{"id":80230,"date":"2025-11-17T07:33:17","date_gmt":"2025-11-16T20:33:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=80230"},"modified":"2025-11-20T13:29:10","modified_gmt":"2025-11-20T02:29:10","slug":"genetic-testing-ban-grabbed-the-headlines-but-its-not-the-whole-story","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2025\/11\/17\/genetic-testing-ban-grabbed-the-headlines-but-its-not-the-whole-story\/","title":{"rendered":"Genetic Testing Ban Grabbed the Headlines, But it\u2019s Not the Whole Story"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\n

Risk specialist adviser, Nicole Bendeich, shares her views about the impending ban on use of genetic tests in the underwriting process. While the co-founder of advice firm, Calibre Life, agrees the draft ban removes a powerful reason to avoid genetic testing, she says trust in life insurance isn\u2019t created by law alone…<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Australia is set to ban life insurers from soliciting or using protected genetic information in life insurance underwriting, a ban that will be backed by both criminal and civil penalties. There\u2019s one narrow, consumer\u2011led exception and that is \u2013 applicants may voluntarily supply favourable results with consent, and never to their disadvantage.<\/p>\n

Many across industry and medical professions see this as a win because Australians can now pursue testing without fear of discrimination when applying for cover. Reasonable concerns remain about sustainable pricing and the pooling of unknown health risks and under the draft, diagnosed conditions and family history remain in ordinary underwriting.<\/p>\n

For consumers, though, neither of those debates is top of mind. What they are most confused and uncertain about is how family history is considered at application stage, and how little of the reasoning behind non\u2011standard terms seems specific to them. In other words, they want to know how their family history will be treated, and then they want someone to explain the decision made about them.<\/p>\n

Applicants …must still disclose factual, non-genetic information such as preventive treatment or intensified screening<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There\u2019s also an issue the draft doesn\u2019t settle. Applicants aren\u2019t required to disclose protected genetic information and not disclosing it isn\u2019t misrepresentation. However, they must still disclose factual, non-genetic information such as preventive treatment or intensified screening. If those proactive health actions trigger exclusions or loadings, people will still feel penalised for engaging with genetics \u2013 just indirectly, via their prevention efforts. This could recreate a fear of genetic testing by proxy. Getting this nuance right is critical to consumer confidence.<\/p>\n

A real case from my desk makes the point. A healthy woman, aged 40. Her mother was diagnosed with breast cancer in her late 30s. My client\u2019s genetic test was favourable and, regular preventative screening history is clear. Yet this didn\u2019t improve the underwriting outcome for trauma cover \u2013 she was offered cover with a breast cancer exclusion. When I asked whether the risk was reduced given the favourable result and\u00a0 screening history, the response was, \u201cnot all mutations can be detected.\u201d When I asked if a small loading could be considered instead, the answer was no, citing \u201cglobal reinsurer data.\u201d<\/p>\n

Too often the responses to advisers sound the same across insurers. A mix of, \u201cthere\u2019s not enough medical evidence\u201d, and \u201cthe data says no\u201d. These answers sit at odds with each other and don\u2019t give advisers the confidence or detail we need to reassure a client that an exclusion is fair or how it applies to them specifically.<\/p>\n

As an adviser, I respect risk management. But my clients rely on me to guide them through setting up cover. I need reasons from the insurer I can explain; reasons clients can relate to. If a personal history is clear and a genetic test is favourable, clients think, \u201cShouldn\u2019t that reduce risk, even a bit? If not, why not?\u201d To educate them at that point, I need insurer evidence that demonstrates why it wouldn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

Under the draft ban, if a favourable result is volunteered with consent, it can only be used to improve terms. If an insurer solicits it, using it at all would breach the ban. Either way, the \u201cwhy didn\u2019t a favourable result help?\u201d question only gets more pressing.<\/p>\n

…we have an opportunity to strengthen trust where it\u2019s built<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

With the ban drafted, we have an opportunity to strengthen trust where it\u2019s built: in how family history will still be treated, how preventive management will be handled, and how amended terms are communicated.<\/p>\n

A few practical steps would move us there.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Genetics versus family history versus diagnosis<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Most Australians don\u2019t know the difference. As the client-facing agent, adviser-led education is an obvious necessity. A practical support tool is an adviser guide with a family history and genetics interaction note, showing where positive results (when volunteered with consent) may support less restrictive terms, and where they usually wouldn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

    This guide should be principles-based and not prescriptive, providing enough guidance to help advisers set client expectations. This avoids any \u2018collusion\u2019 worry and the \u2018never-ending list\u2019 trap, gives advisers a consistent starting point, keeps pre-assessment lines clear, and helps prevent inadvertent disclosure of a client\u2019s genetic results during adviser pre-assessment calls.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Clear boundaries for prevention actions and consent<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Set clear boundaries so prevention disclosures during applications aren\u2019t treated as automatic proxies for undisclosed genetic results or non-diagnosed illnesses. A practical guiding idea: no penalty for prevention, supported by evidence. Confirm consent processes for any applicant volunteered favourable results to match the draft (written consent, approved form, no disadvantage).<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Make amended terms consistent across the market<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        In the same spirit as ASIC\u2019s prescribed IDR responses (RG 271.53 to RG 271.54). If we want consumers to have confidence in insurance, every amended-terms letter should include, in plain English:<\/p>\n