President Bush Signs Genetic Nondiscrimination Act

artemis67 writes "This past week, President Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which would prevent health insurers and employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their genetic information. GINA is the first and only federal legislation that will provide protections against discrimination based on an individual's genetic information in health insurance coverage and employment settings.'"

Re:Interesting vote...

[snl2587]

Our good friend Ron Paul, it turns out.

Re:Does it ban access?

[aztektum]

In the linked FA it says neither insurers or employers can request, require or purchase records pertaining to someones genetic makeup.

However, like most DRM schemes, I'm sure a "hack" will be found soon.

What's lame is they don't even need to discontinue insurance based upon genetics. My step-fathers sister in law had her insurance dropped by her company (amongst others). Management told them straight up it was because they weren't "healthy enough." Of course on paper it was for different reasons (cost reductions I believe.).

This is simply more feel good legislation.

Re:Dr Lamar

[Mikkeles]

'For future reference, right handed men don't hold it with their left. Just one of those things.'

He's wrong.

Re:First time Bush has posted something sane.

[utopianfiat]

Little bit offtopic from my parent, but I figure the mods will forgive me for providing the Text of the GINA. [loc.gov]

Re:You Liberals can thank yourselves for $4/gal. g

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah [archives.gov]

Re:You Liberals can thank yourselves for $4/gal. g

[HiThere]

You might consider the following question:
How much is $4/gal a price increase, and how much is it a devaluation of the dollar?

I think it's pretty clear that it's largely a devaluation of the dollar.

Re:First time Bush has posted something sane.

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't pen the law himself, and he didn't pass it through committee himself...so who did?

That's must more damning than the fact that he signed it...who the hell wanted it signed in the first place?

Re:Repeat after me, physician,

[tsm_sf]

The American Medical Association has given formal recognition to the disease concept since 1956. You're only half a century behind the times... not too late to catch up.

Re:And for good reasons...

[NereusRen]

I wonder how [using family history] will fare under the law.

The text of the act can be found here [loc.gov] (Version ENR is the final enrolled version).

Here's what it has to say about family history, with my bolding:

SEC. 101. AMENDMENTS TO EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974.
    [...]
    (d) Definitions- Section 733(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1191b(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
        [...]
        `(6) GENETIC INFORMATION-
            `(A) IN GENERAL- The term `genetic information' means, with respect to any individual, information about--
                `(i) such individual's genetic tests,
                `(ii) the genetic tests of family members of such individual, and
                `(iii) the manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of such individual.
            [...]
            `(C) EXCLUSIONS- The term `genetic information' shall not include information about the sex or age of any individual.

It seems that requiring someone to provide family history of a disease is now forbidden.

Re:Research *does* need regulation

[NereusRen]

All of your actual points seem to consist of uninformed scaremongering. This should teach us that all a "casual reading" by a non-lawyer, non-biologist is only good enough for a +5 insightful, not for anything resembling facts.

While you can't discriminate based on genetic material the section 210 states that if the information is found by any other means it is permissible (even if it is a genetic related issue). So this for the most part will have no effect on Medical Insurance companies.

All of the 200-level sections are about employment. They have no connection to anything related to medical insurance companies (except in the sense that they, like other companies, have employees).

For example if one of my parents suffered from a genetic disease then they could discriminate against me based on that information and not on actually checking if I have the genetic markers or not.

Apparently you didn't read enough "bits" of the bill. I actually read the entire section on medical insurance, which is how I know that family manifestation of any disease is considered "genetic information" (even if it's not a genetically-transmitted disease!) See my comment here [slashdot.org] for the quote from the bill.

Section 103 seems to mention that if a health company came by your genetic information via another source (3rd party) then it is permissible to use it.

Did you just make this up? The closest thing in 103 seems to be this:

"`(3) INCIDENTAL COLLECTION- If a group health plan obtains genetic information incidental to the requesting, requiring, or purchasing of other information concerning any individual, such request, requirement, or purchase shall not be considered a violation of paragraph (2) if such request, requirement, or purchase is not in violation of paragraph (1)."

However, paragraph (1) states that they still can't use that information for underwriting purposes (i.e. charging a different amount or rejecting the policy), so that's not much of a loophole at all.

Genetic testing IS NOT..
"an analysis of proteins or metabolites that is directly related to a manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition that could reasonably be detected by a health care professional with appropriate training and expertise in the field of medicine involved."

As my bolding indicates, this bill excludes diseases that the person is already suffering from, and which are already showing symptoms. That's what a "manifested" disease is. This bill is to protect people whose genotype indicates a higher likelihood of a certain condition, but who do not already have it.

Re:Does this cover gender discrimination? race?

[greyhueofdoubt]

The bill states that genetic information found by other means (family history, for example) is fair game.

-b

Re:You Liberals can thank yourselves for $4/gal. g

[moosesocks]

I think it's pretty clear that it's largely a devaluation of the dollar.

Gas prices are going up all around the world, and there's no one simple answer why.

The dollar has actually remained fairly stable versus the Euro and Pound over the past few months. It was a lot weaker back in October/November of last year.

The dolar's been growing weaker for quite some time, and the American public only caught on to the fact once gas prices started skyrocketing. Yes, the weak dollar is playing a factor, but it's certainly not causing the massive spike in the price of crude that we're currently seeing.

Re:You Liberals can thank yourselves for $4/gal. g

[PAKnightPA]

Pretty clear?! Oil has gone up from 100$ to 130$ in the last month or two. Thats thirty percent. The dollar has not lost thirty percent of its value in the last few months.