Most Aussies against subsidising genetically at-risk insureds

11 December 2018
| By Hannah |
image
image
expand image

Just over 60 per cent of Australians are against subsidising life insurance premiums for people who are at higher risk of future illness based on adverse genetic test results, the Financial Services Council (FSC) has found, two months after it announced a moratorium on insurers using the results of previous tests for risk products up to $500,000.

The moratorium, effective from July next year, was part of the FSC’s proposed new Life Insurance Code of Practice and followed recommendations from geneticists and this year’s Parliamentary Joint Committee inquiry into the life insurance industry.

“Our consumer research shows many Australians are open to taking a genetic test to predict the likelihood of becoming ill in future, but also support the principle of setting insurance premiums individually based on the likelihood of making a claim,” FSC senior policy manager, Nick Kirwan, said.

The research found that almost two-thirds of the 1,000 surveyed consumers would be prepared to take a genetic test that could tell if they had a higher chance of serious disease in the future, with the overwhelming majority saying they would take a test through the established medical system with a few preferring to take it anonymously even if at personal cost.

A small minority were willing to pay a little extra ($5) to subsidise people with adverse genetic testing results, but this reduced dramatically as the subsidy increased. People most opposed to offering a subsidy were respondents who were older or with lower incomes.

“Life insurers need to balance the interests of all Australians, and not just act in the interests of those who have had an adverse genetic test result. The moratorium is designed to help get this balance right,” Kirwan said.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Submitted by Colour me shocked! on Tue, 12/11/2018 - 14:01

"People most opposed to offering a subsidy were respondents who were older or with lower incomes."

What a surprise! Older people, whose insurance is already being subsidised by young, healthy people or people on lower incomes (because they don't believe they will have any genetic indicators, their tune will change suddenly when they realise they do).

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Recommended for you

sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest developments in Super Review! Anytime, Anywhere!

Grant Banner

From my perspective, 40- 50% of people are likely going to be deeply unhappy about how long they actually live. ...

4 months ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

4 months 1 week ago
Anthony Asher

No doubt true, but most of it is still because over 45’s have been upgrading their houses with 30 year mortgages. Money ...

4 months 1 week ago

Blue Owl Capital, a US asset manager with its eye on ‘marquee investors’ like super funds, has announced the appointment of a senior Future Fund executive as its newest m...

5 hours ago

Australia’s second-largest super fund has confirmed it is expanding its presence in the UK following significant investment in the region....

21 hours ago

While the Financial Advice Association Australia said it supports a performance testing regime “in principle”, it holds reservations about expanding this scope to retirem...

11 hours ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND