Australians can be denied life insurance based on genetic test results, and there is little protection. How does your country compare?

[AussieNeil]

Under Australian law, life insurance applicants must disclose any known genetic test results if requested by the insurer. This includes results from approved clinical genetic tests, but also less reliable findings from research or direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests, if they are known to the applicant.

:

Australian insurers can increase premiums, exclude insurance cover for certain conditions such as cancer, or refuse insurance cover altogether purely based on your genetic test results.

:

Many other countries have protected consumers by restricting or banning the use of genetic information for insurance altogether. In the UK, a moratorium established in 2001 sets out an agreement between the government and the insurance industry not to ask for, or use, genetic test results (except for Huntington’s Disease for policies worth over £500,000).

Canada has just passed legislation prohibiting insurance companies from asking for any genetic test results. And many European countries such as Belgium, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Lithuania, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden have implemented outright bans or other regulation in accordance with the Council of Europe’s Oviedo (human rights and biomedicine) Convention.

Full article by Jane Tiller, Ethical, Legal & Social Adviser - Public Health Genomics and Paul Lacaze, Head, Public Health Genomics Program, both of Monash University: theconversation.com/austral...

Neil

[cllady01 Former Volunteer]

I have no life insurance beyond a small former employer benefit the value of which was slashed in half when I reached 70. So, I don't know what has ensued over the years in the U.S. insurance market/game. I am sure there is work afoot to exclude as much as possible from being insurable or to charge as much as is possible to cover what can be discerned as iffy.

[Ballyhoo77]

When I mentioned cll most say sorry can't cover you. Then there are others that say.They don't ask medical history.

[lexie]

My husband looked into life insurance here in the US and applied to one of those advertising that you could get it no matter what, no medical exam, you can't be turned down. There were some health questions on the form so when he disclosed that he was a transplant patient he was turned down! They suggested a dedicated savings account because there was a waiting period and if he passed away within 2 years it wouldn't have accrued enough to cover/pay out. Well, they were right, he passed away within 6 months of inquiring. It would have been a waste of money. Consequently, I am putting into a savings account as a result of that experience and because the US seems to be in a constant state of flux lately.

[AussieNeil Partner Administrator in reply to lexie]

Sorry to hear that you lost your husband, but pleased to hear that the insurance company was ethical enough to tell your husband that putting the money you were going to pay for insurance into a savings account would provide greater coverage for the first two years. With some insurance products, saving into a fund works better - IF we are sufficiently disciplined...

[newyork8]

Insurance companies look to insure people..that is their business. But if they dont price the premiums correctly there wont be a pool of money to cover claims and no one will have insurance. Each insurance company prices different diseases. Some are willing to insure people with some conditions that others are not. One needs to shop around if you have a given condition for the best rate. I think it's very controversial to use genetic testing to price people as the science is still unclear. I'm not aware that the US insurers are using underwriting like this.