Effects of Amendments to H-2A Rules on Use of H-2A Program in Tobacco Growing States

Agricultural and Food Policy,

Exits Among U.S. Burley Tobacco Growers After the End of the Federal Tobacco Program

This study explores the relationship between family/farm characteristics and the probability of exiting burley tobacco farming in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia. Following the termination of the federal tobacco program in 2004, 54% of burley tobacco–growing households in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia exited burley tobacco farming by 2006. Tobacco yield, tobacco farm cash receipts, tobacco price, off-farm employment, and farm size are the most dominant variables discriminating between exiting and surviving tobacco farms. Data for this study came from a mail survey of burley tobacco producers in Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina in May 2006.burley tobacco, exit, federal tobacco program, Agribusiness, Agricultural and Food Policy, Crop Production/Industries, Environmental Economics and Policy, Financial Economics, Land Economics/Use, Risk and Uncertainty, C25, Q12, Q18,

Genetics, Insurance and Professional Practice: Survey of the Australasian Clinical Genetics Workforce

In Australia and New Zealand, by contrast with much of the developed world, insurance companies can use genetic test results to refuse cover or increase premiums for mutually-rated insurance products, including life, income protection and disability insurance. Genetics professionals regularly discuss insurance implications with clients and report the issue as a clinical challenge, yet no studies have examined clinical practices or opinions. This study surveyed genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists from Australia and New Zealand to (i) investigate variability in professional practice across the Australasian clinical genetic workforce relating to the insurance implications of genetic testing, and (ii) ascertain views regarding current regulation of the issue. There was considerable variability in training and clinical policies, especially around the communication of insurance implications. Almost half of participants reported receiving no training on the insurance implications of genetic testing, and almost 40% were unsure whether they could adequately advise clients. A number of deficits in professional knowledge and understanding of the issue were identified. Widespread concerns regarding regulation of this area were reported, with < 10% of Australian participants considering current Australian regulations as adequate to protect clients from genetic discrimination. The findings from this study highlight scope for greater education, consistency and professional training on the issue of genetics and insurance in Australasia, and strong agreement about the need for regulatory reform

Combined population genomic screening for three high-risk conditions in Australia: a modelling study

BACKGROUND: No previous health-economic evaluation has assessed the impact and cost-effectiveness of offering combined adult population genomic screening for mutliple high-risk conditions in a national public healthcare system. METHODS: This modeling study assessed the impact of offering combined genomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome and familial hypercholesterolaemia to all young adults in Australia, compared with the current practice of clinical criteria-based testing for each condition separately. The intervention of genomic screening, assumed as an up-front single cost in the first annual model cycle, would detect pathogenic variants in seven high-risk genes. The simulated population was 18–40 year-olds (8,324,242 individuals), modelling per-sample test costs ranging AU$100–$1200 (base-case AU$200) from the year 2023 onwards with testing uptake of 50 FINDINGS: Over the population lifetime (to age 80 years), the model estimated that genomic screening per-100,000 individuals would lead to 747 QALYs gained by preventing 63 cancers, 31 CHD cases and 97 deaths. In the total model population, this would translate to 31,094 QALYs gained by preventing 2612 cancers, 542 non-fatal CHD events and 4047 total deaths. At AU$200 per-test, genomic screening would require an investment of AU$832 million for screening of 50$23,926 (∼£12,050/€14,110/US$15,345) per QALY gained over the status quo. In scenario analysis with 3$4758/QALY was obtained. Sensitivity analysis for the base case indicated that combined genomic screening would be cost-effective under 70% of simulations, cost-saving under 25% and not cost-effective under 5%. Threshold analysis showed that genomic screening would be cost-effective under the AU$50,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold at per-test costs up to AU$325 (∼£164/€192/US$208). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that offering combined genomic screening for high-risk conditions to young adults would be cost-effective in the Australian public healthcare system, at currently realistic testing costs. Other matters, including psychosocial impacts, ethical and societal issues, and implementation challenges, also need consideration. FUNDING: Australian Government, Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, Genomics Health Futures Mission (APP2009024). National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (102604)

Genetic research: the role of citizens, public health and international stakeholders

Background: Genetic research has become an indispensable instrument for medical research, and the subjects involved have both divergent and convergent interests. Objective: The possibility of having more detailed genetic information undoubtedly offers benefits for the health of the subject, but could also pose risks and make the subject vulnerable to discrimination. Methods: The scientific community has viewed very favorably the public health utility of family history, in which data from a family whose members suffer from chronic pathologies is collected and filed, in order to develop a sort of “stratification of family risk.” Even though in the last decade the scientific and juridical literature has contributed greatly to the topic of biobanks, the perplexities that continue to surround this theme give the idea that current ethical protocols on research are inadequate. Results: Researchers, citizens, International stakeholders, mass media, Public Health and Governments play a key role in genetic research. It is obvious that the methods used for genetic research do not present intrinsic risks; they are much less dangerous than other activities of diagnosis and research. Before authorizing a research project, it is important to reflect on the responsibility and transparency of the studies to be conducted, and on the impact they may have on the interests of public health. Conclusion: We believe that the highest priority need is to develop a common language on the theme, as is the case in the sphere of clinical experimentation where rules of good clinical practice, albeit at times conflicting, have led to uniform convergences in the scientific world on the points to be actuated

The Key Features of a Genetic Nondiscrimination Policy

Importance: Governments worldwide have become increasingly cognizant of the spread of genetic discrimination (negative treatment or harm on the basis of actual or presumed genetic characteristics). Despite efforts by a number of governments to establish regulations addressing this phenomenon, public concern about genetic discrimination persists. Objective: To identify key elements of an optimal genetic nondiscrimination policy and inform policymakers as they seek to allay genetic nondiscrimination and related public anxieties. Evidence Review: Sixty multidisciplinary experts from 20 jurisdictions worldwide were consulted to understand their views on effective genetic nondiscrimination policies. Following standard requirements of the Delphi method, 3 rounds of surveys over the course of 1.5 years were conducted. Round 1 focused on assessing participants' understanding of the intricacies of existing genetic nondiscrimination policies, while rounds 2 and 3 invited participants to reflect on specific means of implementing a more effective regime. A total of 60 respondents participated in the first round, 53 participated in round 2, and 43 participated in round 3. Findings: While responses varied across disciplines, there was consensus that binding regulations that reach across various sectors are most useful in preventing genetic discrimination. Overall, experts agreed that human rights-based approaches are well suited to preventing genetic discrimination. Experts also agreed that explicit prohibition of genetic discrimination within nondiscrimination policies can highlight the importance of genetic nondiscrimination as a fundamental right and ensure robust protection at a national level. While most participants believed the international harmonization of genetic nondiscrimination laws would facilitate data sharing worldwide, they also recognized that regulations must reflect the sociocultural differences that exist among regions. Conclusions and Relevance: As the reach of genetic discrimination continues to evolve alongside developments in genomics, strategic policy responses that are harmonious at the international and state levels will be critical to address this phenomenon. In seeking to establish comprehensive frameworks, policymakers will need to be mindful of regional and local circumstances that influence the need for and efficacy of unique genetic nondiscrimination approaches across diverse contexts