Britain has become the first country in the world to endorse the use of genetic testing to assess insurance premiums.

The government agreed last month that companies can use the results of tests for Huntingdon's Disease in assessing an individual's life insurance premiums. The decision follows an assessment by the UK Department of Health's Genetics and Insurance Committee (GAIC) that the current tests for the disease are reliable, and that “an abnormal result is associated with significant clinical effects and with an increased probability of a claim on a life insurance policy.”

The announcement was immediately criticized by the National Consumer Council (NCC), which argued that individuals might choose not to have genetic tests in case it prevented them from being granted insurance.

“Simply grafting the new science of genotyping on to traditional insurance practices could lead to exclusion and the avoidance by patients of useful medical advances,” says Anne Bradley, director of the council.

But the Association for British Insurers (ABI), which had earlier rejected government proposals for a moratorium on the use of genetic test data in assessing premiums, said that it was “pleased” at the committee's decision. Chairman John Durrant says that one benefit is that those with a family history of Huntington's Disease, but with a negative test result, would not be asked to pay more for life insurance; at present, he points out, many of those who have a history of such genetic disorders have difficulty in obtaining insurance as a result.

The association is now awaiting judgements from the committee on the possible use of six further tests—ranging from early onset Alzheimer's Disease to heredity breast cancer. Mary Francis, the association's director, emphasizes that insurers “do not, and will not, ask someone to take a genetic test as a condition of obtaining insurance.” But where individuals have already been tested as part of their medical care, there is nothing to prevent insurance companies using that information.

The ABI has already agreed to stop using any genetic test if investigation by the GAIC into its reliability and relevance finds insufficient evidence to justify its use. In such cases, the industry has agreed to reassess individual insurance premiums retrospectively.

This is not enough for the NCC, which argues that, while not excluding the possible future use of genetic tests for insurance purposes, the current ways in which premiums are calculated are insufficient to protect individuals from bearing an unfair burden of the costs. “When genies are let out of bottles, the world changes irrevocably,” says Bradley. “Genetic testing is such a genie.”

The Genetic Interest Group, a consortium of charities dedicated to research in individual genetic disease, is more laid back. “Given the previous importance attached to family history in cases of Huntingdon's Disease and similar monogenic diseases [in assessing premiums], this issue seems to have been overblown,” says campaign director John Gillott.