STOPPING INSURERS USING GENETIC TESTS COULD FLOOD NHS
PA News
Mittwoch, 7. Februar 2001 21:02:00
Copyright 2001 PA News. Copying, storing, redistribution, retransmission, publication, transfer or commerical exploitation of this information is expressly forbidden.
By James Lyons, Political Correspondent, PA News
Preventing insurance companies from using genetic test results could flood the
health service with applications for checks, leaving it unable to cope, MPs
heard today.
The limited use of tests so far had overwhelmingly benefited policyholders,
insurers told the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee.
Suspending the use of tests for a set period would encourage all those who
feared they might carry a disease to take a test and buy insurance before the
ban runs out, the committee heard.
Chairman Dr Michael Clark suggested ministers could be forced to respond to
mounting public concern over the use of tests.
A limited blanket ban could head off government action and be in companies'
best interests, he said.
However, Mike Urmston, Norwich Union's chief actuary, warned: "A moratorium
might encourage ... a wholesale increase in demand for genetic tests which I do
not necessarily think the NHS will be able to cope with.
"People will want to get tests while the moratorium is in place and get
insurance before it runs out."
Along with Keith Beddell-Pearce, executive director of the Prudential, and
Co-Operative Insurance general manager Martin Clarke, Mr Urmston defended the
voluntary code of practice as the best way of controlling use of tests.
MPs were concerned the code allows firms to use three tests that had not yet
been endorsed by the Government's Genetics and Insurance Committee (GAIC)
watchdog.
Dr Alan Williams, Labour MP for Swansea West, accused Norwich Union of taking
a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach for using Alzheimer's disease,
breast and ovarian cancer tests.
However, Mr Urmston said that the tests were usually used to rule out genetic
problems where a family history of trouble with the disease existed.
The company would make amends to anyone who had seen their premiums raised or
had been refused insurance on the basis of the tests if the GAIC eventually
decided they were unreliable, he pledged.
He defended the use of the tests saying that out of the 30 applications
received last year by those who had undergone tests recognised under the code of
practice 23 people had seen their premiums improved.
Four had been tested for diseases not covered by the code and only three had
suffered because of the results.
"What is actually happening is that the insurance industry is able to accept
more people on standard rates," he told the committee.
The code provided more "flexible" rules for governing the use of what was a
very fast-changing technology, the committee heard.
Government regulations would have to be constantly revised and updated, the
insurers argued.
Although none could say their companies would not reject someone on the basis
of test results they argued the process benefited most of the very small number
of applicants who faced the possibility of genetic illness.
They also suggested everyone could be guaranteed cover through a
cross-industry initiative.
Mr Beddell-Pearce pointed to the system of car insurance used in the 1930s
that meant anyone refused insurance by three companies could go back to the
first firm approached and demand cover.
The industry could provide cover from a pool fund, he suggested.