Genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) identifies high-risk individuals who benefit from enhanced medical management. Not all individuals undergo GT following GC and understanding the reasons why can impact clinical efficiency, reduce GT costs through appropriate identification of high-risk individuals, and demonstrate the value of pre-GT GC. A collaborative project sponsored by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services prospectively collects anonymous data on BRCA-related GC visits performed by providers in Michigan, including demographics, patient/family cancer history, GT results, and reasons for declining GT. From 2008 to 2012, 10,726 patients underwent GC; 3476 (32.4%) did not pursue GT. Primary reasons included: not the best test candidate (28.1%), not clinically indicated (23.3%), and insurance/out of pocket cost concerns (13.6%). Patient disinterest was the primary reason for declining in 17.1%. Insurance/out of pocket cost concerns were the primary reason for not testing in 13.4% of untested individuals with private insurance. Among untested individuals with breast and/or ovarian cancer, 22.5% reported insurance/out of pocket cost concerns as the primary reason for not testing and 6.6% failed to meet Medicare criteria. In a five-year time period, nearly one-third of patients who underwent BRCA GC did not pursue GT. GT was not indicated in almost half of patients. Insurance/out of pocket cost concerns continue to be barriers.     

Ask,Answer, and Announce: Three stages in perceiving and responding to discrimination

Discrimination towards members of low-status groups takes a variety of forms, and results in a variety of negative consequences for its victims. Furthermore, discrimination may influence its targets either directly (for instance, when housing discrimination makes insurance, mortgage rates, or rents higher for African Americans than for whites) or indirectly, that is via perceptions on the part of the stigmatised. In the latter case the outcomes are caused or amplified by perceptions on the part of the victim that he or she is the target of discrimination. This chapter focuses on current research concerning factors that influence the perception of discrimination and its indirect influence on individuals. We review work from our own lab as well as from the field more broadly, focusing on research that attempts to explain contextual and individual variability in how events that are potentially due to discrimination are initially perceived, subsequently interpreted, and then publicly reported or withheld.     

Genetic Testing Considerations in Breast Cancer Patients

Genetic testing is now feasible for a growing number of cancers. Although the implications for unaffected relatives have been widely described, the impact of the tests on affected individuals are often not recognized. We present and discuss four cases that highlight some of the issues—for example, feelings of guilt and anxiety, intrafamilial conflict, and support needs—that may arise in testing affected individuals. We offer some suggestions to aid in the approach to such testing.     

A survey of reimbursement for cystic fibrosis carrier testing

To assess the current status of reimbursement for cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier testing, we surveyed individuals tested in the Mid-Atlantic region. Results show that CF testing was covered by insurance in part or in full for greater than 50% of respondents. The test was nearly always covered when performed during pregnancy because of a positive family history, but it was also covered for more than 50% of pregnant respondents with a negative family history. There were no significant differences in coverage by type of insurance. Many respondents needed to supply additional information about the testing to their insurance company before a coverage decision could be made. Before population-based CF screening programs are initiated, more data are needed on insurance reimbursement for testing, especially when performed pre-conceptually.     

Family Physicians’ Awareness and Knowledge of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA)

Historically, physicians have expressed concern about their patients’ risk of genetic discrimination, which has acted as a barrier to uptake of genetic services. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) is intended to protect patients against employer and health insurance discrimination. Physicians’ awareness and knowledge of GINA has yet to be evaluated. In 2009, we mailed surveys to 1500 randomly selected members of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Questions measured physicians’ current knowledge of GINA and their level of concern for genetic discrimination. In total, 401 physicians completed the survey (response rate 26.9%). Approximately half (54.5%) of physicians had no awareness of GINA. Of physicians who reported basic knowledge of GINA, the majority were aware of the protections offered for group health insurance (92.7%), private health insurance (82.9%), and employment (70.7%). Fewer physicians were aware of GINA’s limitations regarding life insurance (53.7%) and long-term care insurance (58.8%). Physicians demonstrated highest levels of concern for health insurance, life insurance, and long-term care insurance discrimination, with less concern for employer and family/social discrimination. Level of concern for the risk of genetic discrimination did not correlate significantly with awareness of GINA. Approximately 17 months after GINA was signed into federal law, physicians’ knowledge remained limited regarding the existence of this legislation and relevant details. Physicians who are aware of GINA continue to have significant concerns regarding the risk of genetic discrimination. This study reveals the need to further educate physicians about the existence of GINA and the protections offered.     

Implications of human genome research: Impact on graduate education in genetic counseling

A conference of genetic counseling and clinical nurse specialist graduate program directors was hosted by the National Society of Genetic Counselors and funded by the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Program of the National Center for Human Genome Research in June 1992. One aspect of the conference addressed implications of the Human Genome Initiative for graduate education in genetic counseling. Within this paper, the topics of human variation and diversity, genetic discrimination, issues in non-directiveness, and genetic screening and policy development are reviewed and recommendations made for graduate curricula development and enhancement. In addition, suggestions are included for practicing genetic counselors.     

Transgender and gender non-conforming adult preparedness for aging: Concerns for aging,and familiarity with and engagement in planning behaviors

Abstract

Background: Research on transgender and gender-nonconforming (TGNC) aging is limited. To date, most of the literature about TGNC aging has focused on discrimination (particularly in healthcare), violence and abuse, caregiving and family relations, and religiosity.

Aims: The purposes of this study were to: (a) document concerns about aging among TGNC adults, including concerns that are identity-specific; (b) examine preparation for aging and end of life (i.e., familiarity and planning) among TGNC adults; and (c) examine potential differences in familiarity and planning based on gender identity.

Methods: One hundred fifty-four individuals who currently or have ever identified as TGNC completed a national online survey assessing these constructs.

Results: TGNC individuals reported many concerns about aging, both gender identity-specific and not. The most common aging concern was losing the ability to care for themselves followed by having to go into a nursing home or assisted living facility. The age preparatory behaviors individuals were most commonly aware of included: life insurance, wills, organ donation, regular medical checkups, living wills, durable power of attorney for healthcare, and trusts. Gender-nonconforming individuals had significantly more familiarity with age preparatory behaviors than trans feminine individuals, but had lower levels of planning to engage in age preparatory behaviors than both trans masculine and trans feminine individuals.

Conclusion: The current findings highlight the need for providers to address age preparatory behaviors with TGNC individuals or provide referrals to support individuals in this planning.     

Client Advocacy and Collaboration with Insurance and Laboratory Testing Agencies: A Case Study Illustrating Genetic Counselor Roles

Genetic counseling and the many roles a genetic counselor must assume to provide quality genetic health care are becoming increasingly complex, especially when the genetic condition is rare, and DNA testing is costly and not yet routinely used. A case study of a couple with a family history of retinoblastoma and their pursuit of DNA testing for prenatal diagnosis is presented. The case study illustrates the instrumental role of the genetic counselor in advocating for clients for genetic services such as DNA testing and in educating insurance companies in the nature and importance of such services to achieve improved client health care outcomes.     

Genetic Information,Non-Discrimination,and Privacy Protections in Genetic Counseling Practice

The passage of the Genetic Information Non Discrimination Act (GINA) was hailed as a pivotal achievement that was expected to calm the fears of both patients and research participants about the potential misuse of genetic information. However, 6 years later, patient and provider awareness of legal protections at both the federal and state level remains discouragingly low, thereby, limiting their potential effectiveness. The increasing demand for genetic testing will expand the number of individuals and families who could benefit from obtaining accurate information about the privacy and anti-discriminatory protections that GINA and other laws extend. In this paper we describe legal protections that are applicable to individuals seeking genetic counseling, review the literature on patient and provider fears of genetic discrimination and examine their awareness and understandings of existing laws, and summarize how genetic counselors currently discuss genetic discrimination. We then present three genetic counseling cases to illustrate issues of genetic discrimination and provide relevant information on applicable legal protections. Genetic counselors have an unprecedented opportunity, as well as the professional responsibility, to disseminate accurate knowledge about existing legal protections to their patients. They can strengthen their effectiveness in this role by achieving a greater knowledge of current protections including being able to identify specific steps that can help protect genetic information.     

Who Are the Next Generation of Genetic Counselors? A Survey of Students

Genetic counseling students were surveyed about their backgrounds, application process to genetic counseling programs, and career motivations and plans. Program directors from 27 accredited programs were asked to distribute 362 surveys to students. Fifty-two survey items assess demographics; sources of support for pursuing a genetic counseling career (information about genetic counseling, encouragement/discouragement from others); career motivations (reasons for applying and for becoming a genetic counselor); and career certainty. Two hundred and thirty-five usable surveys were returned (64.9% usable return rate). Most respondents were Caucasian females (mean age = 25.4 years). About 13% identified as ethnic minorities, and about one-third reported family histories of a genetic condition(s). Most respondents learned about the field in classes, and most were strongly encouraged by family and friends to pursue genetic counseling. Reasons rated as most important for becoming a genetic counselor included helping others and intellectual stimulation. Recruitment, training, and research recommendations are given.     

Views of Discrimination among Individuals Confronting Genetic Disease

Though the US passed the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, many questions remain of how individuals confronting genetic disease view and experience possible discrimination. We interviewed, for 2 hours each, 64 individuals who had, or were at risk for, Huntington’s Disease, breast cancer, or Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Discrimination can be implicit, indirect and subtle, rather than explicit, direct and overt; and be hard to prove. Patients may be treated “differently” and unfairly, raising questions of how to define “discrimination”, and “appropriate accommodation”. Patients were often unclear and wary about legislation. Fears and experiences of discrimination can shape testing, treatment, and disclosure. Discrimination can be subjective, and take various forms. Searches for only objective evidence of it may be inherently difficult. Providers need to be aware of, and prepared to address, subtle and indirect discrimination; ambiguities, confusion and potential limitations concerning current legislation; and needs for education about these laws. Policies are needed to prevent discrimination in life, long-term care, and disability insurance, not covered by GINA.     

Attitudes of Genetic Counselors Towards Genetic Susceptibility Testing in Children

Genetic susceptibility research and testing is leading to an era of personalized medicine. Genetic counselors act as liaisons between the medical genetics community and the public. Understanding the opinions of genetic counselors will be important in developing testing guidelines. Attitudes towards genetic susceptibility testing in children were assessed for 216 NSGC members. Genetic counselors were likely to support testing if the results would determine: disease progression or prognosis, likelihood of survival after a specific treatment, or risk for an adverse drug reaction. Genetic counselors were unlikely to support testing to determine susceptibility to later disease development or in the absence of available intervention. There was a strong positive correlation between attitudes associated with desire to test their own child, if at risk and their support for genetic testing in any child at risk. Respondents strongly favored parent/guardian and child’s rights over doctor or insurance rights. They indicated assent should be obtained prior to testing, when appropriate, and that a copy of results should be kept in a permanent medical record. Respondents expressed concerns about insurance discrimination, testing in the absence of medical necessity, and taking away a child’s autonomy.     

The use of genetic test information in insurance: The argument from indistinguishability reconsidered

In the bioethical literature, discrimination in insurance on the basis of genetic risk factors detected by genetic testing has been defended and opposed on various ethical grounds. One important argument in favour of the practice is offered by those who believe that it is not possible to distinguish between genetic and non-genetic information, at least not for practical policy purposes such as insurance decision-making. According to the argument from indistinguishability, the use of genetic test information for insurance purposes should be permitted, because genetic test information is no different from non-genetic medical information in any relevant respect, therefore it would be inconsistent to prohibit the former whilst permitting the latter. This paper discusses and defends this argument and suggests a new, more tenable foundation.     

Cultural competency in genetic counseling

Incorporating a cross-cultural curriculum into genetic counseling training programs demonstrates a professional conviction of genetic counselors that cultural issues are important in genetic counseling. Funded by the Special Projects Fund in 1993 from the National Society of Genetic Counselors and the Kitson Fund from the Department of Social, Organizational, and Counseling Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University, theHandbook of Cross-Cultural Genetic Counseling was developed to provide genetic counseling programs a curriculum to teach cross-cultural genetic counseling. The theoretical rationale for the development of a cultural curriculum is presented. By expanding cultural knowledge, developing an awareness of oneself and others, and increasing the repertoire of culturally relevant counseling skills within a socio-political context, genetic counselors will be able to better serve all clients seeking genetic counseling.     

Communicating BRCA1/2 genetic test results within the family: A qualitative analysis

Genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer reveals significant risk information about one's chances of developing cancer. It is important to study communication processes in families where members are undergoing genetic testing because the information received is crucial not just to the individual concerned but also to other members of the biological family. This study investigates family communication of BRCA1/2 test results from both the informants’ and recipients’ perspectives. A total of 10 female patients and 22 of their relatives were interviewed. Patients’ and their relatives described feelings of responsibility for sharing genetic information within the family to enable others to reduce their risks of developing cancer. However, there were limits to an individuals’ responsibility once key family members had been informed, who then had to take responsibility for continuing dissemination of information. Whilst there was an implicit responsibility to inform the family of a mutation, information was edited or withheld in the best interest of relatives, dependent upon their perceived emotional readiness, resilience and current life stage and circumstances. The pre-existing family culture and the impact previous cancer diagnoses had upon the family also influenced the process of communication. Findings are discussed in relation to extant literature and implications for clinical practice are considered.     

Facilitating Family Communication About Predictive Genetic Testing: Probands’ Perceptions

The responsibility of informing relatives that predictive genetic testing is available often falls to the proband. Support is required during this process, however the perceived utility of genetic counseling and other strategies to facilitate communication have not been explored. We investigated the experiences of 12 individuals with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) in a semistructured telephone interview. Respondents informed their immediate family about the availability of genetic testing, however many more-distant relatives were not directly informed. Respondents were mostly satisfied with the way they told family members about testing and had mixed views about the usefulness of genetic counseling. Gender differences were observed, with most men expressing a need for guidance or support in communicating to relatives. Letters and booklets were thought to enhance the quality of information but the provision of further aids is unlikely to increase the number of relatives made aware of predictive testing by the proband.     

Games in Clinical Genetic Counseling Supervision

Games are defined as ongoing series of complementary ulterior transactions that are superficially plausible but have a concealed motivation to maximize pay-offs and minimize penalties for the initiator. While some games are harmless and part of socialization, others are destructive. Destructive game-playing in clinical supervision, in which game-playing (initiated by either supervisors or students) interferes with a student's realization of internship goals, has been documented in some allied healthcare professions but has not yet been studied in genetic counseling. Genetic counselors and clinical supervisors of genetic counseling students were anonymously surveyed regarding their experiences with destructive game-playing. Results show that such games do occur in genetic counseling clinical supervision. Some games are the same or similar to ones previously described in other health-care professions; others may be unique to genetic counseling. The purpose of this paper is to document these games as a first step to facilitating dialogue, understanding and awareness of them.