Genetics Tests Irrelevant to Life Insurance

When scientists began studying the genetics of breast cancer, they hoped to understand the mechanism by which the disease developed, and so discover new ways to treat it. They are expected to eventually promote the commercial interests of insurance companies.

However, insurers in the UK are taking into account the results of genetic tests for breast cancer in insurance benefits, although two separate government commission recommended a moratorium on the use of such information. Only after public outcry to the Association of British Insurers has accepted a voluntary, two-year ban on the use of genetic test results for the policies of more than £ 300,000.

Insurers have a justified fear of "adverse selection", where the famous' bad risk can bring a very high insurance policy, without revealing their genetic status. In theory, if a company were unfortunate enough to have several such clients, it could jeopardize the financial stability of the company.

Insurers make their money by charging higher premiums for anyone with a higher-than-average risk. Genetic test results provide a way of stratifying the risk that the company insures against.

But in my opinion, insurers are overestimating the importance of both genetics and learning the wrong lessons from the experience in the United States. The results of genetic tests do not matter in the U.S., where health care is backed by private insurance, but not in Britain, where health insurance is compulsory and universal. Private health insurance companies have strong incentives not to provide anyone at risk of Huntington's disease - a progressive neurological disease that can lead to many years in hospital. However, life insurance provides coverage of suffocation during the currency of politics.

While some genetic tests can predict what May you die, they do not predict time of death. So the tests are not relevant to life insurance, what is more important in the UK by health insurance. Secondly, it gradually becomes apparent that, for rare inherited forms of breast cancer, the number of cases involved are small. It is inconceivable that the industry with an annual turnover of billions could be seriously threatened by their appearance.

two genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) that are associated with breast cancer accounts for less than five per cent of all cases. Those who have one of the genes are not certain to develop the disease and may, in any case, take steps to minimize their risk. Then why do insurers stand? One suggestion is that they are not really interested in single-gene diseases such as Huntington's and several inherited breast cancer, but laying a marker for the future, when genetic susceptibility tests may be available for all common diseases of the West.

If there is any glimmer of truth in this rather cynical view of the fight that genetic test results of a private question of importance not only for a small number of families affected by genetic disease, but for everyone.