Financial Services Minister Daniel Mulino recommitted the government to legislating a ban on the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting last month, with the move receiving a clear backing from the life insurers.
According to Acenda chief operating officer Jane Murray, who leads underwriting, once the ban is legislated, it will provide certainty for Australians and allow them to undertake genetic testing without concern that adverse results will be held against them.
“No one should be deterred from taking genetic tests that help them better manage their health. That’s the really simple message that I think all of us are championing in government interactions,” Murray said.
“Overarchingly, and the reason for the ban, is that we want to support the responsible use of genetic testing to help Australians take charge of their health and that sense of empowerment and lack of fear of discrimination.
“We do believe that allowing individuals to voluntarily disclose any genetic results that may better their underwriting outcome and benefit their ability to attract cover is still really important. That approach would allow and empower people to make informed decisions about their health and ensures that genetic testing remains a tool for wellness, not exclusion.”
Importantly, she said, the health of the whole community will benefit if more people are able to engage in genetic testing and proactively address their health and wellbeing.
“We’re actually hoping that the legislation will assist Australians to make decisions to use the testing, and there’s a really big role for us to play in promoting that and informing that it’s another tool to help them better understand their holistic health profile,” Murray said, adding that it can help lead to better health outcomes across the whole community.
She added that the insurer sees advisers as having a “critical role in that trust relationship to help educate consumers” as they’re engaging in client conversations.
“Obviously, it’s a shared effort between insurers and advisers to support our customers and all Australians about understanding the role genetic testing can play in their sort of proactive health and wellbeing,” Murray said.
“We would provide guidelines in that really strong relationship between our underwriters and advisers around any guidance that we can offer there, but we see advisers always playing that really critical role in helping Australians navigate their life insurance decisions and supporting their financial decisions.”
There is also the flow-on benefit for insurers that a more proactive and healthier community would potentially reduce payouts for things like TPD.
“A healthier Australian community is healthier for life insurers because of the way pools work,” she said.
I’m sorry, but my BS meter goes into red when I hear a life insurer saying that they are acting in the best interests of their clients. It’s a shareholder value business, as evidenced by the gouging of legacy policyholder premiums
So a 45-year-old is diagnosed with incurable MND. Suddenly members of his greater family realise that his grandfather actually died of MND at a time when it was probably not being effectivelly diagnosed as such. The 45-year old’s teenage sons decide not to be tested for the gene, not wishing to brand themselves with a prospective early departure.They are reassured by some specialists who comment that MND has a habit of jumping generations, so they might just miss out.
If those Teenagers become adults and choose to apply for retail life insurance later on, they will have to answer the question about whether or not a parent died aged under 60. As it stands the insurers can Rate that application but can’t insist on a Genetic test.
MND is of course currently incurable, although it’s clear we don”t know enough about its variations and why it is some people live much longer after first symptoms than others. The above 45-year-old lasted nearly three years. One prominent sufferer is stil with us some seven years or so after his diagnosis
So if I understand the Minister’s intention, legislatiion will be introduced shortly to ban the use of genetic test results when an insurer is underwriting an appliccation for life insurance. Somehow,I doubt that measure will do the job as intended.
That legislation better be very carefully worded or once again exploitation will surface. And the proposal for life insurers to be able to provide advice direct to clients will accentuate the opportunities for a breach of the legislation. And who monitors the insurers on an ongoing basis, or do we wait until a claim fails?
And for those of you who think I’m being a little harsh on insurers, yesterday ASIC issued a warniing to the life industry over direct sales practices, after a review found notable deficiencies remain, despite a crackdown following the Hayne Royal Commission.
Apparently direct sales are heavily influenced by sales targets. And as these people are not listed as advisers, they are not subject to the FASEA Code nor are they paying an ASIC levy or a CLSR Levy.
Who would have thought Direct sales personnel In a life insurer would be somehow subject to sales targets, to the detriment of good quality advice?
Well said Old Risky, a good read. Well, it was until you mentioned the dreaded ‘H’ word. Every time I see ‘HAYNE’ mentioned in an article or comment I have very unpleasant memories resurface. The man was in a position to profoundly alter our industry (profession?) yet he was hopelessly incapable and out of touch with the major issues upon which he presided. It really was a distasteful time and he was an elite without a care or clue how to really help the situation. Worse, he refused to accept advice or input from the people at the coalface of the issues. As usual, it was all just a show by the Big End Of Town to look like the cared and were ‘doing’ something. Too sad for words – look at the adviser exodus now, especially risk specialists.
Clients are proactive in getting their health checked and then have their cover approved with exclusions. Actions speak louder than words. You only have a spinal exclusion if you have a spine with mental health not being much better.