The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to population health.
June 2017 (Volume 95)
June 2017 | Sarah E. Gollust, Stacy W. Gray, Deanna Alexis Carere, Barbara A. Koenig, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann, Amy L. McGuire, Richard R. Sharp, Kayte Spector-Bagdady, Na Wang, Robert C. Green, J. Scott Roberts, for the PGEN Study Group | Original Investigation
Context: While policymakers have been considering the appropriateness of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing (DTC-PGT) for more than a decade, there is little empirical data on consumers’ views regarding the regulation of these products. No research has assessed whether consumers’ personal experience with testing is related to their views about access to and regulation of DTC tests.
Methods: Data were analyzed from the PGen Study, a longitudinal prospective cohort of DTC-PGT customers of 23andMe (n = 564) and Pathway Genomics (n = 377; total N = 941). Consumers were sent an electronic survey before receiving genetic test results and again 6 months after receipt of results.
Findings: At the 6-month follow-up, more than 80% of participants believed that people have a right to access genetic information directly, that parents should be able to get DTC-PGT testing for their children, and that genetic information should be kept private. Participants supported health insurance coverage of PGT (60%), wider availability of PGT (68%), and inclusion of genetic information in medical records (63%). Participants were less supportive of government regulation (28%) and restricting testing to clinical settings (14%). Conservative political ideology was associated with less support for government regulation (P < 0.001), as was feeling more confident in one’s genetic knowledge (P < 0.05). Participants’ level of computed genetic risk for common diseases, as indicated by their actual test results received from companies, showed no relationship with attitudes. However, those who perceived that they had received elevated risk results expressed lower support for expanded availability and incorporation of PGT into health care (P < 0.01). Those who reported being upset by their genetic test results were less likely to endorse access to DTC products without a medical professional (P < 0.01).
Conclusions: PGT consumers supported expanded access to these services and opposed additional regulation. Users who had a negative personal experience with PGT testing were less supportive of expanded availability without a medical professional.
Keywords: genetic testing, ethics, regulation, public opinion.
Read on Wiley Online Library
Volume 95, Issue 2 (pages 291–318)
Published in 2017
Timing and Characteristics of Cumulative Evidence Available on Novel Therapeutic Agents Receiving Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval
Risks for Mental Illness in Indigenous Australian Children: A Descriptive Study Demonstrating High Levels of Vulnerability