Health Insurance, Employment, and the Human Genome: Genetic Discrimination and Biobanks in the United States

  • Eric A. FeldmanEmail author
  • Chelsea Darnell


Does genetic information warrant special legal protection, and if so how should it be protected? (See Feldman (2012), for a discussion of the implications of GINA for primary care providers). This question has taken on greater urgency in the United States as genetic testing has become more common and biobanks have developed repositories for large amounts of genetic information. One central concern raised by the collection and storage of genetic and biomedical information is that individuals will increasingly experience privacy violations and discrimination (Kaufman (2009), pp. 643–644). Biomedical researchers worry that public fear of discrimination and privacy violations will limit their ability to collect and analyze genetic information in biobanks. As genetic testing advances and biobanks grow, such concerns will be amplified. The possibility that fear of genetic discrimination would cause people to refrain from genetic testing, which would in turn inhibit scientific research and the discovery of potentially life-saving medical interventions, was in large part responsible for the passage of legislation that addresses the potential threat of genetic discrimination in the USA.

This essay examines the most recent (and indeed only) significant effort by the US government to prohibit genetic discrimination, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Advocates worked for more than a decade to secure GINA’s passage. In the end, we argue that the legislation is unlikely to have the positive impact sought by advocates of genetic privacy. In part, GINA disappoints because it does too little. Hailed by its promoters as “the first civil rights act of the 21st century,” GINA’s reach is in fact quite modest and its grasp even more so. But GINA also fails by trying to do too much, tying the hands of insurers and employers in ways that may fail to serve the interests of individuals or society more generally. In short, if genetic discrimination is a problem that needs to be solved, GINA is not the solution. Instead, the Act creates a number of new and possibly intractable problems that may be more troublesome than what it originally set out to resolve.


Genetic Testing Genetic Information Sickle Cell Anemia Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Health Insurer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baker T (2008) Insurance law and policy: cases and materials. Aspen Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, Smith JC (2008) Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2007. Accessed 20 Feb 2010
  3. Feldman EA (2012) The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA): public policy and medical practice in the age of personalized medicine. J Gen Intern Med 27:743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kaufman DJ (2009) Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am J Hum Genet 85:643–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kaufmann MB (1999) Genetic discrimination in the workplace: an overview of existing protections. Loyola Univ Chicago Law J 30:393, 402–403Google Scholar
  6. Korobkin R, Rajkumar R (2008) The genetic information nondiscrimination act—a half-step toward risk sharing. N Engl J Med 359:335–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. MacKenna R (2008) US Senate approves genetic anti-discrimination legislation. Accessed 20 Feb 2010
  8. Miyagawa T (2008) Variant between CPT1B and CHKB associated with susceptibility to narcolepsy. Nature Gen 40:1324–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rothenberg K (2007) Protecting workers from genetic discrimination: hearing before the Subcomm.e on health, employment, labor and pensions of the H. Comm. on Education and Labor. U.S. Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Van Hoyweghen I, Horstman K (2008) European practices of genetic information and insurance: lessons for the genetic information nondiscrimination act. JAMA 300:326–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Pennsylvania Law SchoolPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations