Weekly Roundup: UK Insurance Genetics Moratorium Renewed & Breast Cancer Patents, Research in the News
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.
UK Insurers Continue Moratorium on Predictive Genetic Tests. In 2008 the United States passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Title I of GINA prohibits health insurers from using genetic information to deny coverage or to set premiums or payment rates. Title II of GINA addresses the use and misuse of genetic information by employers. In the United Kingdom, which provides universal health coverage through the government-funded National Health Service (NHS), discussion of genetic nondiscrimination has largely focused on the employment context (see, e.g., the 2009 report on Genomic Medicine from the House of Lords). To date, however, the United Kingdom has not enacted a formal prohibition on the use of genetic information by either employers or insurers.
Disclosure of Patients’ Genetic Information Without Their Consent–Is the “Public Interest” Really a Sufficient Justification?
New guidance issued by the U.K. General Medical Council (GMC) regarding a physician’s ability to disclose to a patient’s relatives the diagnosis of such patient’s genetic illness1 has recently been a hot topic of discussion on several online forums.2 The guidance, which became effective on October 12, 2009 and addresses medical privacy issues in a variety of contexts (not just genetic information sharing), recognizes that the diagnosis of a patient’s genetic illness may indicate the likelihood of the same illness in the patient’s close blood relatives. The GMC suggests that a physician’s first obligation after diagnosing a genetic illness is to explain to the patient the likelihood that close relatives are also at risk and to encourage the patient to discuss his or her illness with relatives. However, should the patient refuse to voluntarily disclose the illness to at risk family members, the physician may disclose such information if disclosure would be “justified in the public interest.” Physicians are instructed to balance their duty to provide care to the patient against their duty to protect others from serious harm.3
U.K. Human Genetics Commission Proposes Principles for DTC Genetic Testing Services
Last month, the Human Genetics Commission, the U.K. government’s genetics advisory body, issued for public comment a “Common Framework of Principles” for direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing services. The Principles are derived from earlier reports by the Commission (Genes Direct (2003) (pdf) and More Genes Direct (2007) (pdf)) and seek to:
…promote high standards and consistency in the provision of direct-to-consumer genetic tests among commercial providers at an international level in order to protect the interests of people seeking genetic tests and their families.
The Principles, which are ambitious in scope and detailed in their recommendations, represent an important next step in the ongoing debate over the appropriate level of oversight for the emerging DTC genetic testing industry.
Published in draft form, the Principles provide ample room for analysis, and companies and consumers are invited to provide responses and comments until December 6th, 2009.
In this post we take a close look at the draft Principles and summarize the core values and goals that appear to underlie these recommendations.
Why the Errors of the Human Provenance Project Will Echo Beyond the U.K.’s Borders
ScienceInsider has posted several pieces this morning describing and critiquing the U.K. Border Agency’s Human Provenance pilot project:
Scientists are greeting with surprise and dismay a project to use DNA and isotope analysis of tissue from asylum seekers to evaluate their nationality and help decide who can enter the United Kingdom. “Horrifying,” “naïve,” and “flawed” are among the adjectives geneticists and isotope specialists have used to describe the “Human Provenance pilot project,” launched quietly in mid-September by the U.K. Border Agency. Their consensus: The project is not scientifically valid—or even sensible.
In addition to the feature article, ScienceInsider has also published a FAQ describing what is now known about the program as well as links to the underlying documents and expanded reactions from leading geneticists and isotope specialists.
The project is, as the name indicates, a pilot project, and one spokesperson described it as being “in its baby stages.” Still, as reported by ScienceInsider, the scientific community’s reaction to the program appears to be swift, unanimous and extraordinarily critical. Daniel MacArthur of Genetic Future has a slightly more measured take, expressing skepticism about the ability of the government agency to identify precisely an individual’s geographic ancestry based on genomic data and rightly pointing out that the “crucial issue is that it must be shown that the data are used in appropriate ways, and not given undue weight in making serious decisions about a person’s future.” That’s an issue that cannot be resolved until the Border Agency provides additional details on both its scientific methods and its utilization of the collected DNA and isotope data.
The near-uniform scientific skepticism that has greeted the announcement of the Human Provenance project suggests that we should not be surprised to see the pilot project substantially revised, or even scrapped altogether. But has damage already been done?
Genetic Exceptionalism and Paternalism Themes in new German Legislation
In April, the German Parliament approved the Human Genetic Examination Act. An English translation of the Act (pdf), which appears likely to be enacted, was recently posted to EuroGentest. (Special thanks to the PHG Foundation for locating the translation.) The Act is a clear example of what is known as “genetic exceptionalism”—the belief that genetic information is qualitatively different from other forms of personal or medical information—staking out a position near the paternalistic end of genetic regulation. Despite aspiring “to protect human dignity and ensure the individual right to self-determination via sufficient information,” the substance of the Act severely restricts individual freedom of action.
Strict Regulation of Genetic Examinations
The Act employs the terms “genetic examination” and “genetic analysis” in most of its provisions and defines these terms so broadly (§ 3) as to admit some uncertainty as to what would or would not constitute a genetic examination or genetic analysis. The vagueness of the definitions is mitigated to a degree by other defined terms that clarify that the Act’s provisions on genetic examinations and genetic analyses apply, in fact, to such examinations and analyses for medical purposes or for determining descent. The Act requires that “diagnostic” or “predictive” genetic examinations be ordered and interpreted by medical doctors having appropriate training and conducted only by institutions having the appropriate accreditation (§ 7). Such genetic examinations and genetic analyses may be conducted only upon the express, written and informed consent of the patient (§ 8).
Is the ACCP’s Call for Greater Governmental Regulation of DTC Genetics Premature?
Another player has entered the debate over direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing and come down on the side of greater regulation. In a position statement authored by Barbara Ameer and Norberto Krivoy (pdf), the American College of Clinical Pharmacology (ACCP) proposes greater regulation of laboratory genetic tests generally, DTC advertising of genetic tests, and communication to consumers of genetic test results.
The ACCP’s position paper faults a number of features of the current regime: (i) the FDA does not require premarket review of laboratory-developed tests; (ii) even if conducted in CLIA certified laboratories, the clinical validity of laboratory-developed tests (which includes most DTC genetic testing) is not regulated; (iii) there is no regulatory oversight system for advertising of DTC genetic tests; and (iv) the communication of DTC test results is not mediated through a trained clinician. The ACCP fears that consumers are insufficiently protected in the current unregulated environment, with the result that “at a population level, these collective [negative] experiences may give future genetic testing a poor reputation, and it consequently may not be trusted by consumers.” The ACCP further cautions that the “inequitable regulatory policy regarding laboratory-developed tests [may stifle] innovation in the creation of validated genetic tests.” The position paper does not state, or offer any data suggesting, that any such stigma currently attaches to genetic testing or that innovation is being stifled.
MLB’s Genetic Testing Program at the Plate Again
The New York Times published a follow up piece to its story on Major League Baseball using genetic testing to confirm the reported ages of some young baseball aspirants. Last week’s GLR post examined MLB’s genetic testing program in the context of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and has prompted further internal discussion here at GLR, with our own John Conley asking a few questions:
I guess MLB would say they’re not using genetic information to discriminate in the usual sense of screening out high-risk people, but just to verify that the prospect isn’t defrauding them about an essential datum — after some notorious cases of lying and producing false documents in both directions. And in the Bulls’ defense, they said they were spooked by numerous cases of basketball players dropping dead as a result of undiagnosed heart defects that seem to afflict the very tall. I guess they were also mindful of Reggie Lewis of the Celtics, who passed out, WAS diagnosed, shopped for a favorable opinion, then died playing. Does GINA allow any sort of defensive testing like this by employees whose work creates risk to particular categories of people? Or must the employer let the employees kill themselves if they wish?
There is clearly a good practical reason for the testing in both cases that John identifies, but neither testing to confirm identity (or otherwise prevent fraud, as in the case of MLB) or to prevent even potentially fatal medical conditions (as in the case of Eddy Curry) is explicitly permitted under GINA. In the case of MLB, the result will depend, in part, on how the EEOC interprets the following pair of GINA’s definitions (from Section 201 of GINA). Again, the interpretive issue is whether “genetic information”, which may not be used for making employment decisions, covers the kind of testing in the MLB matter.
MLB Meets GINA
According to an article in today’s New York Times, Major League Baseball’s department of investigations is conducting genetic testing on certain Latin American prospects in an attempt to verify their reported ages. The Times reports that MLB has confirmed that it conducts genetic testing to confirm paternity/maternity “in very rare instances and only on a consensual basis to deal with the identity fraud problem that the league faces in [the Dominican Republic].” It appears that MLB is using paternity/maternity testing to verify identity by confirming that a particular prospect is in fact the child of the parents claimed on his birth certificate. MLB’s program appears to be the first publicly disclosed genetic testing program since the passage of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or GINA as it is known, fourteen months ago.
This is not the first time that genetic testing in professional sports has made its way into the headlines. In 2005, the Chicago Bulls demanded that center Eddy Curry submit to a genetic test for Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM). Despite playing in 72 games the prior season, Curry was diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat and an enlarged heart and the team insisted on the HCM test as a condition to extending his contract. Curry refused to take the genetic test and was ultimately traded to the New York Knicks, temporarily defusing the situation.
Read the rest of this entry »
U.K. House of Lords Issues Report on Genomic Medicine
On July 7, the Science and Technology Committee of the United Kingdom’s House of Lords issued its report on genomic medicine (pdf). The Report is optimistic about the potential long-term benefits of translating advances in genetics into substantial improvements in medical care but determines that the National Health Service (NHS) is not currently equipped to take advantage of this scientific revolution. The Report identifies existing institutional deficiencies and makes a variety of recommendations for improving the U.K.’s current system.
The following first summarizes key features and recommendations of the Report and then considers how the Report may influence legislative and regulatory developments in the United States, as well as in the U.K.
Part I: Recommendations for Genomic Medicine
At a hefty but still manageable 126 pages, the full Report is recommended reading for those interested in the field of genomic medicine in any country with a developed healthcare system. But for the sake of convenience, some of the highlights of the Report are summarized below.
