In research undertaken by Pollinate on behalf of the FSC, within the 63 per cent of people who support genetic testing, it found an overwhelming majority would take a test through the established medical system (e.g. Medicare).
On the other hand, only a few would prefer to pay $200 to take the test anonymously.
The research also found half of the community (51 per cent) are in favour of setting insurance premiums based on the likelihood of making a claim in the future.
Meanwhile, one in five Australians (22 per cent) oppose individually set premiums, and one in three are unsure.
“Our consumer research shows many Australians are open to taking a genetic test to predict the likelihood of becoming ill in future, but also support the principle of setting insurance premiums individually based on the likelihood of making a claim,” said FSC senior policy manager Nick Kirwan.
“Just over 60 per cent of Australians are against subsidising life insurance premiums for people who are at higher risk of getting ill in the future based on an adverse genetic test result.
“Life insurers need to balance the interests of all Australians, and not just act in the interests of those who have had an adverse genetic test result. The moratorium is designed to help get this balance right.”
The FSC said the research will be used to help inform the design of a moratorium it announced in October on the use of genetic test results in life insurance.
The moratorium forms part of its new proposed Life Insurance Code of Practice.
The Genetic test question on life applications has been a clever ploy designed to take advantage of future change. the (Life office) response will be “we have always asked about genetic tests”
Um, selection bias, is not just name. This is the opposite of adverse selection…..and does ANYONE seriously believe that this will result in lower premiums? Pig’s arse it will. It’s hard enough to get the Big 4 insurers to pay out for legitimate heart attack claims, imagine the abuses they will get up to with more information.
This whole genetic testing rubbish is the OPPOSITE of pooling risks. It is about allowing the insurers to remove probable claims and retain more premiums. If your have a higher genetic disposition to illness, you won’t get insurance. This has nothing to do with client outcomes but insurer profitability. And if anyone believes otherwise, I will sell them the Sydney Harbour Bridge….
Steve I had a young lady that had a genetic test and was predisposed to the BRAC gene. So we got trauma cover and IP cover with the exclusion for Breast Cancer. Anyway she had a full masectomy, (which by the way we claimed on on the IP policy and they paid out, 6 months off work) so I go back after the operation was successful and after about 12 months for her to get back to almost normal. I called the underwriter and said hey can we get the loading taken off as there is no risk anymore. No they said wait 12 months ?” What the hell why? Just in case the cancer has spread, I said she hasnt has cancer you idiots. Oh but she may have? What? She had a full masectomy..oh but maybe its in the ovaries, well she had them removed as well, oh maybe its in the lymph nodes , we need to test her after 12 months to be sure. shes just been tested all is clear, but no we need to wait another 12 months to be sure??? It was like kicking a brick all with ballet shoes on. Anyways in the end I ended up rewriting her at standard premiums elsewhere! With full disclosure of course.
What garbage! Clients would certainly be hoodwinked by the corrupt FSC because they don’t understand the ramifications. The FSC want to take the risk out of risk insurance.
93.8% of everything the FSC come out with is corrupt BS for profit. Though after her embarrassing performance on the RC stand perhaps someone should explain to Sally Loane what risk insurance actually is.
“Just over 60 per cent of Australians are against subsidising life insurance premiums for people who are at higher risk of getting ill in the future based on an adverse genetic test result.”
Until they find they are the ones at higher risk of getting ill in the future.
To me, this just sounds like insurers looking to jack up premiums on people they don’t actually want to insure so they can focus on those who are much less likely to ever make a claim.
Ms Loane, I call B.S. ! That question of similar tricky structure would result in the return of capital punishment in Australia if the same technique was used. Whats next – relying on an ancestry DNA test.
Let’s see the FSC data and full survey.
I am extremely sceptical of anything the FSC utters as they have been shown to be compulsive liars and this angle can only be to further enhance their own profits, rather than anything else.
Ummmmmm, NO FSC, we can all see where this is heading! Its very easy to say yes or no in a survey when you don’t understand the ramifications of what you are answering yes too.
My advise to clients is, if you don’t have an underling reason for getting a genetic test, ie family history. Don’t do it just for the sake of it.
we all know what will happen if the FSC gets its way, a genetic test will determine if you do or don’t get insurance. The FSC will create an insurance underclass.
Nothing the FSC do is for the better of any ones interest but theirs!