4 ms·

Cue insurance companies cross-referencing with the likes of 23-and-me to deny life insurance and LTD coverage

dlg 3y ago
In the US, I believe that would not be legal under GINA (the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008) https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genetic-Discrimination https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genetic-... (Edit: per tssva—LTD & life are generally state laws, GINA is health ins and employment)
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  The US would have to care to enforce it first.
  - chaxor 3y ago
    Interesting how close this statement is to US does not enforce care about health. Or rather, US does not have health care.
- tssva 3y ago
  GINA covers health insurance and employment decisions. It doesn't cover life or disability insurance.
  - dlg 3y ago
    Looking, you’re right. Those are regulated at the state level. But it does look like pretty much every state has a law.
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      Which makes the process of dismantling or avoiding the regulation actually slightly easier because all you need is one state to defect in order to cause a precedent which then allows for a regulatory cascade. It’s almost deterministic at this point, and you see how they did it for clawing back reproductive rights. And this issue is obscure enough for a small enough current population, that you would not be able to actually build a robust counter protest in any kind of sensible way. So really all it would take is a handful of just Millionaires to care about this problem to throw — let’s call it $10 million - at lobbying in order to make it go their direction.
      - sitkack 3y ago
        Just another reason to work hard and succeed.
        cto_of_antifa 3y ago
        [dead]
        lamontcg 3y ago
        Liberalism is currently not succeeding.
        lamontcg 3y ago
        (downvote all you want but look at the supreme court, Dobbs, and the inability of the democratic party to hold on to power at all--at some point the excuses need to end and the party needs to be judged on the basis of where we've actually wound up)
        sitkack 3y ago
        Sorry Lamont, I forgot the /s And fully agree on the DP.
        lamontcg 3y ago
        Yeah I was about 50/50 on if you were being sarcastic or not. I caught several downvotes and you can't downvote replies, so I was talking to the audience on the second comment.
    - tssva 3y ago
      > Looking, you’re right. Those are regulated at the state level. But it does look like pretty much every state has a law. The 1st state I checked to validate that, my own, doesn't. The state level laws much like the GINA act only cover employment and health insurance. There is a newly enacted law preventing consumer genetic testing companies from disclosing results without consumer consent, but nothing stopping an insurance company requiring consent for access or requiring their own genetic testing before issuing life or disability insurance. Based upon this I'm not comforted by the assertion that "pretty much every state has a law".
      - derefr 3y ago
        > preventing consumer genetic testing companies from disclosing results without consumer consent Even if you didn’t consent, genetic genealogy can still be used to triangulate your genome from relatives of yours who do consent. This is still a manual process for now, but it’s very likely that a CODIS-like system to automate DNA triangulation for purposes of fingerprint search will be implemented soon. Only a small step from there to insurance companies being able to deny you coverage based on an “sub-clinical family history” of something.
        tssva 3y ago
        My previous comment was more about not trusting the comment about state level protection than having an issue with that lack of protection. Life and disability insurance companies already deny coverage based upon "sub-clinical family history" of conditions. They do so based upon gathered family medical histories. They will also deny you coverage based upon a required medical examination. What is the issue with adding genetic screening to the list of tools?
        derefr 3y ago
        > Life and disability insurance companies already deny coverage based upon "sub-clinical family history" of conditions. They do so based upon gathered family medical histories. The term "sub-clinical" means "something that has not yet caused you any problems bad enough that you mention them to a doctor, and therefore never makes it into your medical history; and which also would not yet be revealed by a medical examination." To be clear, a "sub-clinical family history", then, isn't information about your sub-clinical conditions attained from medical data about your family's clinical interactions (that would be a regular family history!); rather, it's information about your clinical or sub-clinical conditions, deduced through triangulation of your (potentially quite distant!) relatives' sub-clinical conditions, which were in turn discovered through genetic screening of those distant relatives, that they themselves did consent to, as some presumed-boilerplate when submitting their DNA to ancestry websites and the like. There is currently no way for insurance companies to be aware of your "sub-clinical family history" besides just asking you. With automated triangulated genetic screening, they would have a way to get around asking you.
  - themitigating 3y ago
    Life insurance companies already factor risk from family history without using a genetic database https://havenlife.com/blog/family-medical-history-life-insurance/ https://havenlife.com/blog/family-medical-history-life-insur... They also take into account smoking. Playing devil's advocate if a car insurance company can charge you a higher premium because you are male why shouldn't a life insurance company use your genetic code?
fnimick 3y ago
This is the reason I have never done a genetic test, even when one was offered to me for free. You'll pay for it the entire rest of your life.
- pbjtime 3y ago
  ignorance is scary but fortunately very strong medical privacy laws exist
  - slingnow 3y ago
    Thank god for privacy laws! No corporation has ever violated those for profit. And laws never change, right?
  - VancouverMan 3y ago
    In Canada, the least-trustworthy people I've ever dealt with have been medical doctors, lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats, or some mix of those. I can't trust such people to put in place and operate any system that truly protects medical privacy. After the very recent forced masking and "vaccine passports" debacles (which inherently forced the public disclosure of what should be private medical information), and the related coercion and forcing of unwanted medical procedures that such "professionals" advocated for and participated in, it should be clear that they don't take medical privacy seriously.
    - pbjtime 3y ago
      >forced masking and "vaccine passports" Oh, you're one of those
- spywaregorilla 3y ago
  You'll pay for it more if your health or children suffer from preventable genetic conditions though...
- tim333 3y ago
  You might get cheaper insurance if it shows you as low risk?
pbjtime 3y ago
There's literally no way to do this. 23andMe won't just fucking provide identifiable genetics records to anyone with money. Lol.
- mcculley 3y ago
  https://cglife.com/blog/23andme-sold-your-genetic-data-to-gsk-personalized-medicine-ethics/ https://cglife.com/blog/23andme-sold-your-genetic-data-to-gs...
  - xingped 3y ago
    I didn't even need an article to know the parent's statement was false, lol, but thanks for providing the receipts!
    - px43 3y ago
      That's not an article. It's a blog post from a marketing firm.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      If you don't need evidence to know things, then what do you actually know?
    - pbjtime 3y ago
      And it wasn't identifiable lol derp lol
  - dahinds 3y ago
    No 23andMe customer data has been shared with GSK. We have shared results of 23andMe research, not individual-level customer data. In the past we have carried out studies with partners where we shared individual level data and obtained consent to do so. We recruited people with certain diseases to participate in those studies. The data was always de-identified and for research use only.
  - px43 3y ago
    You linked to the blog of some random marketing firm in Chicago. This is not a legitimate source for news. Actual details of the deal between GSK and 23andme are here: https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-releases/gsk-and-23andme-sign-agreement-to-leverage-genetic-insights-for-the-development-of-novel-medicines/ https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-releases/gsk-and-23and...
dv_dt 3y ago
They would get better financial return by lobbying for better public health strategies against Covid, like regulations on indoor air quality. That would lead to fewer deaths from a multitude of respiratory ailments.

dlg 3y ago

In the US, I believe that would not be legal under GINA (the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008) https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genetic-Discrimination https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genetic-... (Edit: per tssva—LTD & life are generally state laws, GINA is health ins and employment)

bigbillheck 3y ago
The US would have to care to enforce it first.
- chaxor 3y ago
  Interesting how close this statement is to US does not enforce care about health. Or rather, US does not have health care.
tssva 3y ago
GINA covers health insurance and employment decisions. It doesn't cover life or disability insurance.
- dlg 3y ago
  Looking, you’re right. Those are regulated at the state level. But it does look like pretty much every state has a law.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    Which makes the process of dismantling or avoiding the regulation actually slightly easier because all you need is one state to defect in order to cause a precedent which then allows for a regulatory cascade. It’s almost deterministic at this point, and you see how they did it for clawing back reproductive rights. And this issue is obscure enough for a small enough current population, that you would not be able to actually build a robust counter protest in any kind of sensible way. So really all it would take is a handful of just Millionaires to care about this problem to throw — let’s call it $10 million - at lobbying in order to make it go their direction.
    - sitkack 3y ago
      Just another reason to work hard and succeed.
      - cto_of_antifa 3y ago
        [dead]
      - lamontcg 3y ago
        Liberalism is currently not succeeding.
        lamontcg 3y ago
        (downvote all you want but look at the supreme court, Dobbs, and the inability of the democratic party to hold on to power at all--at some point the excuses need to end and the party needs to be judged on the basis of where we've actually wound up)
        sitkack 3y ago
        Sorry Lamont, I forgot the /s And fully agree on the DP.
        lamontcg 3y ago
        Yeah I was about 50/50 on if you were being sarcastic or not. I caught several downvotes and you can't downvote replies, so I was talking to the audience on the second comment.
  - tssva 3y ago
    > Looking, you’re right. Those are regulated at the state level. But it does look like pretty much every state has a law. The 1st state I checked to validate that, my own, doesn't. The state level laws much like the GINA act only cover employment and health insurance. There is a newly enacted law preventing consumer genetic testing companies from disclosing results without consumer consent, but nothing stopping an insurance company requiring consent for access or requiring their own genetic testing before issuing life or disability insurance. Based upon this I'm not comforted by the assertion that "pretty much every state has a law".
    - derefr 3y ago
      > preventing consumer genetic testing companies from disclosing results without consumer consent Even if you didn’t consent, genetic genealogy can still be used to triangulate your genome from relatives of yours who do consent. This is still a manual process for now, but it’s very likely that a CODIS-like system to automate DNA triangulation for purposes of fingerprint search will be implemented soon. Only a small step from there to insurance companies being able to deny you coverage based on an “sub-clinical family history” of something.
      - tssva 3y ago
        My previous comment was more about not trusting the comment about state level protection than having an issue with that lack of protection. Life and disability insurance companies already deny coverage based upon "sub-clinical family history" of conditions. They do so based upon gathered family medical histories. They will also deny you coverage based upon a required medical examination. What is the issue with adding genetic screening to the list of tools?
        derefr 3y ago
        > Life and disability insurance companies already deny coverage based upon "sub-clinical family history" of conditions. They do so based upon gathered family medical histories. The term "sub-clinical" means "something that has not yet caused you any problems bad enough that you mention them to a doctor, and therefore never makes it into your medical history; and which also would not yet be revealed by a medical examination." To be clear, a "sub-clinical family history", then, isn't information about your sub-clinical conditions attained from medical data about your family's clinical interactions (that would be a regular family history!); rather, it's information about your clinical or sub-clinical conditions, deduced through triangulation of your (potentially quite distant!) relatives' sub-clinical conditions, which were in turn discovered through genetic screening of those distant relatives, that they themselves did consent to, as some presumed-boilerplate when submitting their DNA to ancestry websites and the like. There is currently no way for insurance companies to be aware of your "sub-clinical family history" besides just asking you. With automated triangulated genetic screening, they would have a way to get around asking you.
- themitigating 3y ago
  Life insurance companies already factor risk from family history without using a genetic database https://havenlife.com/blog/family-medical-history-life-insurance/ https://havenlife.com/blog/family-medical-history-life-insur... They also take into account smoking. Playing devil's advocate if a car insurance company can charge you a higher premium because you are male why shouldn't a life insurance company use your genetic code?

fnimick 3y ago

This is the reason I have never done a genetic test, even when one was offered to me for free. You'll pay for it the entire rest of your life.

pbjtime 3y ago
ignorance is scary but fortunately very strong medical privacy laws exist
- slingnow 3y ago
  Thank god for privacy laws! No corporation has ever violated those for profit. And laws never change, right?
- VancouverMan 3y ago
  In Canada, the least-trustworthy people I've ever dealt with have been medical doctors, lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats, or some mix of those. I can't trust such people to put in place and operate any system that truly protects medical privacy. After the very recent forced masking and "vaccine passports" debacles (which inherently forced the public disclosure of what should be private medical information), and the related coercion and forcing of unwanted medical procedures that such "professionals" advocated for and participated in, it should be clear that they don't take medical privacy seriously.
  - pbjtime 3y ago
    >forced masking and "vaccine passports" Oh, you're one of those
spywaregorilla 3y ago
You'll pay for it more if your health or children suffer from preventable genetic conditions though...
tim333 3y ago
You might get cheaper insurance if it shows you as low risk?

pbjtime 3y ago

There's literally no way to do this. 23andMe won't just fucking provide identifiable genetics records to anyone with money. Lol.

mcculley 3y ago
https://cglife.com/blog/23andme-sold-your-genetic-data-to-gsk-personalized-medicine-ethics/ https://cglife.com/blog/23andme-sold-your-genetic-data-to-gs...
- xingped 3y ago
  I didn't even need an article to know the parent's statement was false, lol, but thanks for providing the receipts!
  - px43 3y ago
    That's not an article. It's a blog post from a marketing firm.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    If you don't need evidence to know things, then what do you actually know?
  - pbjtime 3y ago
    And it wasn't identifiable lol derp lol
- dahinds 3y ago
  No 23andMe customer data has been shared with GSK. We have shared results of 23andMe research, not individual-level customer data. In the past we have carried out studies with partners where we shared individual level data and obtained consent to do so. We recruited people with certain diseases to participate in those studies. The data was always de-identified and for research use only.
- px43 3y ago
  You linked to the blog of some random marketing firm in Chicago. This is not a legitimate source for news. Actual details of the deal between GSK and 23andme are here: https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-releases/gsk-and-23andme-sign-agreement-to-leverage-genetic-insights-for-the-development-of-novel-medicines/ https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-releases/gsk-and-23and...

dv_dt 3y ago

They would get better financial return by lobbying for better public health strategies against Covid, like regulations on indoor air quality. That would lead to fewer deaths from a multitude of respiratory ailments.