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.
Personalized Medicine’s Perception Gaps. A new report released this week by the biopharmaceuticals company Quintiles (pdf) examines the perspectives of four key stakeholder groups – biopharma executives (n=200), managed care executives (n=153), physicians (n=503) and patients (n=1,000) – across a wide range of personalized medicine issues.
The report contains a number of interesting statistical nuggets about how these groups perceive their strengths, weaknesses and future role in the advancement of personalized medicine. These include the following:
- Only 44% of biopharmaceutical executives believe that their organization provides “readily available” outcomes data to demonstrate the value of medications;
- Healthcare professionals generally agree (65%) that patients who seek out information on their own achieve better health outcomes, but more than a third (36%) believe that patients are more frequently misinformed than they were five years ago;
- Fewer than half (44%) of doctors surveyed are optimistic that the quality of healthcare will be significantly improved over the coming decade; and
- At least a third of payers (33%) and biopharma execs (38%) believe that personalized medicine will have a negative effect on job and healthcare discrimination (this despite the passage of 2008 legislation (GINA) designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of genetic information in both cases).
Social media – including Facebook, Twitter and other social networking platforms – are widely credited with fundamentally altering the nature of political discourse and, in some instances, credited as catalysts of political revolution. But social media’s ability to affect change need not be limited to politics, as recent developments in the arena of personalized medicine and consumer genomics continue to demonstrate.
Social Media as a Research Tool. Last month, PatientsLikeMe, an online patient community, made headlines with a study published in Nature Biotechnology in which the company analyzed self-reported data from nearly 600 patients to demonstrate that the use of lithium had no effect on the progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease).
The study’s findings are valuable for ALS patients, who frequently experiment with unproven treatments in an attempt to slow progression of the degenerative disease for which there is not yet an effective therapy. But the long-term impact of the study’s methodological approach, which suggests “that data reported by patients over the internet may be useful for accelerating clinical discovery and evaluating the effectiveness of drugs already in use,” should be felt far beyond the ALS community.
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)
[Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared as a guest column at Xconomy.]
Last week, New York State assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow introduced the descriptively named “act to amend the insurance law, in relation to requiring coverage for genetic testing in accident and health insurance polices.”
While not accompanied by a press release, or widely covered by media outlets, the bill merits close attention. While the substance of the bill is striking, its greater import lies in what it reveals about the United States’ current framework for personalized medicine regulation and in what the bill portends for the future of personalized medicine innovation and investment in this country.
Last January we kicked off the new year by posing “Five Questions for Personal Genomics in 2010.” Here were the five questions we asked:
1. Will the $1,000 genome live up to the hype?
2. Will personal genomics stay DTC?
3. How will the ongoing gene patent debate affect the progress of personalized medicine?
4. When and where will the next regulatory shoe fall?
5. Who will control the data?
A year later the question that comes first to mind is, has anything really changed?
The short answer is no, not fundamentally, although that is not meant to imply that nothing of note happened in 2010. Far from it, as significant legal, regulatory, policy and technological developments continued to reshape the personal genomics landscape.
With that in mind, we welcome 2011 with a look back at the year that was, and a look ahead at what to expect from 2011 and beyond.
Meggan Bushee is a student at the Wake Forest University School of Law.
This past May, Congressman Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) re-introduced a personalized medicine bill to the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill was originally introduced in 2006 by then-Senator from Illinois Barack Obama. While HR 5440, also known as the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2010 (GPMA 2010), has retained the name of the bill originally introduced by Senator Obama, its approach to the regulation of personalized medicine has taken a new direction.
GPMA 2010 is the fourth version of the GPMA since the original bill of 2006, and includes the most ambitious initiatives of all of its predecessors. Why has the GPMA re-surfaced after three prior versions failed to make it out of committee? According to Representative Kennedy, the bill has been re-introduced in response to increased public awareness and use of genomic tests. At present, GPMA 2010 is before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This is the same committee that recently conducted high-profile hearings to review the current state of the direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing registry.
[Editor’s Note: Newsweek science editor Mary Carmichael has a DNA Dilemma. As Carmichael debates whether to take a direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic test, she is soliciting feedback from the DTC community, from the public and from other commentators, including myself. At the end of the week, she will make her decision.
On Tuesday, Carmichael and five commentators examined what can be learned from a DTC genetic test. Yesterday, the topic was whether DTC genetic tests are trustworthy, and whether the results can be cause for concern. Today’s topic is the regulation of DTC genetic tests. In addition to several short commentaries, including a much shorter version of the piece below, Carmichael has also posted a lengthy interview with two top FDA officials on the subject of DTC genetic testing regulation.
The column below is an expanded version of what appears over at Newsweek. To see all of the commentaries in Carmichael’s series, click here.]
The recent media attention focused on direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests has left companies, investors, consumers and even regulators scrambling to figure out what comes next.
As the situation stands today, companies and their investors live in a climate of unprecedented regulatory uncertainty, causing delays in the introduction of new products and rendering an already inhospitable economic climate – for both fundraising and sales – even more challenging. Commentators and regulators caution consumers that some DTC genetic tests may be unreliable or, worse, harmful, but have yet to provide clear tools and guidelines for evaluating competing tests. And regulators, including the FDA, must balance their mandate to protect the health and safety of the public with that same public’s desire for autonomy, while also recognizing that innovation is a prerequisite for a healthcare system that must continue to improve outcomes while reducing costs.
Clearly, something must change. But what will that change be? And how will the field of DTC genetic testing evolve? Will DTC be able to continue its current business while regulators and companies engage in protracted negotiations? Will oversight weed out the “snake oil salesmen” and permit legitimate companies to flourish? Will it drive all genetic testing (temporarily) out of the hands of consumers?
Or will the field change in a dramatic and completely unexpected way?
Recent advances in genetic science are remarkable. In 2003 the first full human genome was sequenced after 13 years of work at a cost of over $3 billion. Today, the cost to sequence any individual’s entire genome is approaching $1,000. Genetic tests for specific genes linked to cancer and other diseases exist today and many more are being developed. We hear of a new era of “personalized medicine” in which drugs and therapies will be prescribed based on the individual patient’s specific genes.
All of this may seem to have little direct relevance to companies outside of biotechnology. However, the development of genetic knowledge and technology already has spawned new laws, regulations and patent uncertainties that impact almost all businesses in some way.
Privacy and Nondiscrimination. The federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) represents the most comprehensive effort to date to regulate the use of genetic information. GINA initially only prohibited health insurers and group health plans from using genetic information to deny coverage or set payment rates. Another section, which just became effective in November 2009, affects all private and public employers with more than 15 employees.
Proving causation in toxic tort litigation has bedeviled practitioners and courts for decades. Current work in the field of toxicogenomics, however, is closing in on ways to refine the practice, enabling a much more targeted approach to analyzing how a particular environmental hazard may have caused a particular plaintiff’s injury. Move over, personalized medicine. Personalized toxic tort litigation may be just around the corner.
What is a Tort? Tort cases are those in which the plaintiff claims to have been injured by the defendant’s negligent (or, rarely, intentional) misconduct. The best known examples are automobile accident and medical malpractice cases. In a toxic tort case, the plaintiff (or, often, a whole class of plaintiffs) claims that a sickness or injury is the result of exposure to some dangerous substance that the defendant negligently or intentionally put into the environment—the hundreds of thousands of asbestos cases that have been filed, for example.
Causation and Toxic Torts. In all tort cases, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was what the law calls the “proximate cause” of his or her injury. This is especially tricky in a toxic exposure case. The plaintiff must prove two kinds of causation: that the substance in question can cause the kind of injury the plaintiff suffered (general causation), and that the substance did in fact cause this plaintiff’s injury (specific or individual causation). Proving specific causation is usually where the difficulties for the plaintiff arise.
The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) National Broadband Plan was released to Congress today. (Depending on your perspective, that’s either one day ahead or 30 days behind schedule.) What, you might ask, does a broadband report prepared by an agency better known for handing out fines in the aftermath of wardrobe malfunctions have to say that could possibly interest the Genomics Law Report?
For most of the broadband plan’s 376 pages (pdf) the answer is “nothing at all.” However, Chapter 10 focuses on Health Care (pdf), with several discussions of potential relevance to the future of genomics and personalized medicine, at least in the United States. The bulk of the chapter is devoted to issues of indisputable importance – e-care, health IT, mobile and rural healthcare delivery, for instance – that will be capably covered elsewhere. (mobihealthnews, for instance, is already providing coverage of aspects of the plan that will impact mobile health care: here and here.) However, Section 10.4 (“Unlocking the Value of Data”) offers up two important themes that are relevant to how at least one government agency views the future of genomics and personalized medicine.