Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29891881›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2018

How are genetic test results being used by Australian life insurers?

K Barlow-Stewart, M Liepins, A Doble, M Otlowski

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Long-awaited progress in addressing genetic discrimination in the United States.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Comparative perspectives: regulating insurer use of genetic information.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K Barlow-StewartSydney Medical School - Northern, University of Sydney Level 7 Kolling Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, 2065, Australia. kristine.barlowstewart@sydney.edu.au.
M LiepinsSydney Medical School - Northern, University of Sydney Level 7 Kolling Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, 2065, Australia.
A DobleConsultant Actuary, 406/116 Belmont Rd, Mosman, NSW, 2088, Australia.
M OtlowskiFaculty of Law, College of Arts, Law and Education University of Tasmania, Private Bag 89, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia.
Royal North Shore Hospital · AUUniversity of Tasmania · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Australia, the USA and many Asian countries the life insurance industry is self-regulated. Individuals must disclose genetic test results known to them in applications for new or updated policies including cover for critical care, income protection and death. There is limited information regarding how underwriting decisions are made for policies with such disclosures. The Australian Financial Services Council (FSC) provided de-identified data collected on applications with genetic test result disclosure from its life insurance member companies 2010-2013 to enable repetition of an independent examination undertaken of applications 1999-2003: age; gender; genetic condition; testing result; decision-maker; and insurance cover. Data was classified as to test result alone or additional other factors relevant to risk and decision. Where necessary, the FSC facilitated clarification by insurers. 345/548 applications related to adult-onset conditions. The genetic test result solely influenced the decision in 165/345 applications: positive (n = 23), negative (n = 139) and pending (n = 3). Detailed analyses of the decisions in each of these result categories are presented with specific details of 11 test cases. Policies with standard decisions were provided for all negative test results with evidence of reassessment of previous non-standard decisions and 20/23 positive results with recognition of risk reduction strategies. Disclosure of positive results for breast/ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome and hereditary spastic paraplegia, and three pending results, generated non-standard decisions. The examination demonstrates some progress in addressing concerns in regard to utilisation of genetic test information but the self-regulatory system in Australia only goes some way in meeting internationally recommended best practice.

Indexed as

AustraliaDecision MakingGenetic TestingHumansInsurance, Life

Identifiers

PMID29891881
PMCPMC6117272
OpenAlexW2807953962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.