International scope of biomedical research ethics review.

Many countries consider long-term implications for society.

Moving Genomics into the Clinic: Platforms for Implementing Clinical Genomic Data-Sharing in Ways That Address Ethical, Legal and Social Implications.

This section explores the challenges involved in translating genomic research into genomic medicine. A number of priorities have been identified in the Australian National Health Genomics Framework for addressing these challenges. Responsible collection, storage, use and management of genomic data is one of these priorities, and is the primary theme of this section. The recent release of Genomical, an Australian data-sharing platform, is used as a case study to illustrate the type of assistance that can be provided to the health care sector in addressing this priority. The section first describes the National Framework and other drivers involved in the move towards genomic medicine. The section then examines key ethical, legal and social factors at play in genomics, with particular focus on privacy and consent. Finally, the section examines how Genomical is being used to help ensure that the move towards genomic medicine is ethically, legally and socially sound and that it optimises advances in both genomic and information technology.

A proposal for an inclusive working definition of genetic discrimination to promote a more coherent debate.

Genetic discrimination is an evolving phenomenon that impacts fundamental human rights such as dignity, justice and equity. Although, in the past, various definitions to better conceptualize genetic discrimination have been proposed, these have been unable to capture several key facets of the phenomenon. In this Perspective, we explore definitions of genetic discrimination across disciplines, consider criticisms of such definitions and show how other forms of discrimination and stigmatization can compound genetic discrimination in a way that affects individuals, groups and systems. We propose a nuanced and inclusive definition of genetic discrimination, which reflects its multifaceted impact that should remain relevant in the face of an evolving social context and advancing science. We argue that our definition should be adopted as a guiding academic framework to facilitate scientific and policy discussions about genetic discrimination and support the development of laws and industry policies seeking to address the phenomenon.

"Uninsurable because of a genetic test": a qualitative study of consumer views about the use of genetic test results in Australian life insurance.

Genetic testing can provide valuable information to mitigate personal disease risk, but the use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is known to deter many consumers from pursuing genetic testing. In 2019, following Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry recommendations, the Financial Services Council (FSC) introduced an industry-led partial moratorium, prohibiting life insurance companies from using genetic test results for policies up to $AUD500,000. We used semi-structured interviews to explore genetic test consumers' experiences and views about the FSC moratorium and the use of genetic results by life insurers. Individuals who participated in an online survey and agreed to be re-contacted to discuss the issue further were invited. Interviews were 20-30-min long, conducted via video conference, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis. Twenty-seven participants were interviewed. Despite the moratorium, concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance were prevalent. Participants reported instances where life insurers did not consider risk mitigation when assessing risk for policies based on genetic results, contrary to legal requirements. Most participants felt that the moratorium provided inadequate protection against discrimination, and that government legislation regulating life insurers' use of genetic results is necessary. Many participants perceived the financial limits to be inadequate, given the cost-of-living in Australia. Our findings indicate that from the perspective of participants, the moratorium has not been effective in allaying fears about genetic discrimination or ensuring adequate access to life insurance products. Concern about genetic discrimination in life insurance remains prevalent in Australia.

'Integrating Ethics and Equity with Economics and Effectiveness for newborn screening in the genomic age: A qualitative study protocol of stakeholder perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Newborn bloodspot screening is a well-established population health initiative that detects serious, childhood-onset, treatable conditions to improve health outcomes. With genomic technologies advancing rapidly, many countries are actively discussing the introduction of genomic assays into newborn screening programs. While adding genomic testing to Australia's newborn screening program could improve outcomes for infants and families, it must be considered against potential harms, ethical, legal, equity and social implications, and economic and health system impacts. We must ask not only 'can' we use genomics to screen newborns?' but 'should we'?' and 'how much should health systems invest in genomic newborn screening?'. METHODS: This study will use qualitative methods to explore understanding, priorities, concerns and expectations of genomic newborn screening among parents/carers, health professionals/scientists, and health policy makers across Australia. In-depth, semi-structured interviews will be held with 30-40 parents/carers recruited via hospital and community settings, 15-20 health professionals/scientists, and 10-15 health policy makers. Data will be analysed using inductive content analysis. The Sydney Children's Hospital Network Human Research Ethics Committee approved this study protocol [2023/ETH02371]. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research will guide study planning, conduct and reporting. DISCUSSION: Few studies have engaged a diverse range of stakeholders to explore the implications of genomics in newborn screening in a culturally and genetically diverse population, nor in a health system underpinned by universal health care. As the first study within a multi-part research program, findings will be used to generate new knowledge on the risks and benefits and importance of ethical, legal, social and equity implications of genomic newborn screening from the perspective of key stakeholders. As such it will be the foundation on which child and family centered criteria can be developed to inform health technology assessments and drive efficient and effective policy decision-making on the implementation of genomics in newborn screening.

Australian researcher's perspectives on the Australian industry-led moratorium on genetic tests in life insurance.

Fear of insurance discrimination can inhibit genetic research participation. In 2019, an industry-led partial moratorium on using genetic results in Australian life insurance underwriting was introduced. This mixed-methods study used online surveys (n = 59 participants) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22 participants) to capture researchers' perceptions about the moratorium. 66% (n = 39/59) were aware of the moratorium before the survey. Of researchers returning genetic results, 56% (n = 22/39) reported that insurance implications were mentioned in consent forms, but a minority reported updating consent forms post-moratorium (n = 13/39, 33%). Most researchers reported that concerns regarding life insurers utilizing research results inhibited recruitment (35/59, 59%), and few perceived that the moratorium positively influenced participation (n = 9/39, 23%). These findings were supported by qualitative findings which revealed that genetic discrimination concerns were a major issue for some individuals, though these concerns could be eclipsed by the promise of a diagnosis through research participation. The majority thought a regulatory solution should be permanent (n = 34/51, 67%), have financial limits of at least ≥1,000,000 AUD (37/51, 73%), and involve government oversight/legislation (n = 44/51, 86%). In an era where an increasing number of research studies involve genomics as a primary or secondary objective, it is crucial that we have regulatory solutions to address participants' hesitation.

Direct notification by health professionals of relatives at-risk of genetic conditions (with patient consent): views of the Australian public.

Genetic risk information for medically actionable conditions has relevance for patients' blood relatives. However, cascade testing uptake in at-risk families is <50%, and the burden of contacting relatives is a significant barrier to dissemination of risk information. Health professionals (HPs) could notify at-risk relatives directly, with patients' consent. This practice is supported by international literature, including strong public support. However, there is little exploration of the Australian public's views about this issue. We surveyed Australian adults using a consumer research company. Respondents were provided a hypothetical scenario and asked about views and preferences regarding direct contact by HPs. 1030 members of the public responded, with median age 45 y and 51% female. The majority would want to be told about genetic risk for conditions that can be prevented/treated early (85%) and contacted directly by a HP (68%). Most preferred a letter that included specific information about the genetic condition in the family (67%) and had no privacy concerns about HPs sending a letter using contact details provided by a relative (85%). A minority (< 5%) had significant privacy concerns, mostly about use of personal contact information. Concerns included ensuring information was not shared with third parties. Almost 50% would prefer that a family member contacted them before the letter was sent, while about half did not prefer this or were unsure. The Australian public supports (and prefers) direct notification of relatives at risk of medically actionable genetic conditions. Guidelines would assist with clarifying clinicians' discretion in this area.

Community concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance persist in Australia: A survey of consumers offered genetic testing.

Fears of genetic discrimination in life insurance continue to deter some Australians from genetic testing. In July 2019, the life insurance industry introduced a partial, self-regulated moratorium restricting the use of genetic results in underwriting, applicable to policies up to certain limits (eg AUD$500,000 for death cover).We administered an online survey to consumers who had taken, or been offered, clinical genetic testing for adult-onset conditions, to gather views and experiences about the moratorium and the use of genetic results in life insurance, including its regulation.Most respondents (n = 367) had undertaken a genetic test (89%), and had a positive test result (76%; n = 243/321). Almost 30% (n = 94/326) reported testing after 1 July 2019. Relatively few respondents reported knowing about the moratorium (16%; n = 54/340) or that use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is legal (17%; n = 60/348). Only 4% (n = 14/350) consider this practice should be allowed. Some respondents reported ongoing difficulties accessing life insurance products, even after the moratorium. Further, discrimination concerns continue to affect some consumers' decision-making about having clinical testing and applying for life insurance products, despite the Moratorium being in place. Most respondents (88%; n = 298/340) support the introduction of legislation by the Australian government to regulate this issue.Despite the introduction of a partial moratorium in Australia, fears of genetic discrimination persist, and continue to deter people from genetic testing. Consumers overwhelmingly consider life insurers should not be allowed to use genetic results in underwriting, and that federal legislation is required to regulate this area.

National Health and Medical Research Council statement on electronic cigarettes: 2022 update.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use in Australia has rapidly increased since the 2017 National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Chief Executive Officer (CEO) statement on e-cigarettes. The type of products available and the demographic characteristics of people using these products have changed. New evidence has been published and there is growing concern among public health professionals about the increased use, particularly among young people who do not currently smoke combustible cigarettes. The combination of these issues led NHMRC to review the current evidence and provide an updated statement on e-cigarettes. In this article, we describe the comprehensive process used to review the evidence and develop the 2022 NHMRC CEO statement on electronic cigarettes. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: E-cigarettes can be harmful; all e-cigarette users are exposed to chemicals and toxins that have the potential to cause adverse health effects. There are no health benefits of using e-cigarettes if you do not currently smoke tobacco cigarettes. Adolescents are more likely to try e-cigarettes if they are exposed to e-cigarettes on social media. Short term e-cigarette use may help some smokers to quit who have been previously unsuccessful with other smoking cessation aids. There are other proven safe and effective options available to help smokers to quit. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: The evidence base for the harms of e-cigarette use has strengthened since the previous NHMRC statement. Significant gaps in the evidence base remain, especially about the longer term health harms of using e-cigarettes and the toxicity of many chemicals in e-cigarettes inhaled as an aerosol.

Financial Advisers' and Key Informants' Perspectives on the Australian Industry-Led Moratorium on Genetic Tests in Life Insurance.

INTRODUCTION: Genetic discrimination (GD) in the context of life insurance is a perennial concern in Australia and internationally. To address such concerns in Australia, an industry self-regulated Moratorium on Genetic Tests in Life Insurance was introduced in 2019 to restrict life insurers from using genetic test results in underwriting for policies under certain limits. Financial advisers (FAs) are sometimes engaged by clients to provide financial advice and assist them to apply for life insurance. They are therefore well-placed to comment on GD and the operation of the Moratorium. Despite this, the financial advising sector in Australia has yet to be studied empirically with regards to GD and the Moratorium. This study aims to capture this perspective by reporting on interviews with the financial advising sector. METHODS: Ten semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with FAs and key informants and were analysed using thematic analysis. CONCLUSION(S): Participants' level of awareness and understanding of the Moratorium varied. Participants reported mixed views on the Moratorium's effectiveness, how it operates in practice, and perceived industry compliance. Participants also provided reflections on Australia's current approach to regulating GD, with most participants supporting the concept of industry self-regulation but identifying a need for this to be supplemented with external oversight and meaningful recourse mechanisms for consumers. Our results suggest that there is scope to increase FAs' awareness of GD, and that further research, consultation, and policy consideration are required to identify an optimal regulatory response to GD in Australia.

Privacy Implications of Contacting the At-Risk Relatives of Patients with Medically Actionable Genetic Predisposition, with Patient Consent: A Hypothetical Australian Case Study.

Genetic risk information has relevance for patients' blood relatives. However, cascade testing uptake in at-risk families is <50%. International research supports direct notification of at-risk relatives by health professionals (HPs), with patient consent. However, HPs express concerns about the privacy implications of this practice. Our privacy analysis, grounded in a clinically relevant hypothetical scenario, considers the types of personal information involved in direct notification of at-risk relatives and the application of Australian privacy regulations. It finds that collecting relatives' contact details, and using those details (with patient consent) to notify relatives of possible genetic risk, does not breach Australian privacy law, providing that HPs adhere to regulatory requirements. It finds the purported "right to know" does not prevent disclosure of genetic information to at-risk relatives. Finally, the analysis confirms that the discretion available to HPs does not equate to a positive duty to warn at-risk relatives. Thus, direct notification of a patient's at-risk relatives regarding medically actionable genetic information, with patient consent, is not a breach of Australian privacy regulations, providing it is conducted in accordance with the applicable principles set out. Clinical services should consider offering this service to patients where appropriate. National guidelines would assist with the clarification of the discretion for HPs.

Sharing of Genomic Data: Exploring the Privacy Implications of the Changing Status of Genomic Data.

This article explores the privacy implications of the changing status of genomic data and the consequences for genomic data-sharing. It sets out the theoretical framework for privacy protection in Australia and the centrality of the concept of "personal information" - information from which an individual is "reasonably identifiable". It examines the applicability of this legal framework to genomic data and the challenge from the ever-growing risk of identifiability of such data and implications for research participation and researchers' willingness to share genomic data. The article critiques the binary approach underpinning Australian privacy law based on whether data are "identified" or "de-identified" and highlights the difficulty of applying this distinction to genomic data given their changing status over time. It concludes by examining necessary reforms to provide individuals with more effective privacy protection over their genomic data and which would support data-sharing for genomic research.

They Can Have Our Cake - But Can We Eat It? Access to Raw Genomic Data under Australian Privacy Law.

There is an increasing demand for the return of raw genomic data by research participants in translational genomic research. This article discusses the scope and application of privacy and freedom of information legislative provisions in Australia. Whether there is a right to access a copy of such data under Australian privacy legislation is contingent on whether raw genomic data can identify an individual and this article explores the opportunities for genomic data to be linked to individuals. We conclude that despite the complexity and overlapping nature of privacy laws in Australia, there is a clear right on the part of research participants to access their raw genomic data.

The Australian moratorium on genetics and life insurance: evaluating policy compared to Parliamentary recommendations regarding genetic discrimination.

Objectives and importance of study: Genetic discrimination is a health policy issue of international concern to clinicians, patients, researchers, and policy makers, and threatens the success of genomic medicine. In Australia, genetic discrimination in life insurance is legal and leads to public health harms, including deterring at-risk individuals from clinically indicated testing. In 2018, a Parliamentary Joint Committee recommended an urgent ban on the use of predictive genetic test results in life insurance underwriting in Australia, to be implemented in a form similar to the UK Code on genetic testing and life insurance. In 2019, the insurance industry, through the Financial Services Council (FSC), introduced a self-regulated moratorium that applies until 2024, but only to life insurance policies up to certain financial limits. The FSC moratorium will be reviewed in late 2022, but has no government oversight. STUDY TYPE: Policy implementation evaluation Methods: We used policy evaluation methods to 1) summarise the key recommendations of the 2018 Parliamentary Committee that are directed towards practical aspects of policy development and content; and 2) assess the level of disparity between the implemented moratorium and the recommendations of the Committee. RESULTS: There is a substantial disparity between the Australian moratorium and the Parliamentary Committee recommendations across key areas, including addressing self-regulation, co-development of policy, protection of tests taken during its term, and similarity with the UK Code. The FSC moratorium offers less protection to consumers than the UK Code on a number of measures, including the level of financial coverage, the involvement of government, certainty provided to individuals who have genetic testing, and the treatment of research results. CONCLUSIONS: The FSC moratorium is a step forward for Australia, but falls short of the Parliamentary recommendations. Further regulation by the Australian Government may be required to achieve the aims of the Parliamentary recommendations and ensure the intended level of consumer protection.

Health professionals' views and experiences of the Australian moratorium on genetic testing and life insurance: A qualitative study.

Australian life insurance companies can legally use genetic test results in underwriting, which can lead to genetic discrimination. In 2019, the Financial Services Council (Australian life insurance industry governing body) introduced a partial moratorium restricting the use of genetic testing in underwriting policies ≤ $500,000 (active 2019-2024). Health professionals (HPs), especially clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors, often discuss the implications of genetic testing with patients, and provide critical insights into the effectiveness of the moratorium. Using a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, we interviewed 23 Australian HPs, who regularly discuss genetic testing with patients and had previously completed an online survey about genetic testing and life insurance. Interviews explored views and experiences about the moratorium, and regulation, in greater depth. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Two key themes emerged from views expressed by HPs during interviews (about matters reported to or observed by them): 1) benefits of the moratorium, and 2) concerns about the moratorium. While HPs reported that the moratorium reassures some consumers, concerns include industry self-regulation, uncertainty created by the temporary time period, and the inadequacy of the moratorium's financial limits for patients' financial needs. Although a minority of HPs felt the current industry self-regulated moratorium is an adequate solution to genetic discrimination, the vast majority (19/23) expressed concern with industry self-regulation and most felt government regulation is required to adequately protect consumers. HPs in Australia are concerned about the adequacy of the FSC moratorium with regards to consumer protections, and suggest government regulation is required.

Anti-Selection & Genetic Testing in Insurance: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.

Anti-selection occurs when information asymmetry exists between insurers and applicants. When an applicant knows they are at high risk of loss, but the insurer does not, the applicant may try to use this knowledge differential to secure insurance at a lower premium that does not match risk.

A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals' views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium (ban) limiting the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. The moratorium is industry self-regulated and applies only to policies below certain financial limits (eg, $500 000 of death cover). METHODS: We surveyed Australian health professionals (HPs) who discuss genetic testing with patients, to assess knowledge of the moratorium; reported patient experiences since its commencement; and HP views regarding regulation of genetic discrimination (GD) in Australia. RESULTS: Between April and June 2020, 166 eligible HPs responded to the online survey. Of these, 86% were aware of the moratorium, but <50% had attended related training/information sessions. Only 16% answered all knowledge questions correctly, yet 69% believed they had sufficient knowledge to advise patients. Genetics HPs' awareness and knowledge were better than non-genetics HPs' (p<0.05). There was some reported decrease in patients delaying/declining testing after the moratorium's introduction, however, 42% of HPs disagreed that patients were more willing to have testing post-moratorium. Although many (76%) felt the moratorium resolved some GD concerns, most (88%) still have concerns, primarily around self-regulation, financial limits and the moratorium's temporary nature. Almost half (49%) of HPs reported being dissatisfied with the moratorium as a solution to GD. The majority (95%) felt government oversight is required, and 93% felt specific Australian legislation regarding GD is required. CONCLUSION: While the current Australian moratorium is considered a step forward, most HPs believe it falls short of an adequate long-term regulatory solution to GD in life insurance.

The Genetic Discrimination Observatory: confronting novel issues in genetic discrimination.

Genetic discrimination (GD) is the differential or unfair profiling of an individual on the basis of genetic data. This article summarizes the actions of the Genetic Discrimination Observatory (GDO) in addressing GD and recent developments in GD since late 2020. It shows how GD can take many forms in today's rapidly evolving society.