Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Familial Cancer
Published in: Familial Cancer 2/2010

01-06-2010

Evolving perspectives on genetic discrimination in health insurance among health care providers

Authors: Carin R. Huizenga, Katrina Lowstuter, Kimberly C. Banks, Veronica I. Lagos, Virginia O. Vandergon, Jeffrey N. Weitzel

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 2/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Previous studies have documented that concerns about genetic discrimination (GD) may influence access to and participation in medically necessary care. We sought to characterize how GD issues influence current cancer genetics professional (CGP) practice, determine if their attitudes regarding GD have changed over time, and compare their knowledge and attitudes regarding laws prohibiting GD to a contemporary cohort of non-genetics clinicians. Members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Familial Cancer Special Interest Group were invited to complete a 39 item online survey, adapted from previously published instruments. The resulting data were compared to a survey of CGPs published in 2000 and to a contemporary cohort of non-genetics clinicians (n = 1,181). There were 153 qualified respondents. Compared to the historical CGP cohort (n = 163), a significantly greater proportion said they would bill insurance for the cost of genetic testing for themselves (P < 0.0001). Most CGPs (94%) considered the risk of GD to be low to theoretical, concordant with 64% who expressed confidence in existing federal laws prohibiting GD. The mean knowledge score of CGPs regarding GD protective laws was significantly greater than that of non-genetics clinicians (P < 0.001). As barometers of change, CGPs show a migration in opinion over the past 8 years, with decreased fear of GD and greater knowledge of laws prohibiting GD compared to non-genetics clinicians. Better knowledge of GD and protective legislation, may facilitate non-genetics clinician utilization of genetics and personalized medicine.
Literature
1.
Lowstuter KJ, Sand S, Blazer KR et al (2008) Influence of genetic discrimination perceptions and knowledge on cancer genetics referral practice among clinicians. Genet Med 10(9):691–698CrossRefPubMed
2.
Nedelcu R, Blazer KR, Schwerin BU et al (2004) Genetic discrimination: the clinician perspective. Clin Genet 66(4):311–317CrossRefPubMed
3.
Freedman AN, Wideroff L, Olson L et al (2003) US physicians’ attitudes toward genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet 120A(1):63–71CrossRefPubMed
4.
Lerman C, Biesecker B, Benkendorf JL et al (1997) Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 89(2):148–157CrossRefPubMed
5.
Lynch HT, Snyder C, Lynch JF et al (2006) Patient responses to the disclosure of BRCA mutation tests in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer families. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 165(2):91–97CrossRefPubMed
6.
Veach PM, Bartels DM, LeRoy BS (2001) Ethical and professional challenges posed by patients with genetic concerns: a report of focus group discussions with genetic counselors, physicians, and nurses. J Genet Couns 10:97–119CrossRefPubMed
7.
Hall MA, McEwen JE, Barton JC et al (2005) Concerns in a primary care population about genetic discrimination by insurers. Genet Med 7(5):311–316CrossRefPubMed
8.
Billings PR, Kohn MA, de Cuevas M, Beckwith J, Alper JS, Natowicz MR (1992) Discrimination as a consequence of genetic testing. Am J Hum Genet 50:476–482PubMed
9.
Rose AL, Peters N, Shea JA, Armstrong K (2005) Attitudes and misconceptions about predictive genetic testing for cancer risk. Community Genet 8(3):145–151CrossRefPubMed
10.
Hall MA, Rich SS (2000) Patients’ fear of genetic discrimination by health insurers: the impact of legal protections. Genet Med 2(4):214–221CrossRefPubMed
11.
Lapham EV, Kozma C, Weiss JO (1996) Genetic discrimination: perspectives of consumers. Science 274(25):621–624CrossRefPubMed
12.
Hadley DW, Jenkins J, Dimond E et al (2003) Genetic counseling and testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Arch Intern Med 163(5):573–582CrossRefPubMed
13.
Hall MA, Rich SS (2000) Laws restricting health insurers’ use of genetic information: impact on genetic discrimination. Am J Hum Genet 66:293–307CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
Nowlan W (2002) Human genetics: a rational view of insurance and genetic discrimination. Science 297(5579):195–196CrossRefPubMed
16.
Banks K, Weitzel JN, Metzenberg A, Vandergon V, Blazer KR (2004) Cancer genetic testing and genetic discrimination: a pre-cancer risk counseling survey of patient knowledge and opinions. Paper presented at the American society of human genetics: 54th annual meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 26–30 October 2004
17.
Kass NE, Medley AM, Natowicz MR et al (2007) Access to health insurance: experiences and attitudes of those with genetic versus non-genetic medical conditions. Am J Med Genet 143(7):707–717CrossRefPubMed
18.
Harmon A (2008) Fear of insurance trouble leads many to shun or hide DNA tests. The New York Times. 24 Feb 2008 Sunday. Sect A, 1–4
19.
Matloff ET, Shappell H, Brierley K, Bernhardt BA, McKinnon W, Peshkin BN (2000) What would you do? Specialists’ perspectives on cancer genetic testing, prophylactic surgery, and insurance discrimination. J Clin Oncol 18(12):2484–2492PubMed
20.
Pfeffer NL, McCarthy Veach P, LeRoy BS (2003) An investigation of genetic counselors’ discussions of genetic discrimination with cancer risk patients. J Genet Couns 12(5):419–438CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
Dillman DA, Christensen JA, Carpenter EH, Brooks RM (1974) Increasing mail questionnaire response: a four state comparison. Am Sociol Rev 39(5):744–756CrossRef
23.
Matloff ET (2000) The breast surgeon’s role in BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing. Am J Surg 180(4):294–298CrossRefPubMed
24.
Acton RT, Burst NM, Casebeer L et al (2000) Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of Alabama’s primary care physicians regarding cancer genetics. Acad Med 75:850–852CrossRefPubMed
25.
Hudson KL, Holohan MK, Collins FS (2008) Keeping pace with the times—the genetic information nondiscrimination act of 2008. N Engl J Med 358(25):2661–2663CrossRefPubMed
26.
Rothstein MA (2008) Putting the genetic information nondiscrimination act in context. Genet Med 10(9):655–656CrossRefPubMed
27.
Hall MA, Rich SS (2000) Genetic privacy laws and patients’ fear of discrimination by health insurers: the view from genetic counselors. J Law Med Ethics 28(3):245–257CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
Hall MA (2006) Genetic discrimination. Paper presented at the national society of genetic counselors annual education conference, Nashville, TN, 10–14 November 2006
Metadata
Title
Evolving perspectives on genetic discrimination in health insurance among health care providers
Authors
Carin R. Huizenga
Katrina Lowstuter
Kimberly C. Banks
Veronica I. Lagos
Virginia O. Vandergon
Jeffrey N. Weitzel
Publication date
01-06-2010
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Familial Cancer / Issue 2/2010
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-009-9308-y

Other articles of this Issue 2/2010

Familial Cancer 2/2010 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Female BRCA mutation carriers with a preference for prophylactic mastectomy are more likely to participate an educational-support group and to proceed with the preferred intervention within 2 years

OriginalPaper

Efficiency of BRCAPRO and Myriad II mutation probability thresholds versus cancer history criteria alone for BRCA1/2 mutation detection

OriginalPaper

Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma: very early diagnosis of renal cancer in a paediatric patient

BriefCommunication

Heterogeneous prevalence of recurrent BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Spain according to the geographical area: implications for genetic testing

OriginalPaper

No evidence for a genetic modifier for renal cell cancer risk in HLRCC syndrome

OriginalPaper

Selection of patients with germline MLH1 mutated Lynch syndrome by determination of MLH1 methylation and BRAF mutation
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits