Does the law require reinterpretation and return of revised genomic results?

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Shirts, B. H. & Parker, L. S. Changing interpretations, stable genes: responsibilities of patients, professionals, and policy makers in the clinical interpretation of complex genetic information. Genet. Med. 10, 778–783 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    David, K. L. et al. Patient re-contact after revision of genomic test results: points to consider-a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. 21, 769–771 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Carrieri, D. et al. Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 27, 169–182 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Knoppers, B. M., Thorogood, A. & Ma’n, H. Z. Relearning the 3R’s? Reinterpretation, recontact, and return of genetic variants. Genet. Med. 21, 2401–2402 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Appelbaum, P. S., Parens, E., Berger, S. M., Chung, W. K. & Burke, W. Is there a duty to reinterpret genetic data? The ethical dimensions. Genet. Med. 22, 633–639 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Marchant, G. et al. From genetics to genomics: facing the liability implications in clinical care. J. Law Med. Ethics 48, 11–43 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Evans, B. J. Minimizing liability risks under the ACMG recommendations for reporting incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet. Med. 15, 915–920 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Foulkes, A. L. et al. Can clinical genetics laboratories be sued for medical malpractice? Ann. Health Law Life Sci. 29, 153–172 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Rothstein, M. A. & Siegal, G. Health information technology and physicians’ duty to notify patients of new medical developments. Houston J. Health Law Policy 12, 96–136 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Mello, M. M. Of swords and shields: the role of clinical practice guidelines in medical malpractice litigation. Univ. Pennsylvania Law Rev. 149, 645–710 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Van Tassel, K. Harmonizing the Affordable Care Act with the three main systems of healthcare quality improvement: the tort, licensure, and hospital peer review hearing systems. Brooklyn Law Rev. 78, 883–928 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Marchant, G., LeRoy, B., Clatch, L. & Clayton, E. W. Unjust timing limitation in genetic malpractice cases. Albany Law Rev. 83, 61 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Burke, W. et al. Improving recommendations for genomic medicine: building an evolutionary process from clinical practice advisory documents to guidelines. Genet. Med. 21, 2431–2438 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Stevens, Y. A., Senner, G. D. & Marchant, G. E. Physicians’ duty to recontact and update genetic advice. Pers. Med. 14, 367–374 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC) Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Workgroup. Summary report. (2019).

  16. 16.

    42C.F.R. §§ 493.1105(3)-(6) (2020).

  17. 17.

    Rehm, H. L. et al. ACMG clinical laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing. Genet. Med. 15, 733–747 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gargis, A. S., Kalman, L. & Lubin, I. M. Assuring the quality of next-generation sequencing in clinical microbiology and public health laboratories. J. Clin. Microbiol. 54, 2857–2865 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Evans, B. J. HIPAA’s individual right of access to genomic data: reconciling safety and civil rights. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 102, 5–10 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Evans, B. J., Dorschner, M. O., Burke, W. & Jarvik, G. P. Regulatory changes raise troubling questions for genomic testing. Genet. Med. 16, 799–803 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    RTI International & White, P. J. Privacy and security solutions for interoperable health information exchange: report on state medical record access laws (2009).

  22. 22.

    Williams, M. S. in Emery and Rimoin’s Principles and Practice of Medical Genetics and Genomics 315–325 (Elsevier, Cambridge, MA, 2019).

  23. 23.

    Shortliffe, E. H. & Sepulveda, M. J. Clinical decision support in the era of artificial intelligence. JAMA 320, 2199–2200 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Devarakonda, M. V. et al. Automated problem list generation and physicians perspective from a pilot study. Int. J. Med. Inform. 105, 121–129 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Chisholm, C. et al. Reinterpretation of sequence variants: one diagnostic laboratory’s experience, and the need for standard guidelines. Genet. Med. 20, 365–368 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Deverka, P. A. & Dreyfus, J. C. Clinical integration of next generation sequencing: coverage and reimbursement challenges. J. Law Med. Ethics 42(Suppl 1), 22–41 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Pagan, J. A. et al. Genetic variant reinterpretation: economic and population health management challenges. Popul. Health Manag. (2020).

  28. 28.

    Nelson, S. C. & Fullerton, S. M. “Bridge to the literature”? Third-party genetic interpretation tools and the views of tool developers. J. Genet. Couns. 27, 770–781 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Nelson, S. C., Bowen, D. J. & Fullerton, S. M. Third-party genetic interpretation tools: a mixed-methods study of consumer motivation and behavior. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 105, 122–131 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Guerrini, C. J., Wagner, J. K., Nelson, S. C., Javitt, G. H. & McGuire, A. L. Who’s on third? Regulation of third-party genetic interpretation services. Genet. Med., 22, 4–11 (2020).

  31. 31.

    Tandy-Connor, S. et al. False-positive results released by direct-to-consumer genetic tests highlight the importance of clinical confirmation testing for appropriate patient care. Genet. Med. 20, 1515 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Moscarello, T., Murray, B., Reuter, C. M. & Demo, E. Direct-to-consumer raw genetic data and third-party interpretation services: more burden than bargain? Genet. Med. 21, 539–541 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Morgan, T. M. Genomic Screening: the mutation and the mustard seed. J. Law Med. Ethics 46, 541–546 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    ACMG policy statement: updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genet. Med. 17, 68–69 (2015).

  35. 35.

    Kalia, S. S. et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SFv2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet. Med. 19, 249–255 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    The use of ACMG secondary findings recommendations for general population screening: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. 21, 1467–1468, (2019).

  37. 37.

    Foulkes, A. L. et al. Can clinical genetics laboratories be sued for medical malpractice? Ann. Health Law Life Sci. 29, 153–172 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Deignan, J. L. et al. Points to consider in the reevaluation and reanalysis of genomic test results: a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. 21, 1267–1270 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This article was funded in part by R01HG010365. E.W.C. received additional support from 5RM1HG009034. P.S.A. and W.K.C. received additional support from 5RM1HG007257.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ellen Wright Clayton.

Ethics declarations

Author contributions

Conceptualization, research, and review and editing: E.W.C., P.S.A., W.K.C., G.E.M., J.L.R., B.J.E. Writing—original draft: E.W.C.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clayton, E.W., Appelbaum, P.S., Chung, W.K. et al. Does the law require reinterpretation and return of revised genomic results?. Genet Med (2021).

Download citation


Quick links