|
|
|
|
|
|
by tssva
1070 days ago
|
|
|
My previous comment was more about not trusting the comment about state level protection than having an issue with that lack of protection. Life and disability insurance companies already deny coverage based upon "sub-clinical family history" of conditions. They do so based upon gathered family medical histories. They will also deny you coverage based upon a required medical examination. What is the issue with adding genetic screening to the list of tools? |
|
|
The term "sub-clinical" means "something that has not yet caused you any problems bad enough that you mention them to a doctor, and therefore never makes it into your medical history; and which also would not yet be revealed by a medical examination."
To be clear, a "sub-clinical family history", then, isn't information about your sub-clinical conditions attained from medical data about your family's clinical interactions (that would be a regular family history!); rather, it's information about your clinical or sub-clinical conditions, deduced through triangulation of your (potentially quite distant!) relatives' sub-clinical conditions, which were in turn discovered through genetic screening of those distant relatives, that they themselves did consent to, as some presumed-boilerplate when submitting their DNA to ancestry websites and the like.
There is currently no way for insurance companies to be aware of your "sub-clinical family history" besides just asking you. With automated triangulated genetic screening, they would have a way to get around asking you.