I’m interrupting my blog hiatus to discuss direct-to-consumer (or DTC) genetic testing, an issue that has recently become a cause célèbre (at least among the relatively small group of people concerned about it) and that I think deserves wider attention, as it’s an early indicator of some of the disruption that will occur around health care in the 21st century.
In recent years the cost of sequencing human genomes (i.e., the DNA information that makes you you) has been dropping like a rock. While getting your complete personal genomic data is still relatively expensive (thousands of dollars), the cost of getting less complete data is now at the point where it’s almost an impulse purchase; for example, the startup company 23andme offers a service for $199 plus $5 per month that provides information on various places where your genome might differ from other peoples (“single nucleotide polymorphisms” or “SNPs”, pronounced “snips”) and some interpretation on what such differences might mean.
I have some interest in where the genetics revolution is taking us, and am a regular reader of Daniel MacArthur’s
Notice to Maryland Customers
We are currently unable to offer our services in the state of Maryland. We apologize for the inconvenience. Contact us at email@example.com for more information.
I was then advised to
select another state.
Based on a post by genealogy blogger Tim Agazio and an informative report from the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins, it appears that 23andMe has run afoul of Maryland laws and regulations that prohibit offering medical test services directly to individuals, with DTC genetic test services like 23andMe’s being considered to fall under this prohibition.
There are fierce disputes over to what extent government (both at the Federal and state level) should regulate services that provide personal genetic data directly to consumers, including interpretation of that data. Each side has its arguments. To simplify and somewhat caricature them, one side seeks to protect uninformed consumers from fly-by-night companies that scam patients by offering inaccurate tests and misleading and even dangerous medical interpretations of genetic data. The other side sees an overly paternalistic government trying to shut down innovative new startups at the behest of physicians trying to hold on to their traditional role as the gatekeepers of medical information of interest to patients.
My sympathies are with the latter view. As we saw in the individuals have a right to order tests that provide information about their own genome, and that a lighter and more nuanced regulatory regime is ultimately in the best interests of the general public.
So, back to Maryland: For a state that’s looking to promote biotechnology as an engine of its future economy, it seems misguided to choke off business innovation in the area of personal genomics, especially in an era when people are living longer and are urged to take more personal responsibility for their health. I find it ironic that NEA, one of 23andMe’s investors, has two of its three U.S. offices in Maryland, but Maryland is a
no-go area for 23andMe’s service. It’s not so much ironic but depressing that 23andMe and similar companies can’t solicit as customers geneticists and others in Maryland who are potential future entrepreneurs in this space.
Unless, of course, they move to Virginia. I think the whole
Virginia is better for businesses than Maryland theme is a bit overblown in general, but in this case I think it’s on the mark. The relevant Virginia law seems much more commonsensical, allowing individuals to order their own medical tests and absolving physicians of any responsibility if people don’t consult a medical professional concerning the tests’ results.
So here’s my challenge to Allan Kittleman (my representative in the Maryland Senate) and Gail Bates and Warren Miller (my representatives in the Maryland House of Delegates): Next legislative session, why not focus less on legislation that’s primarily relevant to yesterday’s industries and instead turn your attention to more sensible regulation of one of the emerging industries of tomorrow?