2 ms·
> Let's say that today you are aware of no sequences in your genome which correlate with disease. You give a sample to your provider as proof. Tomorrow, a new l
by bpodgursky 6y ago
> Let's say that today you are aware of no sequences in your genome which correlate with disease. You give a sample to your provider as proof. Tomorrow, a new link is discovered between a disease and a sequence you do have. Your premiums then go up considerably.
Yes, and everyone else's rates go a bit down . It's not a negative-sum game -- assuming a reasonable competitive market, you're going to get a fair rate in a maximal-information pool.
You may increase risk somewhat, but if you know -- from personal and historical experience -- that your family is not especially high risk, you're still on average better off sharing as much information as you can.
- elliekelly 6y agoIf you want to look for efficiencies in the (US) insurance market from information sharing it’s going to be far more cost effective to even out the flow of information coming the other direction: transparency of pricing. More price information about everything from drugs, to procedures, to copays and premiums. We’ll all save a lot more money by shining a light further up the chain than we will by individually offering up our DNA to save a few hundred bucks each year. And we’ll get to maintain a bit of privacy, too.
- bpodgursky 6y agoI don't disagree wrt transparency (although for many people I suspect genomic data is worth a lot more than a few hundred bucks a year), but these are separate concerns. I'm just disagreeing with the OP assertion that "submitting your own DNA is always negative value" Definitely making no claim whatsoever as to what the best way to make healthcare more cost-effective is.