As the federal government continues to expand upon and improve its data sharing policies over the past 20 years, complex challenges remain. Our interviews with U.S. academic genetic researchers (n=23) found that the burden, translation, industry limitations, and consent structure of data sharing remain major governance challenges.

This Position Statement provides guidelines for health professionals who work with individuals and families seeking predictive genetic testing and laboratory staff conducting the tests. It presents the major practical, psychosocial and ethical considerations associated with presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing in adults who have the capacity to make a decision, children and young people who lack capacity, and adults living with reduced or fluctuating cognitive capacity.

Predictive Testing Recommendations: (1) Predictive testing in adults, young people and children should only be offered with pretest genetic counseling, and the option of post-test genetic counseling. (2) An individual considering whether to have a predictive test should be supported to make an autonomous and informed decision. Regarding Children and Young People: (1) Predictive testing should only be offered to children and young people for conditions where there is likely to be a direct medical benefit to them through surveillance, use of prevention strategies, or other medical interventions in the immediate future. (2) Where symptoms are likely to develop in childhood, in the absence of direct medical benefit from this knowledge, genetic health professionals and parents/guardians should discuss whether undertaking predictive testing is the best course of action for the child and the family as a whole. (3) Where symptoms are likely to develop in adulthood, the default position should be to postpone predictive testing until the young person achieves the capacity to make an autonomous and informed decision. This is applicable regardless of whether there is some action that can be taken in adulthood.

This Position Statement provides guidelines to assist all health professionals who receive requests for carrier testing and laboratory staff conducting the tests.

In this Statement, the term ‘carrier testing’ refers to genetic testing in an individual to determine whether they have inherited a pathogenic variant associated with an autosomal or X-linked recessive condition previously identified in a blood relative. Carrier testing recommendations: (1) Carrier testing should only be performed with the individual’s knowledge and consent; (2) An individual considering (for themselves, or on behalf of another) whether to have a carrier test should be supported to make an informed decision; (3) The mode of inheritance, the individual’s personal experience with the condition, and the healthcare setting in which the test is being performed should be considered when determining whether carrier testing should be offered by a genetic health professional. Regarding children and young people: Unless there is direct medical benefit in the immediate future, the default position should be to postpone carrier testing until the child or young person can be supported to make an informed decision. There may be some specific situations where it is appropriate to facilitate carrier testing in children and young people (see section in this article). In such cases, testing should only be offered with pre- and post-test genetic counseling in which genetic health professionals and parents/guardians should explore the rationale for testing and the interests of the child and the family.

The expansion of genetic and genomic testing in clinical practice and research, and the growing market for direct-to-consumer genomic testing has led to increased awareness about the impact of this form of testing on insurance. Genetic or genomic information can be requested by providers of mutually rated insurance products, who may then use it when setting premiums or determining eligibility for cover under a particular product. Australian insurers are subject to relevant legislation and an industry led standard that was updated in 2019 to introduce a moratorium on the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting for policies <AU$500K. The Human Genetics Society of Australasia has updated its position statement on genetic testing and life insurance to account for these changes and to increase the scope of the statement to include a wider range of personally-rated insurance products, such as life, critical care, and income protection products. Recommendations include that: providers of professional education involving genetics should include ethical, legal, and social aspects of insurance discrimination in their curricula; the Australian Government take a more active role in regulating use of genetic information in personal insurance; that information obtained in the course of a research project be excluded; insurers seek expert advice when making underwriting decisions regarding genetic testing; and engagement between the insurance industry, regulators, and the genetics profession be improved.

Genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer can help target prevention programs, and possibly reduce morbidity and mortality. A positive result of BRCA1/2 is a substantial risk factor for breast and ovarian cancer, and its detection often leads to risk reduction interventions such as increased screening, prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy. We examined predictors of the decision to undergo cancer related genetic testing: perceived risk, family risk of breast or ovarian cancer, and numeracy as predictors of the decision to test among women at high risk of breast cancer. Stepwise regression analysis of survey responses from 459 women registered in the Cancer Genetics Network revealed greater likelihood to test for women with more family history, higher perceived risk of mutation, or Ashkenazi descent. Neither subjective nor objective numeracy was associated with the decision to test, although we replicated an earlier finding that subjective numeracy predicted willingness to pay for testing. Findings underscore the need for genetic counselling that disentangles risk perception from objective information to promote better decision-making in the context of genetic testing. Highlighting these factors is crucial for public health campaigns, as well as to clinic-based testing and direct-to-consumer testing.

A positive test result for BRCA1/2 gene mutation is a substantial risk factor for breast and ovarian cancer. However, testing is not always covered by insurance, even for high risk women. Variables affecting willingness to pay (WTP) have implications for clinic-based and direct-to-consumer testing. The relative impact of objective and subjective numeracy on WTP, in the context of worry, perceived risk (of having the mutation and developing breast cancer) and family history, was examined in 299 high-risk women, not previously tested for BRCA1/2. Objective and subjective numeracy correlated positively with one another, yet only subjective numeracy correlated (positively) with WTP. This could not be explained by educational level or worry. In line with the numeracy result, other objective factors including family history, age, and Ashkenazi descent were not correlated with WTP. Perceived risk of having a mutation was also correlated with WTP, though perceived risk of developing breast cancer was not, perhaps because it lacks direct connection with testing. Thus, subjective confidence in the ability to interpret test results and perceived risk of a positive test result are more important drivers in paying for BRCA1/2 testing than factors more objective and/or further removed from the testing itself (e.g., perceived risk of developing cancer, family history). Findings underscore the need for genetic counselling that makes probabilistic information accessible and intelligible, so as to build confidence and promote accurate perception of mutation risk and ultimately better decision-making.

We highlight non-health-related impacts associated with genetic testing (GT) and knowing one’s genetic status so that health technology assessment (HTA) analysts and HTA audiences may more appropriately consider the pros and cons of GT. Whereas health-related impacts of GT (e.g., increased healthy behaviors and avoidance of harms of unnecessary treatment) are frequently assessed in HTA, some non-health-related impacts are less often considered and are more difficult to measure. This presents a challenge for accurately assessing whether a genetic test should be funded. In health systems where HTA understandably places emphasis on measurable clinical outcomes, there is a risk of creating a GT culture that is pro-testing without sufficient recognition of the burdens of GT. There is also a risk of not funding a genetic test that provides little clinical benefit but nonetheless may be seen by some as autonomy enhancing. The recent development of expanded HTA frameworks that include ethics analyses helps to address this gap in the evidence and bring awareness to non-health-related impacts of GT. The HTA analyst should be aware of these impacts, choose appropriate frameworks for assessing genetic tests, and use methods for evaluating impacts. A new reporting tool presented here may assist in such evaluations.