How are genetic test results being used by Australian life insurers?

In Australia, the USA and many Asian countries the life insurance industry is self-regulated. Individuals must disclose genetic test results known to them in applications for new or updated policies including cover for critical care, income protection and death. There is limited information regarding how underwriting decisions are made for policies with such disclosures. The Australian Financial Services Council (FSC) provided de-identified data collected on applications with genetic test result disclosure from its life insurance member companies 2010-2013 to enable repetition of an independent examination undertaken of applications 1999-2003: age; gender; genetic condition; testing result; decision-maker; and insurance cover. Data was classified as to test result alone or additional other factors relevant to risk and decision. Where necessary, the FSC facilitated clarification by insurers. 345/548 applications related to adult-onset conditions. The genetic test result solely influenced the decision in 165/345 applications: positive (n = 23), negative (n = 139) and pending (n = 3). Detailed analyses of the decisions in each of these result categories are presented with specific details of 11 test cases. Policies with standard decisions were provided for all negative test results with evidence of reassessment of previous non-standard decisions and 20/23 positive results with recognition of risk reduction strategies. Disclosure of positive results for breast/ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome and hereditary spastic paraplegia, and three pending results, generated non-standard decisions. The examination demonstrates some progress in addressing concerns in regard to utilisation of genetic test information but the self-regulatory system in Australia only goes some way in meeting internationally recommended best practice.

Repeated prevalence studies on antibiotic use in Latvia, 2003-2007.

Antibiotic resistance and nosocomial infections have recently been recognised as a growing threat in Latvian hospitals. We used a modified point prevalence study design to gain accurate information on the antibiotic prescription pattern and the prevalence of nosocomial infections in different hospital departments. A given department was observed on a given day in a given month (May) five years in a row. All antibiotic treatments, dose and route of administration were recorded, in addition to demographic data. The most commonly used antibiotic groups were first generation cephalosporins (35.6-38.9%), broad-spectrum penicillins (17.5-23.0%), fluoroquinolones (8.4-14.5%) and aminoglycosides (7.7-12.6%). Cefazolin was the most commonly used antibiotic. Antibiotics were predominantly used intravenously. The proportion of oral administration varied from 15.1% to 21.8%. A large proportion (13.3%) of the antibiotics was administered without clear reason. The crude prevalence rate of infection treated with antibiotics was 19.3%. The average prevalence of nosocomial infections was found to be 3.6%. These prevalence studies provided an opportunity to compare hospitals and outline variations and problem areas. They indicated the main problems in antibiotic prescription: large interhospital variations in the choice of an antibiotic for the most common infections, frequent antibiotic use without clear reason, and predominant intravenous administration.