ACLU Files Complaint Against Lab that Refuses to Recognize Patients’ Right to Their Own Genetic Information
Myriad Genetics Is in Violation of HIPAA
NEW YORK — The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint today with the Department of Health and Human Services against Myriad Genetics for its refusal to provide patients with their own genetic information, as required by law.
The complaint was filed on behalf of four people who underwent genetic testing with Myriad to determine their hereditary risk and treatment options for breast, ovarian, and bladder cancers. The patients requested that Myriad provide their full genetic records, including genetic variants that Myriad identified as benign but did not list in their test reports. The company refused, stating the patients were not entitled to that information.
After hearing of the impending legal action, late Wednesday afternoon Myriad provided previously withheld data to the four patients, but the patients are proceeding with the complaint because Myriad is still in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, also known as HIPAA.
“We are thrilled that Myriad took a step in the right direction and provided our clients with the genetic data they sought,” said Sandra Park, senior staff attorney with the ACLU. “But it’s not enough to provide genetic information only to the patients listed in our complaint. Myriad needs to recognize that HIPAA protects all of its patients’ rights to access their complete genomic information.”
The complaint, the first-of-its-kind to be filed with HHS, alleges that Myriad refuses to comply with HIPAA, which laboratories to provide patients with their own health information, including genetic data, within 30 days. The complaint also alleges that Myriad refuses to acknowledge that genetic data is part of the “designated record set,” and that all genetic testing labs are required to provide the data when a patient requests it.
In letters sent to the ACLU’s clients late Wednesday afternoon, Myriad stated that it was releasing the information “voluntarily” and did not rescind its previous statement that it did not consider the information part of the “designated record set.” The letters also said, “[Y]ou might find this information helpful as you discuss your medical information with your healthcare provider,” admitting that the information should fall under HIPAA.
“I appreciate that Myriad has provided additional data to me, but I believe that it must give access to all patients who ask for their genetic information,” said Ken Deutsch of Massachusetts, one of the patients who filed the complaint who was diagnosed with metastatic bladder cancer two years ago. “As a cancer patient, I am outraged that a lab could stop me or anyone else from seeing our own genetic information and sharing it with the scientific community.”
In 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down Myriad’s gene patents in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of 20 scientific professional organizations, geneticists, genetic counselors, women’s health and breast cancer advocacy groups, and patients.
Before losing the Supreme Court case, Myriad controlled patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are associated with elevated risks for breast, ovarian, prostate, and other cancers. The company used its patents to prevent any other labs from conducting genetic tests on patients’ samples to look for mutations to the BRCA genes and stopped sharing the data it collected from patients with public research databases.
Following the ruling, numerous laboratories immediately began offering testing of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and committed to sharing the data with other scientists. In disregard of the Supreme Court ruling, Myriad again tried to stop these labs from testing for mutations on the BRCA genes, and again was rebuffed in the courts.
Responsible, patient-centered data sharing is crucial for advancements in genetics, as recognized by President Obama’s new Precision Medicine Initiative. However, Myriad retains patients’ data — much of which was obtained during 17 years of patent exclusivity — in its proprietary database.
Today’s complaint is here:
/legal-document/aclu-hipaa-complaint
Privacy & Technology
Our Genes, Our Data: Patients’ Right to Access their Own Genetic Information
Privacy & Technology
Our Genes, Our Data: Patients’ Right to Access their Own Genetic Information
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.