This is an important time to focus on the question of insurance discrimination based on health status. The nation once again is poised to embark on a major health care reform debate. Even as the number of uninsured stands at some 45 million persons, millions more may be poised to lose coverage during the worst economic downturn in generations. In addition, a large number of persons may be seriously under-insured, with coverage falling significantly below the cost of necessary health care. (...) In recent years, the proportion of insured persons who are underinsured has grown by 60% since 2003, reaching an estimated 25 million persons in 2007. Health care costs experienced by insured persons now account for more than 75% of all personal bankruptcies related to medical care. Underlying these figures is a national approach to health care financing for the non-elderly that effectively increases the odds that those who are in poor health status will be uninsured or underinsured. (shrink)

Actuarial underwriting, or discrimination based on an individual's health status, is a business feature of the voluntary private insurance market. The term “discrimination” in this paper is not intended to convey the concept of unfair treatment, but rather how the insurance industry differentiates among individuals in designing and administering health insurance and employee health benefit products. Discrimination can occur at the point of enrollment, coverage design, or decisions regarding scope of coverage. Several major federal laws aimed at regulating insurance discrimination (...) based on health status focus at the point of enrollment. However, because of multiple exceptions and loopholes, these laws offer relatively limited protections. This paper provides a brief overview of discrimination practices, the federal law, and federal reform options to manage discriminatory practices in the insurance and employee health benefit markets. (shrink)

Newborn screening programmes began in the 1960s, have traditionally been conducted without parental permission and have grown dramatically in the last decade. Whether these programmes serve patients’ best interests has recently become a point of controversy. Privacy advocates, concerned that newborn screening infringes upon individual liberties, are demanding fundamental changes to these programmes. These include parental permission and limiting the research on the blood samples obtained, an agenda at odds with the viewpoints of newborn screening advocates. This essay presents the (...) history of newborn screening in the USA, with attention to factors that have contributed to concerns about these programmes. The essay suggests that the rapid increase in the number of disorders screened for and the addition of research without either public knowledge or informed consent were critical to the development of resistance to mandatory newborn screening and research. Future newborn screening initiatives should include public education and comment to ensure continued support. (shrink)