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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
C. Mack , Opening Remarks before the Senate Cancer Coalition. U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., September 29, 1995.
2.
F. Collins and D. Galas, “A New Five-Year Plan for the Human Genome Project,”Science262 (1993): 43-46.
3.
E. V. Lapham , C. Kozma, and J. O. Weiss, “Genetic Discrimination: Perspectives of Consumers,”Science274 (1996): 621-624.
4.
M. S. Yesley , “Genetic Privacy, Discrimination, and Social Policy: Challenges and Dilemmas,”Microbial and Comparative Genomics2 (1997): 19-35.
5.
K. H. Rothenberg , “Genetic Information: Challenges for Public Policy,” in Exploring Public Policy Issues in Genetics, ed. M. S. Frankel (Washington, D.C: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1997), 98-113.
6.
J. Portz , “Problem Definitions and Policy Agendas: Shaping the Educational Agenda in Boston,”Policy Studies Journal24 (1996): 371-386.
7.
B. Clinton , “Commencement Address,”Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD, May 18, 1997.
8.
E. Marshall , “Clinton Backs Broad Genetic Safeguards,”Science277 (1997): 308-309
9.
D. Ignatius , “Mind Your Own Business,”The Washington Post, February 24, 1999, A21.
10.
F. Collins , “Privacy, Confidentiality and the HGP,” in Exploring Public Policy Issues in Genetics, ed. M. S. Frankel, (Washington, D.C: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1997), 91-95.
11.
Biotechnology Industry Organization ``BIO Policy Statement Regarding Genetic Privacy,” approved September 18, 1996 (Washington, D.C.: BIO, 1996).
12.
F. M. Visco , Testimony before the Senate Cancer Coalition, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C, September 29, 1995.
13.
NIH-DOE Working Group on Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Human Genome Research , Report of the Task Force on Genetic Information and Insurance“Genetic Information and Health Insurance” (National Center for Human Genome Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1993) (NIH Publication No. 93-3686).
14.
T. Harkin, Statement before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate, Hearing on Genetic Information and Health Care, May 21, 1998.
15.
K. H. Rothenberg , “Genetic Information: Challenges for Public Policy.”
16.
M. J. Ellis Kahn , K. Redfield Jamison and F. Collins, “Protecting Our `Family Secrets',”The Washington Post, July 31, 1997, A15.
17.
C. Brunswick, Testimony before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate, Hearing on Genetic Information and Health Care, May 21, 1998.
18.
R. Weiss , “Defect Tied to Doubling of Risk for Colon Cancer,”The Washington Post, August 26, 1997, A1 and A8.
19.
E. Pennisi , “Academic Sequencers Challenge Celera in a Sprint to the Finish,”Science283 (1999): 1822-1823.
