Genetic privacy, discrimination, and the U.S. Congress

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 215-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark S. Frankel
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Genetic Information ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
Policy Agenda ◽  
Genetic Privacy ◽  
Genetics Research ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Insurance Decisions ◽  
The U.S

Advances in genetics research have fueled public debate over the use of genetic information about individuals and families by health insurers. Fears of discrimination based on one's genetic inheritance have prompted various private and public sector groups to press for restrictions on access to and use of genetic information in health insurance decisions. As a result, the U.S. Congress has considered several pieces of legislation that would impose such restrictions. This paper discusses the merging of several factors that are responsible for placing and maintaining this issue on the congressional policy agenda.

Genetic Privacy Laws and Patients' Fear of Discrimination by Health Insurers: The View from Genetic Counselors

2000 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Hall ◽  
Stephen S. Rich
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Genetic Information ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Genetic Privacy ◽  
Genetic Tests ◽  
Group Health ◽  
Privacy Laws ◽  
Similar Legislation ◽  
Do So ◽  
Health Insurers

Since 1991, over half the states have enacted laws that restrict or prohibit insurers’ use of genetic information in pricing, issuing, or structuring health insurance. Wisconsin was the first state to do so, in 1991, followed by Ohio in 1993, California and Colorado in 1994, and then several more states a year in each of the next five years. Similar legislation has been pending in Congress for several years. Also, a 1996 federal law known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) prohibits group health insurers from applying “preexisting condition” exclusions to genetic conditions that are indicated solely by genetic tests and not by any actual symptoms.

Genomics, Insurance and Human Rights: Is there a Place for Regulatory Frameworks in Africa?

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-34
Author(s):  
Vincent O. Nmehielle
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Genetic Information ◽  
Insurance Industry ◽  
Genetic Discrimination ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Genetic Profile ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Health Care Context ◽  
Insurance Decisions

AbstractThis article examines the human rights dimension of genetic discrimination in Africa, exploring the place of regulatory frameworks while taking into account the disadvantaged position of the average African. This is in response to the tendency of insurance companies toward making health insurance decisions on the basis of individual genetic information, which could result in genetic discrimination or health insurance discrimination based on a person's genetic profile. The author considers such questions as the intersection between human rights (right to life, health, privacy, human dignity and against genetic discrimination) in relation to the insurance industry, as well as the obligations of state and non-state actors to promote, respect, and protect the enjoyment of these rights. The article argues that African nations should not stand aloof in trying to balance the competing interests (scientific, economic and social) presented by the use of genetic information in the health care context and that ultimately it is the responsibility of states to develop domestic policies to protect their most vulnerable citizens and to prevent entrenched private discrimination based on an individual's genes.

Genetic Exceptionalism and Legislative Pragmatism

2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (S2) ◽  
pp. 59-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Rothstein
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Genetic Information ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Genetic Discrimination ◽  
Genome Project ◽  
Genetic Privacy ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Genetic Exceptionalism ◽  
Discrimination In Employment ◽  
The Human Genome Project

One of the most important and contentious policy issues surrounding genetics is whether genetic information should be treated separately from other medical information. The view that genetics raises distinct issues is what Thomas Murray labeled “genetic exceptionalism,” borrowing from the earlier term “HIV exceptional-ism.” The issue of whether the use of genetic information should be addressed separately from other health information is not merely an academic concern, however. Since the Human Genome Project began in 1990, nearly every state has enacted legislation prohibiting genetic discrimination in health insurance; two-thirds of the states have enacted laws prohibiting genetic discrimination in employment, and other state laws have been enacted dealing with genetic discrimination in life insurance, genetic privacy, and genetic testing. Bills in Congress also would prohibit genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment.

scholarly journals The law of genetic privacy: applications, implications, and limitations

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Wright Clayton ◽  
Barbara J Evans ◽  
James W Hazel ◽  
Mark A Rothstein
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Genetic Information ◽  
Genetic Data ◽  
Genetic Privacy ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Many ◽  
Challenging Question

Abstract Recent advances in technology have significantly improved the accuracy of genetic testing and analysis, and substantially reduced its cost, resulting in a dramatic increase in the amount of genetic information generated, analysed, shared, and stored by diverse individuals and entities. Given the diversity of actors and their interests, coupled with the wide variety of ways genetic data are held, it has been difficult to develop broadly applicable legal principles for genetic privacy. This article examines the current landscape of genetic privacy to identify the roles that the law does or should play, with a focus on federal statutes and regulations, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). After considering the many contexts in which issues of genetic privacy arise, the article concludes that few, if any, applicable legal doctrines or enactments provide adequate protection or meaningful control to individuals over disclosures that may affect them. The article describes why it may be time to shift attention from attempting to control access to genetic information to considering the more challenging question of how these data can be used and under what conditions, explicitly addressing trade-offs between individual and social goods in numerous applications.

Service Quality Perception towards E-CRM Practices among Customers of Private and Public Sector Banks of Rajasthan Using SERVQUAL Method

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 22
Author(s):  
Neeti Kasliwal ◽  
Jagriti Singh
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Service Quality ◽  
Banking Sector ◽  
Sampling Technique ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Public Sector Banks ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Score Method ◽  
Public Banks

Banking sector is growing rapidly and playing a vital role in the economic development of the nation. Both private and public sector banks are giving more priority to service quality to satisfy their customers. For this, banks are now emphasizing on E-CRM practices to carry out transactions and communicate with their customers. The purpose of this research is to assess the service quality among private and public banks in Rajasthan. Purposive sampling technique has been employed to collect the data from three private banks and three banks from public. To analyze the data, descriptive statistics, Mean score method and t test have been used. Results indicates that there is a significant difference in consumer’s perception of service quality dimensions related to E-CRM practices provided by selected private and public sector banks of Rajasthan..The findings of this research will help policy makers of banking sector to set customer oriented policies.

Public or private “ownership” - what’s in a name?

2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 441-447
Author(s):  
J. Davis ◽  
G. Cashin
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Service Delivery ◽  
Capital Expenditure ◽  
Performance Standards ◽  
Public Utility ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Private Company ◽  
Delivery Performance ◽  
Operations And Maintenance ◽  
Private And Public

This paper examines the similarities and differences between public and private ownership of water utilities, including variations such as corporatisation. In any utility where the asset owner and the asset operator are the same, there are pressures to reduce operations and maintenance costs and capital expenditure to maximise returns. The authors argue that this is the case irrespective of whether such returns are to private shareholders or dividends to government. On the other hand, where the asset owner and the asset operator are separate entities with a clearly defined contractual interface, it is not possible to increase returns by reducing operations and maintenance standards, presuming a properly constructed contract. This is because the performance standards are clearly stipulated in the contract with payment reductions applying for non-performance. Such a model can be put in place irrespective of whether the asset owner is a private company or a public utility. The paper examines the profit incentive applying to private and public sector organisations in models where:the asset owner and the asset operator are the same organisation;models where the asset owner and the asset operator are separate organisations, with the service delivery performance governed by a clearly defined contractual interface. The paper shows why the drivers governing the behaviour of public sector and private sector owners are similar, and how the separation of asset owner and asset operator can be used to ensure that service delivery standards are achieved at the lowest cost, whilst providing full transparency to shareholders, regulators and customers alike. The paper also reviews actual comparative data on service quality and performance under a number of ownership and contractual models, and draws conclusions on the effectiveness of the various asset owner/operator models in terms of service delivery performance and costs.

THE SEC PREEMPTS THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES BOARD IN 1965: THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE DEFERRED TAX CREDIT RELATING TO INSTALLMENT SALES

2007 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen A. Zeff
Keyword(s):  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Accounting Practice ◽  
Slow Pace ◽  
Accounting Principles ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Deferred Tax ◽  
Accounting Procedure ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Do So

In 1959, the Accounting Principles Board (APB) replaced the Committee on Accounting Procedure because the latter was unable to deal forthrightly with a series of important issues. But during the APB's first half-dozen years, its record of achievement was no more impressive than its predecessor's. The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Manuel F. Cohen, criticized the APB's slow pace and unwillingness to tackle difficult issues. This article discusses the circumstances attending the SEC's issuance of an Accounting Series Release in late 1965 to demonstrate forcefully to the APB that, when it is unable to carry out its responsibility to “narrow the areas of difference” in accounting practice, the SEC is prepared to step in and do so itself. In this sense, the article deals with the tensions between the private and public sectors in the establishment of accounting principles in the U.S. during the mid-1960s. The article makes extensive use of primary resource materials in the author's personal archive, which have not been used previously in published work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document