When deciding what disorders to screen newborns for, we should be guided by evidence of real effectiveness, take opportunity cost into account, distribute costs and benefits fairly, and respect human rights. Current newborn screening policy does not meet these requirements.

In the 1960s, newborn screening programs tested for a single very rare but serious disorder. In recent years, thanks to the development of new screening technology, they have expanded into panels of tests; a federally sponsored expert group has recommended that states test for twenty-nine core disorders and twenty-five secondary disorders. By the standards used to decide whether to introduce new preventive health services into clinical use, the decision-making in newborn screening policy has been lax.

It has been pending in Congress for twelve years, despite the support of the last two presidential Administrations and the National Institutes of Health. It has been the subject of extensive affirmative lobbying by academic medical centers, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, genetic disease advocacy groups, and civil rights organizations. It has overcome vehement objections by employers and insurers. Its final passage, however, has been thwarted by a few Congressional leaders, who have prevented enactment despite overwhelming bipartisan support in both houses (...) of Congress.Based on this legislative history, one could not help but assume that the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act is a revolutionary piece of legislation that, if finally enacted, would provide extensive, effective, and comprehensive protection against genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment Unfortunately, such an assessment would be incorrect. Indeed, GINA may be a case of too much ado about too little. (shrink)