Journal of Medical GeneticsGenetic & Genomic MedicinePeer-reviewed journal article
A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals' views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium
Jane M. TilleriD, Louise Anne KeoghiD, Aideen M McInerney-LeoiD, Andrea BelcheriD, Kristine K Barlow-StewartiD, Tiffany F. BoughtwoodiD, Penny GleesoniD, Grace Dowling, Anya E. R. PrinceiD, Yvonne BombardiD, Yann JolyiD, Martin Bruce DelatyckiiD, Ingrid WinshipiD, Margaret F. A. OtlowskiiD, Paul A LacazeiD
Abstract
BackgroundIn 2019, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium (ban) limiting the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. The moratorium is industry self-regulated and applies only to policies below certain financial limits (eg AUD$500,000 of life cover). MethodsWe surveyed Australian health professionals (HPs) who discuss genetic testing with patients, to assess knowledge of the moratorium; reported patient experiences since its commencement; and HP views regarding regulation of genetic discrimination (GD) in Australia. ResultsBetween April-June 2020, 166 eligible HPs responded to the online survey. Of these, 86% were aware of the moratorium, but <50% had attended related training/information sessions. Only 16% answered all knowledge questions correctly, yet 69% believed they had sufficient knowledge to advise patients. Genetics HPs awareness and knowledge were better than non-genetics HPs (p<0.05). There was some reported decrease in patients delaying/declining testing after the moratoriums introduction, however 42% of HPs disagreed that patients were more willing to have testing post-moratorium. Although many (76%) felt the moratorium resolved some GD concerns, most (88%) still have concerns, primarily around self-regulation, financial limits and the moratoriums temporary nature. Almost half (49%) of HPs reported being dissatisfied with the moratorium as a solution to GD. The majority (95%) felt government oversight is required, and 93% felt specific Australian legislation regarding GD is required. ConclusionWhile the current Australian moratorium is considered a step forward, most HPs believe it falls short of an adequate long-term regulatory solution to GD in life insurance.
- research focus: benchmarking
- research focus: database / resource
- research focus: software / tool
- approach: statistical model
- Citations
- 9
- FWCI
- 1.95
- Field percentile
- top 15%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Navigating the Impact of the 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule: A National Cross-Sectional Survey of U.S. Genetic Counselors
Chenery L. Lowe, Laura Duncan, … Debra Mathews·Journal of Genetic CounselingPeer-reviewed·May 12, 2025
- Knowledge and misconceptions of the French population regarding medical genetics: a survey of 3,000 respondents
Sandra Mercier, Francois Michael Petit, … "Genetics and the General Public" FFGH Ethics Working Group·medRxiv·Jul 19, 2026
- Impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing on Australian clinical genetics services
Michael Millward, Jane M. Tiller, … Paul A Lacaze·European Journal of Medical GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Jun 2, 2020
- Return of Results in Psychiatric Genetics Research: Perceptions of Best Practices in a Global Sample of Psychiatric Genetics Researchers
Gabriel Lázaro‐Muñoz, Laura N. Torgerson, Stacey Pereira·medRxiv·Jun 8, 2020
- Identifying barriers to genetic testing in subspecialty cardiac care
Sierra Pond, Genevie Echols, … Briana L. Sawyer·medRxiv·May 15, 2024
- Investigating Uptake and Impact of Genetic and Genomic Evaluation Following a Perinatal Demise
Kara Mossler, Etta D'Orazio, … Fabiola Quintero‐Rivera·medRxiv·Apr 23, 2026