Walgreens backs off on plan to sell genetic test

[BoldHighlander]

Walgreens backs off on plan to sell genetic test:
FDA sent letter saying it was 'unable to identify' the kit was approved

msnbc.com news services
updated 5:40 p.m. PT, Wed., May 12, 2010

Walgreens has announced that it's holding off on its plans to carry a personal genetic test kit it was to start selling Friday after learning that federal Food and Drug Administration was "unable to identify" that the kit had been approved by the agency...

You can read more here:
Walgreens backs off on plan to sell genetic test

[auld argonian]

Well, it's not like those were kits to test your ethnic origins like the ones on that Henry Louis Gates show on PBS...they were to tell you if you had any genetic predisposition to various health disorders.

More like you were going to find out that you were genetically predisposed to ingrown toenails than you were going to find out that you were 40% Scottish and 60% Eskimo. The FDA hasn't given their approval, so the value of the tests is sort of in question anyway.

Best

AA

A link to the HLG TV show...if you haven't seen it, it is pretty cool...lots of surprises and it makes the point that whoever you are, you're a "mutt".

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/facesofamerica/

[Standard]

Very interesting link AA.

[Lallans]

I know the US is adopting a swell universal health care system that starts in a few years, but in the meantime how would it work if you foundo out you have some genetic tendency for a medical problem and failed to disclose it to your private insurer? Could they cancel out on you then? Or would they if you DID disclose to them? One hears stories about people who were dropped because they were asked about viruses and didn't mention a wart on the left thumb and stuff like that....

[BoldHighlander]

Well, it's not like those were kits to test your ethnic origins like the ones on that Henry Louis Gates show on PBS...they were to tell you if you had any genetic predisposition to various health disorders.

Right. I first saw mention of this on the Clan Mackay forum where the OP mistakenly thought it was a test for ethnic origins. I posted the above story to clarify the issue & thought I'd share it here, just in case

[Steve Ashton]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As I am originally an American now living in Canada and holding dual Citizenship I have a little insight into how slippery a slope this thread is on.

BoldHighlander posted a clarification that this test kilt is not the same as those designed to determine Hereditary History or to trace blood lines. Plain and simple.

As soon as this thread is allowed to be turned into a discussion of Health Care systems, Insurance Company Policy or National Politics it is doomed.

Consider this a shot across the bow. This thread has been reported to the Forum Moderators.

Contrary to popular belief the Moderators don't really like closing threads. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of everyone. A little common sense, restraint and consideration for others is all that is asked before hitting the submit button.

[ForresterModern]

Yes, this genetic DNA test is not worth bothering about unless your family is known to harbor one of the specific genes they test for, that is associated with a higher incidence of that specific genetic predsiposed disease. Pretty goofy that Walmart or Walgreens would sell something like this but your doctor's office would not offer it as a medically useful screening test.

Second, Canuck, I just wanted to clarify that the US has passed legislation that in a couple years will mandate health insurance for all citizens, but that the healthcare provision system and insurance systems in general will remain the same, except for the many provisions the legislation provides for in regards who the health insurers MUST offer coverage to, and how they can do that. This is different than universal healthcare, basically in that multiple insurers will provide multiple tiers of insurance coverage at different costs, and that there is separation remaining between the insurers and the health care providers (hospitals/clinics and physicians/allied health professionals). Not everybody will get the same level of healthcare as would be expected in a universal healthcare system.

To put this back into a kilt related discussion, a blue collar working kilt wearer (probably PV casual with boots and a t-shirt) would likley be provided with a lower level of coverage and higher copays for that coverage than would an CEO executive kiltwearer in the same company (probably an 8yd handsewn in family tartan with a nice tweed jacket and matching waistcoat, white shirt and battalion tie, decent brogues, you know the type) who would be expected to recieve the executive level of insurance as a part of his hiring contract. Although if the blue collar kiltwearer wanted the higher level of coverage equal to the executive he would be able to pay extra to get it.(okay, just about everything in this last paragraph is said with tongue firmly planted in cheek).

j

[Scotcop]

To put this back into a kilt related discussion, an blue collar kilt wearer (probably PV casual with boots and a t-shirt) would likley be provided with a lower level of coverage and higher copays for that coverage than would an CEO executive kiltwearer in the same company (probably an 8yd handsewn in family tartan with a nice tweed jacket and matching waistcoat, white shirt and battalion tie, decent brogues, you know the type) who would be expected to recieve the executive level of insurance as a part of his hiring contract. (okay, just about everything in this last paragraph is said with tongue firmly planted in cheek).

j

[dutchy kilted]

But the important question - does it show a genetic predisposition to wearing any particular tartan?

[Lyle1]

I know the US is adopting a swell universal health care system that starts in a few years, but in the meantime how would it work if you foundo out you have some genetic tendency for a medical problem and failed to disclose it to your private insurer? Could they cancel out on you then? Or would they if you DID disclose to them? One hears stories about people who were dropped because they were asked about viruses and didn't mention a wart on the left thumb and stuff like that....

You raise a very important issue in areas far beyond national health plans. Once your DNA is tested, it is not realistic to assume that your information will remain private forever. No security system is perfect and legislative protection usual lags far behind technological advances.

If you find out that you are genetically predisposed to certain diseases you could find yourself in a catch 22 situation. If you disclose that information to a health or life insurance carrier, you probably will be denied coverage. If you don't disclose the information and get coverage, you could be guilty of fraud, and the policy could be invalidated, and you could be prosecuted.

If your privacy is breached, you could be denied jobs, admittance to some schools, loans, etc. Your children could also be stigmatized.

I understand why people who have a family history of certain diseases might want to be tested, and I respect that decision, but I do advise caution, particularly with children. If no medical cure or treatment is available, the advantage to having the knowledge might not be great enough to justify the risk of having the knowledge.

You could assume, without taking the test, that based on family history alone you have an increased risk of developing a certain disease, and plan your life accordingly. In many cases, even if you carry "the gene," your only course of action is to be vigilant about your health, watching for signs or symptoms, and eliminating, if possible any environmental or lifestyle situation that could contribute to the development of the disease. So, unless there is a pressing personal need to "know," you could take the same steps without benefit of the test, and avoid the complications that having the test on record can bring.