JA
EN
中文
Prenatal genetic testing, particularly NIPT (non‑invasive prenatal testing), is a screening method that uses a pregnant woman’s blood to assess the risk of chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus. Globally, its use is spreading, but in the United States the adoption, regulatory environment, and ethical stance differ notably from Japan. In this article, we compare the U.S. and Japan in terms of the prevalence of NIPT, institutional differences, and the ethical discourse.
1. Adoption Rate and System of NIPT in the U.S.
In the U.S., clinical use of NIPT began around 2011, and its adoption has accelerated since then. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) revised its guidelines in 2016, recommending that NIPT be offered as an option not only to high‑risk pregnancies but to all pregnant women.
From 2020 onward, many major U.S. health insurance providers began covering NIPT as part of standard prenatal care, which has further driven uptake.
It is estimated that 60–80 % of pregnant women in the U.S. who undergo prenatal testing choose NIPT (though exact figures vary among regions and insurance plans).
Influence of Private Testing Companies
In the U.S., several large biotech firms (such as Natera, Illumina, and formerly Sequenom under LabCorp) offer NIPT. They engage in active marketing and have established systems allowing pregnant women to order tests online without a direct physician referral. This convenience has supported widespread adoption.
2. Introduction and Restrictions of NIPT in Japan
In Japan, NIPT began to be more broadly introduced in 2013. However, even now, it is typically only performed at certified institutions under the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Many facilities limit eligibility to “high maternal age” pregnancies (e.g. age 35+) or other risk factors.
In 2022, some facilities expanded eligibility to women in their 20s and early 30s. Still, there is no public health insurance coverage; the cost is borne entirely by the patient, generally between about ¥100,000–¥200,000. This cost barrier creates a significant difference compared to the U.S. model.
Another tension in Japan is between “certified” and “non‑certified” facilities. There are many non‑certified sites that offer NIPT without the age restrictions or stringent oversight of certified centers, sometimes conducting counseling and consent processes online. This has raised ethical and regulatory concerns in Japan.
3. Differences in What Is Checked / Scope of Testing
U.S.
In the U.S., many NIPT services cover a broader array of chromosomal abnormalities, such as:
- Trisomies 13, 18, 21
- Sex chromosome anomalies (e.g. Turner syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome)
- Microdeletion syndromes (e.g. 22q11.2 deletion)
Some providers are now offering genome‑wide NIPT (i.e. analysis across a broader range of genetic variants).
Japan
Many Japanese institutions currently limit testing to the “classic” trisomies 21, 18, and 13. Many facilities deliberately avoid including sex determination or microdeletion analysis due to ethical caution. The limitation is less a technical one than one of ethical and social consensus in many cases.
4. Differences in Genetic Counseling
U.S. Situation
In the U.S., genetic counselors are often integrated into the prenatal testing pathway before and after NIPT. These professionals are usually certified and are responsible for explaining risks and results in an accessible manner. Some states legally require pretest counseling.
Situation in Japan
Japan also values genetic counseling, but there is a severe shortage of certified genetic counselors. In practice, physicians or midwives often provide the explanations, leading to variability in the depth of patient understanding, as some critics point out.
5. Ethical & Social Backgrounds
Social acceptance of prenatal testing is shaped by cultural values and health systems.
- U.S.: There is greater emphasis on “right to know” and reproductive autonomy. Many consider early access to genetic information as a natural choice in prenatal care.
- Japan: A cultural default assumption may be “giving birth” rather than “testing and selection.” Concerns that prenatal testing may lead to selection or discrimination are stronger, which yields more cautious adoption.
These differing value frameworks influence policy design and NIPT uptake rates.
6. Challenges and Future Outlook
As NIPT becomes more accessible globally, Japan is likely to see further liberalization and technological innovation, but it will face several challenges:
- Institutional setup: creating a regulatory and reimbursement framework
- Information provision: expanding quality genetic counseling
- Ethical debate: establishing rules to prevent discriminatory use of genetic data
In the U.S., concerns already arise about “overdiagnosis” and false positives, which can lead to anxiety or unnecessary invasive follow‑ups. Balancing technical reliability with psychological support remains an ongoing issue.
7. Test Accuracy and Clinical Interpretation — Differences in U.S. vs Japan
Though NIPT is widely considered a “high‑accuracy screening test,” it is not a diagnostic test. ACOG emphasizes that a positive result must be confirmed via invasive diagnostic testing (e.g. amniocentesis).
In the U.S., sensitivity and specificity data for trisomy 21 are often reported around 99.3 % sensitivity, and specificity near 99.9 %.
In practice, when the tested population is low risk, the positive predictive value declines. Thus, the U.S. guidelines continue to stress confirmatory testing for positive results.
In Japan, though the precision of NIPT is respected, concerns have been raised over misinterpretation, anxiety, or decision-making based solely on a positive result. Some pregnancies have been terminated prematurely without confirmatory testing. This highlights the necessity for better information and support.
8. Ethical and Societal Impacts — Concerns About Eugenics
Widespread use of prenatal testing brings forward fears that disabled lives might be undervalued and that social pressure towards “non‑disabled births” may intensify.
In Japan, there is greater societal sensitivity around the idea that prenatal testing might steer toward “selection of life.” Medical societies and institutions often incorporate stricter ethical guidelines, and many limit the scope of testing intentionally to reduce this risk.
In the U.S., this discussion is often framed under “reproductive rights,” emphasizing a woman’s autonomy, but advocacy groups for people with disabilities are vocal in critiquing how such testing can influence social expectations.
9. Cost Differences and Access Disparities
U.S. Cost Structure & Insurance
In the U.S., many private insurers now cover NIPT, and out-of-pocket costs for insured patients often range from zero to a few hundred U.S. dollars, depending on plan. However, uninsured individuals or those with limited coverage still face barriers, presenting a disparity in access tied to socioeconomic status.
Japan’s Self‑Paid Landscape
In Japan, NIPT is entirely elective and paid out-of-pocket. The cost is typically between ¥90,000 and ¥200,000, depending on the facility. Because there’s no insurance coverage, cost becomes a major factor limiting access and creating inequalities.
10. Policy & Future Trends
Trends in the U.S.
In 2022, the FDA initiated reexamination of the accuracy and marketing methods of some NIPT products, signaling possible future regulatory tightening. Also, the integration of AI and enhanced genomic analytics is being explored.
Trends in Japan
In Japan, in 2023 the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare convened meetings to discuss the status of “non‑certified facilities.” There is speculation that by 2025 some partial insurance coverage for NIPT might be considered. Still, institutional reform is slow, so for now the practice remains nonuniform across facilities.
Summary: Lessons from Comparing the U.S. and Japan on NIPT
When comparing the U.S. and Japan, the differences in NIPT adoption, institutional frameworks, and ethical perspectives are striking. The U.S. tends to emphasize freedom, accessibility, and flexibility, while Japan leans toward cautious incrementalism and stronger ethical oversight.
Neither system is perfect. Each reflects cultural values, social structures, and medical norms. The key is not which is “better,” but how each society can develop a system that aligns with its values and ensures that prenatal testing is used ethically, equitably, and with dignity.
