PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Jane M Tiller AU - Louise A Keogh AU - Aideen M McInerney-Leo AU - Andrea Belcher AU - Kristine Barlow-Stewart AU - Tiffany Boughtwood AU - Penny Gleeson AU - Grace Dowling AU - Anya Prince AU - Yvonne Bombard AU - Yann Joly AU - Martin Delatycki AU - Ingrid M Winship AU - Margaret Otlowski AU - Paul Lacaze TI - A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals’ views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium AID - 10.1136/jmedgenet-2021-107989 DP - 2022 Aug 01 TA - Journal of Medical Genetics PG - 817--826 VI - 59 IP - 8 4099 - http://jmg.bmj.com/content/59/8/817.short 4100 - http://jmg.bmj.com/content/59/8/817.full SO - J Med Genet2022 Aug 01; 59 AB - Background In 2019, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium (ban) limiting the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. The moratorium is industry self-regulated and applies only to policies below certain financial limits (eg, $500 000 of death cover).Methods We surveyed Australian health professionals (HPs) who discuss genetic testing with patients, to assess knowledge of the moratorium; reported patient experiences since its commencement; and HP views regarding regulation of genetic discrimination (GD) in Australia.Results Between April and June 2020, 166 eligible HPs responded to the online survey. Of these, 86% were aware of the moratorium, but <50% had attended related training/information sessions. Only 16% answered all knowledge questions correctly, yet 69% believed they had sufficient knowledge to advise patients. Genetics HPs’ awareness and knowledge were better than non-genetics HPs’ (p<0.05). There was some reported decrease in patients delaying/declining testing after the moratorium’s introduction, however, 42% of HPs disagreed that patients were more willing to have testing post-moratorium. Although many (76%) felt the moratorium resolved some GD concerns, most (88%) still have concerns, primarily around self-regulation, financial limits and the moratorium’s temporary nature. Almost half (49%) of HPs reported being dissatisfied with the moratorium as a solution to GD. The majority (95%) felt government oversight is required, and 93% felt specific Australian legislation regarding GD is required.Conclusion While the current Australian moratorium is considered a step forward, most HPs believe it falls short of an adequate long-term regulatory solution to GD in life insurance.Data are available upon reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.