House Takes Tough Privacy Stance on Genetic Tests Information
The House passed HB 879 by an 88-26 vote amid opposition from the insurance industry.
April 12, 2019 at 01:31 PM
3 minute read
Amid privacy concerns and dramatic growth in genetic-testing products, the Florida House passed a bill that would ban life-insurance and long-term care insurance companies from using genetic testing information in policy decisions.
The House passed the measure (HB 879) by an 88-26 vote amid opposition from the insurance industry.
Bill sponsor Jayer Williamson, R-Pace, said the measure bill would help protect private information of consumers as they apply for life-insurance or long-term care coverage. Applicants are already required to provide health information when seeking such coverage, but supporters of the bill say genetic testing information should be shielded.
“I think that's the most private of private information,” Williamson said during a discussion Wednesday on the House floor.
A federal law prevents health insurers from using genetic information in the underwriting process and in setting premiums. But the prohibition doesn't apply to life insurance or long-term care coverage.
The House bill would ban life insurers and long-term care insurers from requiring or soliciting genetic information; using genetic test results in the absence of diagnoses; or considering people's decisions or actions related to genetic testing.
Curtis Leonard, regional vice president of the American Council of Life Insurers, said his group is “disappointed” with the House bill and called it government regulation that is “unlike any other in the country.”
Williamson said he hasn't had lengthy conversations with insurance industry lobbyists who oppose the bill.
“I have not had a lot of in-depth conversations with the life insurance people on this bill because I haven't had a lot of them knocking down my door to come speak to me about how they can make this bill better,” Williamson said. “I have had many testify about how horrible this bill is but have never come to me with a solution to make it better.”
Insurance lobbyists, however, have been speaking with Sen. Aaron Bean, a Fernandina Beach Republican sponsoring the Senate version of the bill.
Bean earlier in the session delayed a vote on his bill, which was initially identical to the House bill, so he could meet with insurance industry representatives.
Following those meetings, Bean crafted an amendment to his bill (SB 258). That amendment, in part, would prevent insurers from requiring applicants to take genetic tests or from collecting applicants' genetic information or genetic test results without the applicants' authorization.
But unlike the House bill, the Senate version would not preclude insurers from using the information if it already is in people's medical records.
Leonard said his group was encouraged by the changes in Bean's bill.
“The Senate bill would be the most restrictive limitation on insurers' use of DNA information in the nation, while preserving honesty and transparency in the marketplace,” Leonard said.
Lawmakers must bridge the differences between the two bills before the scheduled May 3 end of the 60-day legislative session.
Though Bean said the issues were “complicated,” he remained optimistic that the two chambers can reach an accord.
“We're still talking,” Bean said. “There's a lot of nuances. We're 95 percent of the way there, we just have to work on that 5 percent.”
Christine Sexton reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBack-To-Back Hurricanes' Impact on Florida Legal Work Will Go Beyond Usual Suspects
5 minute readHolland & Knight Snags 2 Insurance Partners in New York and Philadelphia From Goodwin
3 minute readTurning the Tables: Defense Litigators Embrace Lawsuits, Alleging Fraud at Plaintiffs Shops
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250