Yes. There are several reasons why this is going to be an issue. If you compare with the U.K., there was a paper written by Professor Angus Macdonald, and I believe he also did a report for Senator Cowan. He found a negligible increase in premium rates because of the ban, as it was constituted in the U.K.
There are some problems with his research. One thing is that he used only six genes, and the genes that I've used include several for heart conditions. He had nothing for heart conditions. The ones that I have included are about five times as serious as the ones that he included. That's a very significant factor.
The second thing is that he assumed that there would be no anti-selection. In other words, the people who test positive for one of these genes would be no more likely to buy insurance than others, and they would buy no more insurance than others who were untested. That seems to me to be very unlikely when you take into account anti-selection. That pushes up the cost quite dramatically.
Mr. Boudreau has already commented that the genes that are involved are not ones that have an impact within the next few months or even the next few years after buying insurance, but they're delayed for several years. The full effect in the experience in the U.K. and other countries is yet to be seen.