Insurance, genetic information and the future of industry self-regulation in the UK

This article begins by considering what the moratorium on genetic information and insurance does and how it fits with UK insurance law. I will explain how the moratorium waives the application of the much harsher ordinary insurance law on the disclosure of information to insurers. The second section examines the view that the UK’s moratorium is a credible and flexible solution to the problems of the insurance use of genetic information. I will argue that to assess credibility we need to consider two issues—industry compliance and individual enforcement mechanisms. I will argue that while there is currently a high compliance rate, this is predicated on the science remaining static. We have no good reason to assume that this will remain the case. Further, I will show that an individual has no meaningful way to enforce their position under the moratorium and thus it lacks a necessary feature of a credible solution. When considering the flexibility of the moratorium I will argue that the requirement for regular renegotiation offers only a technical flexibility, which is disadvantageous to an increasingly large minority of the population. In short, I argue that the moratorium is insufficiently credible or flexible to amount to an appropriate regulatory response to the problems of the insurance use of predictive genetic test information. The final section places the moratorium in the context of insurance law reform in the UK, and considers what the current approach to insurance law reform may mean for the future of the moratorium. I argue that the preference for self-regulation has left the UK with an outdated insurance law which is extremely harsh towards consumers. However, with the Law Commission’s recent success in getting the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 onto the statute book, it is at least possible that bigger changes are on the horizon that might bode well for a new approach to insurance and predictive genetic information

Análise das medidas aerodinâmicas no português brasileiro por meio do Método Multiparamétrico de Avaliação Vocal Objetiva Assistida (EVA) Analysis of aerodynamic measures in Brazilian portuguese through Multiparameter Assessment Method Vocal Objective Assist (EVA)

OBJETIVO: definir medidas aerodinâmicas em falantes do português brasileiro, sem queixas vocais, obtidas pelo programa EVA. MÉTODO: participaram do estudo 20 homens e 20 mulheres, que tiveram suas vozes analisadas. RESULTADOS: os valores médios referentes à pressão subglótica para vozes femininas e masculinas foram, respectivamente: Pressão subglótica= 5,84 hPa e 6,7 hPa, média da intensidade= 79,21 dB e 81,7 dB, média do fluxo oral= 0,09 dm³/s e 0,16 dm³/s, eficiência glótica= 13,87 dB/hPa e 12,78 dB/hPa, eficiência laríngea= 188,08 dB/(hPa.dm³/s) e 97,11 dB/(hPa.dm³/s), resistência laríngea= 96,26 hPa/(dm³/s) e 52,64 hPa/(dm³/s), média da frequência fundamental (F0)= 208,28 Hz e 136,56 Hz e pico da pressão do fluxo oral= 0,093 e 0,098. Houve diferença estatisticamente significante em relação ao gênero para as medidas de média de intensidade, eficiência laríngea, resistência laríngea e média da frequência fundamental. Os valores médios referentes ao fluxo oral para vozes femininas e masculinas foram respectivamente: Pressão subglótica= 6,05 hPa e 6,6 hPa, média da intensidade= 65,50 dB e 66,3 dB, média do fluxo oral= 0,10 dm³/s e 0,13 dm³/s, eficiência glótica= 11,12 dB/hPa e 11,77 dB/hPa, eficiência laríngea= 144,83 dB/(hPa.dm³/s) e 97,89 dB/(hPa.dm³/s), resistência laríngea= 78,98 hPa/(dm³/s) e 61,81 hPa/(dm³/s), média da F0= 222,52 Hz e 139,20 Hz e pico da pressão do fluxo oral= 0,047 e 0,053. CONCLUSÃO: o EVA é um programa ainda novo no Brasil, e a análise de medidas aerodinâmicas, em falantes do português brasileiro, permite a obtenção de valores de referência, possibilitando assim comparações com estudos futuros.<br>PURPOSE: to define aerodynamic measures in Brazilian Portuguese speakers without voice complaints, obtained by the EVA program. METHOD: the study included 20 men and 20 women who had their voices analyzed. RESULTS: the mean values with subglottic pressure for female and male voices were: Subglottic pressure = 5.84 hPa and 6.7 hPa; average intensity = 79.21dB and 81.7dB; oral mean flow = 0.09 dm3/s and 0.16 dm3/s; glottic efficiency = 13.87dB/hPa and 12.78 dB/hPa; laryngeal efficiency = 188.08 dB/(hPa.dm3/s) and 97.11dB/(hPa.dm3/s); laryngeal resistance = 96.26 hPa/(dm3/s) and 52.64 hPa/(dm3/s); mean fundamental frequency (F0) = 208.28 Hz and 136.56 Hz and peak mouth pressure flow = 0.093 and 0.098. There was a statistically significant difference in relation to gender for the measures of average intensity, efficiency, larynx, laryngeal resistance and mean fundamental frequency. The average flow for the oral female and male voices were: subglottic pressure = 6.05 hPa and 6.6 hPa; average intensity = 65.50 dB and 66.3 dB; oral mean flow = 0, 10 dm3/s and 0.13 dm3/s; glottic efficiency = 11.12 dB/hPa and 11.77 dB/hPa; laryngeal efficiency = 144.83 dB/( hPa.dm3/s) and 97.89 dB/( hPa.dm3/s); laryngeal resistance = 78.98 hPa/(dm3/s) and 61.81 hPa/( dm3/s); average F0 = 222.52 Hz and 139.20 Hz and peak pressure oral flow = 0.047 and 0.053. CONCLUSION: EVA is a new program in Brazil, and analysing the aerodynamic measures in Brazilian Portuguese speakers, allows us to obtain reference values, thus allowing comparisons with future studies