Abstract
The predictive power of genetic data has been increasing rapidly and is reaching levels of clinical utility for many diseases. Meanwhile, many jurisdictions have banned insurers from utilizing genetic information. This has led to concerns that further improvements in genetic prediction will lead to adverse selection. We make three contributions to this debate. First, we develop a method to measure the amount of selection in an insurance market where consumers have access to current genetic prediction technology. Second, we extend the method to estimate the amount of selection given expected improvements in genetic prediction technology. Third, using the UK Biobank dataset with nearly 500,000 genotyped individuals, we apply the method to the critical illness insurance market. We find that expected improvements in genetic prediction are likely to lead to unsustainably high levels of selection and thus threaten the viability of the market. We discuss policy implications.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This (preprint) publication is part of the project The Economic Consequences of New Genetic Testing Technologies (project number Vl.Veni.221E.080) of the NWO Talent Programme Veni Social Sciences and Humanities, which is (partly) financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO). This work used the Dutch national e-infrastructure with the support of the SURF Cooperative using grant no. EINF 8891. This research was also supported by a Faculty Research and Development Award (FRDA) at George Mason University and by the National Science Foundation (NSF award nos. 2343735 and 2343736).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Committee Ethics and Data of the Leiden Law School of Leiden University gave ethical approval for this work (application number 2023-24). The use of the UK Biobank data for this research has also been reviewed by the George Mason University Institutional Review Board (IRB) Office, which has determined it to be exempt from IRB review. The use the UK Biobank data was also reviewed by and granted exemptions by the University of Southern California University Park Institutional Review Board and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Research Ethics Committee.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
* For helpful comments and suggestions, we thank Ralph Koijen, Martin Henriksson, Patrick Turley, as well as conference and seminar participants at Stanford University, Uppsala University, Washington University in St-Louis, the Yale School of Management, the American Enterprise Institute, The Advances in Social Genomics Conference, the Integrating Genetics in the Social Sciences conference, and the NBER Insurance Working Group meeting. For outstanding research assistance, we are grateful to Gareth Markel. This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under application numbers 11425, 99086, and 217716. This research was supported by the Dutch Research Council (NWO; project number Vl.Veni.221E.080), by a Small Compute grant (NWO/SURF, no. EINF-8891), by a Faculty Research and Development Award (FRDA) at George Mason University, and by the National Science Foundation (NSF award nos. 2343735 and 2343736). For extended acknowledgments, see the Online Appendix.
Email: eazevedo{at}wharton.upenn.edu
Email: jonathan.pierre.beauchamp{at}gmail.com
Email: r.karlsson.linner{at}law.leidenuniv.nl
Email: r.karlssonlinner{at}vu.nl
JEL classifications: D82, G22, G28, I13, I18
24 The motivation for this standard view is as follows. The cost of genotyping is already of the same order of magnitude as that of a blood test, and has been declining very rapidly. Moreover, genotyping only has to be done once in a patient’s lifetime. And, with improved prediction technology, the medical utility of genotyping will be so high that it is anticipated to become integrated in routine clinical care (Wray et al., 2020; Government Office for Science, 2022).
25 We estimate genetic correlations with LD Score regressions (Bulik-Sullivan et al., 2015), which yields estimates that are not attenuated by measurement error. Under some assumptions, these estimates are equal to the correlation between the variables’ true additive genetic factors.
26 See Brunnermeier et al. (2021) and the references therein.
Data Availability
All individual-level data analysed in this study are available online at https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research/apply-for-access GWAS summary statistics data are available online and sources are reported in the Online Appendix section F.1. Restricted-access results data will be archived with the UK Biobank upon publication. Open-access results data will be archived at a public data repository upon publication (TBD).
