Insurers don't differentiate on ethnicity or religion because that's
illegal. However if a female Ashkenazi Jew were to apply for life insurance,
her family history would be considered. I think that's fair because
underwriters try to assess the individual's insurability. Being Ashkenazi
may increase the likelihood of getting breast cancer but an applicant with a
negative family history would be treated like anyone else with a negative
family history, and not disadvantaged by background.
The argument about a genetic ally determined underclass is and always was
poorly thought out. Alongside progress in genetic identification we have
treatments developing aimed at precisely the mutations and rare diseases.
Emile
From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julian Bradley
Sent: 02 June 2018 16:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Genetic Information and Insurance
Thanks Emile.
That was / is my feeling too when I think about some of the classical
hereditary diseases.
However to recount what I recollect about the argument at the beginning
there was a concern about the creation of a genetic underclass who would eg.
never own a home because (it was said) you need insurance to get a
mortgage, and there was concern about potential effects on employment as
well.
There were / are also issues about children being genetically tested then
finding this disadvantages them as adults.
To reiterate it seems unlikely that the arguments have gone away, though the
mood may have changed.
Of course as the technology gets more sophisticated the insurance companies
could require genetic testing along the lines they sometimes require
insurance medicals.
Do insurance companies differentiate on ethnicity or religion given what is
known about these factors and longevity / insurance risks?
J
At 04:25 02/06/2018, you wrote:
Insurers are already wary of people knowing their risk status and =
choosing not to declare it i.e. getting an unfair advantage. I never =
understood the rationale for the moratorium. Some risks are uninsurable =
and insurance is important but not a right.
=20
From: GP-UK [ mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ] On
Behalf Of Adrian Midgley
Sent: 01 June 2018 20:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Genetic Information and Insurance
=20
Some will indicate lower risk.
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, 16:22 Julian Bradley, <[log in to unmask]> =
wrote:
Thanks Tref.
I was actually thinking of it from patients point of view not a=20
GP's. With genetic testing like Ancestry, 23 and Me etc more and=20
more people will have genetic info that advises them about their=20
lifetime risk of diseases.
Assuming they're honest and will disclose IF THAT IS A LEGAL=20
REQUIREMENT the question goes back to whether it will become a legal=20
requirement.
If testing becomes comprehensive enough most people will probably be=20
found to carry some risk - some an exceptionally high risk.
As a citizen I'd have views that could support both sides of the=20
argument - why should all pay higher premiums to insure someone who=20
already knows they are at exceptionally high risk vs why should=20
people be penalized for genes they can do nothing about.
However I though the question needs to be on the radar as the=20
moratorium ends soon.
J
At 06:50 01/06/2018, you wrote:
>We can always refuse to answer and leave it to the patient.
>
>Trefor
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: GP-UK [ mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
On Behalf Of Julian Bradley
>Sent: 31 May 2018 17:41
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Genetic Information and Insurance
>
>Brief online search suggests the moratorium on question about / use of
>genetic information by insurance companies in the UK ends 2019.
>
>Does anyone know whether a) this is correct, b) what will happen =
afterwards.
>
>Not of course personally relevant to me, but remains an interest.
>
>J
>
>To unsubscribe from the GP-UK list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=3DGP-UK
<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=3DGP-UK> =
< https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=3DGP-UK
<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=3DGP-UK&A=3D1> &A=3D1 >
=
&A=3D1
--=20
A Midgley
Nowadays: Property and Photography
=20
_____ =20
To unsubscribe from the GP-UK list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=3DGP-UK =
< https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=3DGP-UK
<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=3DGP-UK&A=3D1> &A=3D1 >
=
&A=3D1=20
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the GP-UK list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=3DGP-UK
<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=3DGP-UK&A=3D1> &A=3D1
------=_NextPart_000_009B_01D3FA53.9AE9F5D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Insurers are already wary of people knowing their risk status and = choosing
not to declare it i.e. getting an unfair advantage. I never = understood the
rationale for the moratorium. Some risks are uninsurable = and insurance is
important but not a right.
From:= GP-UK = [ mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
On Behalf Of Adrian = Midgley
Sent: 01 June 2018 20:31
To: = [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Genetic Information and = Insurance
Some will indicate lower = risk.
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, = 16:22 Julian Bradley, <[log in to unmask] >
wrote:
Thanks = Tref.
I was actually thinking of it from patients point of view = not a
GP's. With genetic testing like Ancestry, 23 and Me etc = more and
more people will have genetic info that advises them about = their
lifetime risk of diseases.
Assuming they're honest and = will disclose IF THAT IS A LEGAL
REQUIREMENT the question goes back = to whether it will become a legal
requirement.
If testing = becomes comprehensive enough most people will probably be
found to = carry some risk - some an exceptionally high risk.
As a citizen = I'd have views that could support both sides of the
argument - why = should all pay higher premiums to insure someone who
already knows = they are at exceptionally high risk vs why should
people be = penalized for genes they can do nothing about.
However I though = the question needs to be on the radar as the
moratorium ends = soon.
J
At 06:50 01/06/2018, you wrote:
>We can = always refuse to answer and leave it to the = patient.
>
>Trefor
>
>-----Original = Message-----
>From: GP-UK [ mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
On Behalf Of Julian = Bradley
>Sent: 31 May 2018 17:41
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Genetic = Information and Insurance
>
>Brief online search suggests = the moratorium on question about / use of
>genetic information by = insurance companies in the UK ends 2019.
>
>Does anyone know = whether a) this is correct, b) what will happen =
afterwards.
>
>Not of course personally relevant to me, but = remains an interest.
>
>J
>
>To unsubscribe from = the GP-UK list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=3DGP= -UK&A=3D1
--
A = Midgley
Nowadays: Property and = Photography
To = unsubscribe from the GP-UK list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=3DGP= -UK&A=3D1
<br>
<hr>
<p align=3D"center">To unsubscribe from the GP-UK list, click the following
link:<br>
<a href=3D"https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=3DGP-UK&A=3D1"
target=3D"_blank">
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=3DGP-UK
<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=3DGP-UK&A=3D1> &A=3D1
</a>
</p>
------=_NextPart_000_009B_01D3FA53.9AE9F5D0--
_____
To unsubscribe from the GP-UK list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=GP-UK
<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=GP-UK&A=1> &A=1
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the GP-UK list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=GP-UK&A=1
