Genetic-Testing Company Details Regulatory Defense Plan
source: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/navigenics-to-c.html
-
-
- kushan
- added this
Genetic-testing company Navigenics has responded to the state of California's cease-and-desist letter with a novel defense: It doesn't actually test patients' genomes, it just analyzes 'em.
In a letter sent to the Health Department obtained by Wired.com, the company argues that it does not actually perform genetic tests, and therefore should not be regulated as a clinical laboratory under California state law.
Instead, Navigenics argues it merely applies algorithms to DNA data it receives from tests performed by a third-party, a licensed laboratory.
As we noted Monday, this regulatory battle hinges on the definition of a clinical laboratory test.
"Nothing in the definition of a clinical laboratory test supports a conclusion that the interpretation of the data resulting from such a test is itself a test," Navigenics wrote in its response.
Though abstruse, these definitions could shape the long-term future of genetic testing. The arguments boil down to whether or not the information contained in your DNA should be treated like blood or like data.
Navigenics is arguing that once the state-licensed lab turns a biological sample into digital data, DNA is no longer within the purview of health department laboratory regulation. Navigenics is just an information service, combining scientifically-published genetic disease correlation data with personal genotype data.
Whether or not the health department (or eventually the courts) will buy this argument remains to be seen. The state is reviewing responses from the thirteen companies it served with cease-and-desist letters.
According to Navigenics, it contracts the actual biological work to a Federally-certified and California-licensed lab run by Affymetrix, so it never touches the spit-containing DNA that forms the basis of genetic testing. What Navigenics receives from Affymetrix is merely digital data about a person's genetic variations.
In that way, it argues, the company merely interprets clinical lab tests, much like a physician would, and physicians are not regulated as clinical labs.
The state, on the other hand, holds that because Navigenics obtains the biological data, it is essentially doing the test.
Navigenics' also proposes a second line of defense relating to the necessity of including a physician in ordering a genetic test.
Navigenics has argued all along that it has a California physician who actually orders and receives the tests, but it is not clear whether any physician can order a test, or whether it had to be "your doctor" (whatever that means in today's health care system).
In a letter sent to the Health Department obtained by Wired.com, the company argues that it does not actually perform genetic tests, and therefore should not be regulated as a clinical laboratory under California state law.
Instead, Navigenics argues it merely applies algorithms to DNA data it receives from tests performed by a third-party, a licensed laboratory.
As we noted Monday, this regulatory battle hinges on the definition of a clinical laboratory test.
"Nothing in the definition of a clinical laboratory test supports a conclusion that the interpretation of the data resulting from such a test is itself a test," Navigenics wrote in its response.
Though abstruse, these definitions could shape the long-term future of genetic testing. The arguments boil down to whether or not the information contained in your DNA should be treated like blood or like data.
Navigenics is arguing that once the state-licensed lab turns a biological sample into digital data, DNA is no longer within the purview of health department laboratory regulation. Navigenics is just an information service, combining scientifically-published genetic disease correlation data with personal genotype data.
Whether or not the health department (or eventually the courts) will buy this argument remains to be seen. The state is reviewing responses from the thirteen companies it served with cease-and-desist letters.
According to Navigenics, it contracts the actual biological work to a Federally-certified and California-licensed lab run by Affymetrix, so it never touches the spit-containing DNA that forms the basis of genetic testing. What Navigenics receives from Affymetrix is merely digital data about a person's genetic variations.
In that way, it argues, the company merely interprets clinical lab tests, much like a physician would, and physicians are not regulated as clinical labs.
The state, on the other hand, holds that because Navigenics obtains the biological data, it is essentially doing the test.
Navigenics' also proposes a second line of defense relating to the necessity of including a physician in ordering a genetic test.
Navigenics has argued all along that it has a California physician who actually orders and receives the tests, but it is not clear whether any physician can order a test, or whether it had to be "your doctor" (whatever that means in today's health care system).
-
- tags:
- Privacy, Defence, Genetic Tests
