Privacy
North Carolina One Step Closer to Compensating Victims of its Eugenics Program
Jennifer K. Wagner, J.D., Ph.D., is a solo-practicing attorney in State College, PA and a research associate at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for the Integration of Genetic Healthcare Technologies.
Almost a year ago, North Carolina Governor Bev Purdue set up a Task Force charged with determining how the state should compensate victims of its eugenics program. The Final Report (pdf) by that Task Force was submitted to the Governor on January 27, 2012. If the state legislature takes action to implement the Task Force’s recommendations, North Carolina will become the first state (of the 32 states that had eugenics programs) to compensate the victims of its involuntary sterilization program.
Big Changes Coming in EU Privacy Law
The European Union is about to make major changes in its privacy law that will have a significant impact on U.S. companies that do even modest amounts of business in Europe. On January 25, 2011, the European Commission (the EU’s executive branch) released a long-awaited Draft Regulation on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (pdf).
While it will likely be a year or more before a final regulation takes effect, and there will almost certainly be amendments along the way, American companies – including those involved in the field of personalized medicine, where personal data is paramount by definition – should start paying attention now, since they may have to change the way that they do business in Europe.
Pennsylvania Seeks Expansion of its Forensic DNA Database
Jennifer K. Wagner, J.D., Ph.D., is a solo-practicing attorney in State College, PA and a research associate at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for the Integration of Genetic Healthcare Technologies.
Last month, the Pennsylvania General Assembly voted in favor of a bill that would expand the Commonwealth’s criminal database. PA Senate Bill 775 authorizes law enforcement to begin DNA fingerprinting of individuals upon arrest or charge for certain specified crimes (as opposed to only upon conviction) and authorizes familial searching of the state’s forensic database. After third consideration, the amended version of PA Senate Bill 775 passed by a vote of 42-6. The bill has been referred to the judiciary.
The bill had been introduced in March of 2011 by Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggio, who was later joined by a dozen colleagues (including nine Republican and three Democratic sponsors). It immediately garnered the attention of genetics law scholars, including Penn State Dickinson’s School of Law Professor David Kaye, who submitted a thorough statement (pdf) for the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s consideration.
Don’t Forget About State Law: Michigan Decision Reminds Health Care Providers of HIPAA Preemption Issue
Phillip C. Ross is a summer associate at Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. and a rising third-year student at Wake Forest University School of Law.
Many health care providers and other individuals and entities who deal with sensitive patient information may assume that if they comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), they need not worry further about the proper use or disclosure of patient data. However, a recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision served as a reminder to those individuals and entities that they must not only ensure compliance with HIPAA, but also any state laws that are more demanding than HIPAA.
HIPAA establishes regulations for the use and disclosure of Protected Health Information (“PHI”) held by “covered entities” (pdf) and “business associates.” PHI is any information held by a covered entity related to health status, provision of health care, or payment for health care that can be linked to an individual.
In Isidore Steiner, DPM, PC v. Marc Bonanni, No. 294016 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2011), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that HIPAA acts as a federal “floor” in establishing standards for the privacy of patients’ PHI. Although Bonanni was decided under Michigan law—and thus is not binding on other states—the decision is likely to be consistent among courts in other states.
News Roundup: Patent Reform Passes House, Human Provenance Project Pulled by UK
With so many developments at the intersection of genomics and the law, there is often a variety of interesting stories that, for one reason or another, don’t find their way into a full-length posting on the Genomics Law Report. In this post we recap several recent key developments and, at bottom, round up all of the recent tweets from @genomicslawyer.
Patent Reform Legislation Passes House. Several months after the U.S. Senate passed patent reform legislation that would make sweeping changes to America’ patent system, including a switch from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system for awarding patents, the U.S. House of Representatives finally followed suit yesterday, passing a similar piece of legislation by a vote of 304-117. The version passed by the House, while similar to that passed by the Senate, contained a number of last-minute amendments (pdf).
One change of particular relevance to the personalized medicine community was the removal of a proposed safe harbor for second opinion genetic diagnostic testing, which was replaced by a requirement that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) investigate the relationship between genetic diagnostic tests, gene patents and exclusive licenses. The USPTO would be given nine months to complete its investigation and to return to Congress recommendations for ensuring the availability of second opinion genetic diagnostic testing. (The USPTO study on genetic diagnostic testing was not included in the bill passed by the Senate in March.)
Is the Genetic Rights Movement Picking Up Steam?
The movement to confer greater legal protection to individuals’ genetic information has added another participant. Last month, we examined newly introduced legislation in Massachusetts which, if passed, would create a “Genetic Bill of Rights,” significantly expanding Massachusetts residents’ personal property and privacy rights in their genetic information. Since then, in what the Council for Responsible Genetics has termed a “groundswell for genetic privacy building in states,” state legislators in both California and Vermont have introduced new legislation that would confer greater protection upon individuals’ genetic information.
What should we make of this three state “groundswell?” Although not identical in scope or substance to the Massachusetts Genetic Bill of Rights (“MA GBR”), both the Vermont and California proposals appear to reflect a concern (shared by the MA GBR) that, at least when it comes to the use and misuse of genetic information, the current system of federal oversight is inadequate. Then again, as the legislative findings section of the California proposal (pdf) puts it, perhaps “the current explosion in the science of genetics” simply “compels legislative action in this area.”
Genetic Bill of Rights Proposed in Massachusetts
On January 21, 2011, the Massachusetts Genetic Bill of Rights (MA GBR) (pdf) was introduced before the Massachusetts state legislature. At its core, the proposed legislation establishes property and privacy rights for genetic information and genetic material, while providing protections designed to shield individuals from genetic profiling and other misuses of genetic information.
Taken as a whole, the legislation, if enacted, would confer upon Massachusetts residents a significantly expanded set of genetic rights than exist under current federal law. Below we examine several of the bill’s most noteworthy proposals.
The MA GBR addresses perceived gaps and limitations in the coverage provided by major federal statutes, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by seeking to place genetic information on a par with medical records.
The MA GBR’s provisions set basic limitations on the use, including the commercial use, of personal genetic information that would go above and beyond the user agreements and privacy policies employed by some commercial services. For example, the MA GBR prohibits the use of genetic information for marketing or determining credit worthiness. With the proliferation of genetic information, particularly in consumer or commercial contexts, such basic limitations would help address concerns about the lack of mandatory restrictions regarding the sale, transfer or other use of personal genetic data.
The Personal Property Theory of Personal Genomes. But the MA GBR goes much further than mere consumer protection reforms. Section 1 of the proposed legislation explicitly declares genetic information to be “the exclusive property of the individual from whom the information is obtained.” (emphasis added)
Recent Developments in Forensic DNA
The use of DNA in forensics continues to expand. Last year, James Cass reviewed the current system of forensic DNA profiling in the U.S., including CODIS (the Combined DNA Index System, the FBI’s integrated DNA profiling program), the controversial practice of partial/familial searching, and calls from President Obama and others to collect DNA profiles for all Americans in a national database. He posted follow-up pieces focused on advance DNA collection under Katie’s Law, the growing backlog of DNA samples, and familial DNA database searching, which gained support after it facilitated the arrest of the elusive serial killer in California known as the Grim Sleeper.
A number of newer developments have caught our attention.
MLB Takes Another Swing at Complying with GINA
In 2008 Congress passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Although GINA is arguably “the first civil rights bill of the 21st century,” we have consistently reminded Genomics Law Report readers that passing GINA into law was only the first step.
As is the case with any piece of new legislation, even after a law is passed, considerable work remains to implement that law in practice. GINA is no different. Congress provided a basic framework designed to eliminate genetic discrimination, but many of the details of the law were left to regulatory agencies.
Two and a half years after GINA’s passage, the first part of that process is still underway. Last month the EEOC issued final rules and regulations implementing Title II of Gina, which applies to employers. (Final regulations for Title I of GINA, which applies to health insurers, have yet to be issued.) With the long-awaited arrival of the EEOC’s final regulations, the next step is to begin to apply those regulations.
MLB’s Genetic Testing Program. In July of 2009 The New York Times reported that Major League Baseball (MLB) had begun using genetic testing to verify the age and identity of Latin American baseball prospects. We analyzed MLB’s genetic testing program and the potential legal concerns raised by GINA in a pair of posts: “MLB Meets GINA” and “MLB’s Genetic Testing Program at the Plate Again.”
Surreptitious Genetic Testing: WikiLeaks Highlights Gap in Genetic Privacy Law
The top news story the past two weeks: the release of hundreds of thousands of confidential American diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks. While dissecting diplomatic maneuvering is not a traditional area of expertise for the Genomics Law Report, a pair of cables did catch our eye.
The first is primarily a curiosity: the allegation that Chinese authorities are spying on deCode Genetics, Iceland’s most prominent genetic research company and provider of the direct-to-consumer genetic testing service, deCODEme. Nobody seems to know exactly what China is looking to gain by clandestinely exploring Iceland’s genetic genealogy. You are welcome to speculate in the comments.
The second raises broader issues: the revelation that the State Department’s ongoing human intelligence collection directives include requests for “biometric information” on key world leaders, including United Nations arms inspectors, the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO) and key advisors and aides to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. A separate cable detailing intelligence collection priorities in Africa’s Great Lakes region clarifies that “biometric information” includes “health [data]…fingerprints, facial images, DNA, and iris scans.”
Not disclosed in the WikiLeaked cables: why the State Department wants the biometric data or whether any have been successfully obtained.
Surreptitious Testing: An Overview. The cables are, however, a reminder that the law surrounding the surreptitious collection and testing of biometric data, including DNA, remains extremely murky.
