May 21, 2018, marks the tenth anniversary of the signing into law of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The Congressional deliberations for GINA were long and difficult. The original bill was introduced in 1995, and for many years, it did not look as if the bill would ever emerge from committee. Several of its provisions raised concerns for insurers, employers, and other stakeholders. After thirteen years, the controversial provisions were either deleted, revised, or clarified. At this ten‐year mark, it is (...) appropriate to take stock of GINA. In light of GINA's glacial legislative history, it is reasonable to start thinking about the necessity, wisdom, and feasibility of amending GINA or enacting new legislation to address unresolved or emerging issues of genetic discrimination and trends in genetics, genomics, precision medicine, and related technologies. (shrink)

Congress passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 in order to remove a perceived barrier to clinical genetic testing. By banning health insurance companies and employers from discriminating against an individual based on his or her genetic information, legislators hoped that patients would be encouraged to seek genetic testing that could improve health outcomes and provide opportunities for preventive measures. Their explicit legislative goal was to fully protect the public from discrimination and allay their concerns about the potential for (...) discrimination, thereby allowing individuals to take advantage of genetic testing, technologies, research, and new therapies.However, GINA left a number of issues unresolved, most notably failing to define the concept of disease manifestation. GINA was structured such that it only provides protection against misuse of genetic information up until the point when an individual's disease has manifested. It protects an individual with a genetic predisposition for a disease, but not an individual actively suffering from that disease. (shrink)

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 was passed to encourage patients to seek genetic testing that could improve health outcomes and provide opportunities for preventive measures. GINA protects individuals from discrimination based upon genetic information, but not upon manifested diseases and conditions. Because the manifestation of a disease establishes a threshold of protection for individuals under GINA, the definition of manifestation is crucial to understanding the scope of the bill. This paper examines the range of possible legal definitions of (...) disease manifestation and explores the historical struggle that courts have faced when trying to apply these different definitions. Specifically, the paper examines three frameworks that courts have used in the past to interpret the manifestation of a disease; “manifestation as apparent symptoms,”“manifestation as patient action,” and “manifestation as physician action.” We argue that the “manifestation as physician action” is the best framework to utilize in this law generally, but that the definition of manifestation should be read in the light most favorable to a plaintiff in order to achieve the underlying goals of GINA. (shrink)

On January 25, 2013, the Federal Register published the Department of Health and Human Services omnibus amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Rules. These modifications also include the final versions of the HIPAA regulation amendments mandated by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Although the amended rules were effective on March 26, 2013, covered entities and their business associates have a compliance (...) date of September 23, 2013.It has been 10 years since the April 14, 2003 compliance date for the original HIPAA Privacy Rule. Despite HHS’ clarification of some issues by posting answers to frequently asked questions, there have been no significant amendments to the Privacy Rule since 2003. (shrink)

Privacy is protected in biobank-based research in the US primarily by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule and the Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects. Neither rule, however, was created to function in the unique context of biobank research, and therefore neither applies to all biobank-based research. Not only is it challenging to determine when the HIPAA Privacy Rule or the Common Rule apply, but these laws apply different standards to protect privacy. In addition, many other (...) federal and state laws may be applicable to a particular biobank, researcher, or project. US law also does not directly address international sharing of data or specimens outside of the EU–US Safe Harbor Agreement, which only applies to receipt of data by certain US entities from EU countries, and is in the process of revision. Although new rules would help clarify privacy protections in biobanking, any implemented changes should be studied to determine the sufficiency of the protections as well as its ability to facilitate or hinder international collaborations. (shrink)

On January 25, 2013, theFederal Registerpublished the Department of Health and Human Services omnibus amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Rules. These modifications also include the final versions of the HIPAA regulation amendments mandated by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Although the amended rules were effective on March 26, 2013, covered entities and their business associates have a compliance date of (...) September 23, 2013.It has been 10 years since the April 14, 2003 compliance date for the original HIPAA Privacy Rule. Despite HHS’ clarification of some issues by posting answers to frequently asked questions, there have been no significant amendments to the Privacy Rule since 2003. (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)

The exponential growth of genetic knowledge and precision medicine research raises hopes for improved prevention, diagnosis, and treatment options for children with behavioral and psychiatric conditions. Although well-intended, this prospect also raise the possibility — and concern — that behavioral, including psychiatric genetic data would be increasingly used — or misused — outside the clinical context, such as educational settings. Indeed, there are ongoing calls to endorse a “personalized education” model that would tailor educational interventions to children's behavioral and psychiatric (...) genetic makeup. This article explores the justifications for, and prospects and pitfalls of such endeavors. It considers the scientific challenges and highlights the ethical, legal, and social issues that will likely arise should behavioral genetic data become available and are routinely incorporated in student education records. These include: when to disclose students' behavioral and psychiatric genetic profile; whose genomic privacy is protected and by whom; and how students' genetic data may affect education-related decisions. I argue that the introduction of behavioral genetics in schools may overshadow the need to address underlying structural and environmental factors that increase the risk for psychiatric conditions of all students, and that the unregulated use of student behavioral genetic profiles may lead to unintended consequences that are detrimental for individuals, families and communities. Relevant stakeholders — from parents and students to health professionals, educators, and policy-makers — ought to consider these issues before we forge ahead with a genomically informed education system. (shrink)

Genomic research results and incidental findings with health implications for a research participant are of potential interest not only to the participant, but also to the participant's family. Yet investigators lack guidance on return of results to relatives, including after the participant's death. In this paper, a national working group offers consensus analysis and recommendations, including an ethical framework to guide investigators in managing this challenging issue, before and after the participant's death.