| Title |
Beyond the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act: ethical and economic implications of the exclusion of disability, long-term care and life insurance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Personalized Medicine, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2217/pme-2016-0078 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jessica D Tenenbaum, Kenneth W Goodman |
| Abstract |
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was intended to protect individuals in the USA from discrimination based on their genetic data, but does not apply to life, long-term care or disability insurance. Patient advocates and ethicists have argued that GINA does not go far enough. Others express concerns for the viability of insurance companies if millions of potential customers know more than professional actuaries. Here we discuss the exclusion of certain insurance types from GINA. We explore the ethical and economic implications of this distinction, and potential paths forward. We suggest that because long-term care and disability insurance can be essential for well-being, there is no good reason to place them in a class with life insurance and therefore beyond GINA's reach. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 4 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 13% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 October 2020.
All research outputs
#16,051,091
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Personalized Medicine
#307
of 557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,112
of 422,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Personalized Medicine
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,553 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.