8 ms·

This will do great harm in markets where there are no protection for health data. Health insurers in my country(India) are already discriminatory, top health i

This will do great harm in markets where there are no protection for health data. Health insurers in my country(India) are already discriminatory, top health insurers here denied me health insurance because I disclosed my disabilities[1] despite Govt. guidelines against blanket denial of policies for the disabled. This is pretty much the case for anyone who discloses their disability truthfully here[2][3]. This is because they're not keeping in sync with the progress in medical science, why should my orthopedic troubles be a risk factor for providing insurance to cover COVID-19 treatment? Now with say health data from devices, they'll likely find more statistical data to deny coverage (with some obscure reason) or increase premium to many even if the applicant isn't sick and thereby denying a chance of health insurance coverage if they really get sick. Especially when an unqualified underwriter decides whether I should get a health insurance or not. [1]https://abishekmuthian.com/insurers-are-putting-the-lives-of-sick-and-disabled-at-risk-during-covid-19-pandemic/ https://abishekmuthian.com/insurers-are-putting-the-lives-of... [2]https://www.indiaspend.com/covid-19-insurers-are-denying-policies-to-disabled-despite-govt-strictures/ https://www.indiaspend.com/covid-19-insurers-are-denying-pol... [3]https://twitter.com/pavinann/status/1339952358235631625 https://twitter.com/pavinann/status/1339952358235631625

Karishma1234 6y ago
> why should my orthopedic troubles be a risk factor for providing insurance to cover COVID-19 treatment? I think Google/Fitbit might actually end up benefiting someone like you. If you have a pre-existing condition and if insurance company is denying your normal insurance it tells me that the insurance market in India is highly inefficient. This like like leaving money on the table and sounds very stupid in the insurance company's part. What I feel is happening is that insurance is often a side product for some companies which they accomplish as best effort. Google/Fitbit might actually help insurance companies gain better data and offer far more optimized products even they themselves do not have that capability. Of course individual rights to privacy etc. should be protected and government has a very legitimate role to play here. But monetization of health data would be beneficial to consumers.
greesil 6y ago
I'm going to write something unpopular, but your data is probably safer from sale to insurers with Google than with a pre-acquisition Fitbit. Google already has a fantastic revenue stream, and only has downsides from doing something "evil" for piddling revenue gain. In an alternate timeline, Fitbit could go out of business next year and then be up for sale. Also, I think Fitbit already makes money this way
- lebca 6y ago
  Aren’t Google and Fitbit one in the same now given the acquisition? Or are you implying that Fitbit will function independently and Google will sell it if Fitbit isn’t profitable?
  - greesil 6y ago
    Edited my post. Alternate timeline, counterfactuals, interdimensional cable.
- ksk 6y ago
  Why would your personal data be safer with an advertising company? Google is amassing personal data so they can charge higher rates for their so-called targeted/personalized ads. With all your personal data residing with a single ad company, it will be far easier to offer discounts to certain people, in-effect introducing tiered insurance pricing. The health insurance companies just want to figure out a way to charge sick people more, and healthy people less so they can maximize their customer base. It won't happen overnight, but then again Google started with the mission of organizing the worlds information. Hah, how often do you hear about that from them? You can barely go past page 10 on search results from the "millions" of supposed results.
  - eximius 6y ago
    Because Google doesn't sell the data, they only make targeting available from data (but not necessarily all data, specifically the health data being talked about here). If you don't purchase insurance by clicking on ads, then you're fine?
pfranz 6y ago
I think another problem is the accuracy of the info and ability to dispute it. I noticed my FitBit (and I'm told with many other wrist-based heart rate monitors) don't do well with sports like boxing and rowing. My chest strap is more accurate, but doesn't get integrated with FitBit's data. I'm sure there are many other unaccounted for issues and often these kinds of data sets can't be disputed because the process is mostly automated and not transparent.
Zenst 6y ago
Oh, if India ab-uses this data for health insurance then how long until somebody games the system. The prospect of seeing people jogging with a dozen fitbits upon each arm is something I will not be supprised too see now. After all - people pay other people to walk their dog, not a huge leap to pay other people to take their activity monitor for a jog.
iamshs 6y ago
>“Haryana-based gang identified terminal cancer patients from rural, low-income backgrounds, got them to insure themselves with multiple companies by hiding their condition, waited for them to die, and then put their dead bodies through “accidents” This unbelievable con-trick story came out last year, and seems to have had real life effect that insurers have started denying insurance to the vulnerable. [1] - https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/haryana-scam-cashes-in-on-the-terminally-ill/story-Nr5HHN4jsWC5gUwA6sqGMK.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/haryana-scam-cashe...
michaelmrose 6y ago
Insurance is a worthless model where enough information is known to differentiate pricing between different classes of buyers. Asking insurers to pretend to be stupid enough to price their products inaccurately even as more and more information becomes available and playing whack a mole with regulations is a losing battle. The only solution is to abandon insurance as a model for paying for health care.
- cowpig 6y ago
  I've honestly never understood why anyone would advocate for anything other than a socialized health system. Consumers cannot exit the market for health services. So we will never get the benefits of a free-market economy. A "free" market where consumers cannot exit will always trend towards becoming the most expensive the economy can bear. I think the main reason this doesn't trend all the way towards this theoretical extreme is that people don't really get into healthcare just to make money.
wildredkraut 6y ago
Heh, it's just a matter of time till this scenario "fully" reaches us here in the EU, and in the US probably, too. E.g. my health insurance company (AOK) here in Germany called me last year, and tried to give me an Apple Watch for free. The main part of the contract was, to submit my movements for "a study". In return they offered me something like "bonus points", and cheaper additional insurance plans. I said no, and they asked if I'm interested to have this for my kids, and that they also have a smart toothbrush "to motivate" kids to brush their teeth 3 times a day, I just WTF'ed, and told them to not call anymore with such offers. https://apps.apple.com/de/app/aok-bonus-app/id1085724967 https://apps.apple.com/de/app/aok-bonus-app/id1085724967 with this App you submit your activity, this was part of the contract. 100.000+ downloads on Google Play says it all, Apple does not display an App download counter.
- lloeki 6y ago
  Generali has a similar program called Vitality (which apparently is a subsidiary or a distinct entity). You gather points for healthy actions you take, e.g walk/run a certain number of times/distance per month (sync your tracker), you stop smoking (proof of buying nicotine substitutes/doctor’a order), you take a yearly checkup at the doc (doctor’s order/medical results)... and you get coupons at Amazon, sport gear shops, get reimbursed an Apple Watch. The rebate on Garmin devices comes with no strings attached though. It’s an option to the health insurance contract, so in a way they already have much more data than whatever would be provided (since they process far more sensitive medical data for reimbursement), but as I said it’s also structurally a subsidiary.
- henearkr 6y ago
  But you know that insurers have only benefits to keep you healthy (because then you only pay your monthly fee and they don't need to refund you any medical expense), so there are lots of these health-preserving programs, as there always has been even before the wearables. Here where I live there is an insurance company offering you points to walk miles and/or go to the gym, and then exchange your points for presents. To keep you healthy and thus profitable to them.

Karishma1234 6y ago

> why should my orthopedic troubles be a risk factor for providing insurance to cover COVID-19 treatment? I think Google/Fitbit might actually end up benefiting someone like you. If you have a pre-existing condition and if insurance company is denying your normal insurance it tells me that the insurance market in India is highly inefficient. This like like leaving money on the table and sounds very stupid in the insurance company's part. What I feel is happening is that insurance is often a side product for some companies which they accomplish as best effort. Google/Fitbit might actually help insurance companies gain better data and offer far more optimized products even they themselves do not have that capability. Of course individual rights to privacy etc. should be protected and government has a very legitimate role to play here. But monetization of health data would be beneficial to consumers.

greesil 6y ago

I'm going to write something unpopular, but your data is probably safer from sale to insurers with Google than with a pre-acquisition Fitbit. Google already has a fantastic revenue stream, and only has downsides from doing something "evil" for piddling revenue gain. In an alternate timeline, Fitbit could go out of business next year and then be up for sale. Also, I think Fitbit already makes money this way

lebca 6y ago
Aren’t Google and Fitbit one in the same now given the acquisition? Or are you implying that Fitbit will function independently and Google will sell it if Fitbit isn’t profitable?
- greesil 6y ago
  Edited my post. Alternate timeline, counterfactuals, interdimensional cable.
ksk 6y ago
Why would your personal data be safer with an advertising company? Google is amassing personal data so they can charge higher rates for their so-called targeted/personalized ads. With all your personal data residing with a single ad company, it will be far easier to offer discounts to certain people, in-effect introducing tiered insurance pricing. The health insurance companies just want to figure out a way to charge sick people more, and healthy people less so they can maximize their customer base. It won't happen overnight, but then again Google started with the mission of organizing the worlds information. Hah, how often do you hear about that from them? You can barely go past page 10 on search results from the "millions" of supposed results.
- eximius 6y ago
  Because Google doesn't sell the data, they only make targeting available from data (but not necessarily all data, specifically the health data being talked about here). If you don't purchase insurance by clicking on ads, then you're fine?

pfranz 6y ago

I think another problem is the accuracy of the info and ability to dispute it. I noticed my FitBit (and I'm told with many other wrist-based heart rate monitors) don't do well with sports like boxing and rowing. My chest strap is more accurate, but doesn't get integrated with FitBit's data. I'm sure there are many other unaccounted for issues and often these kinds of data sets can't be disputed because the process is mostly automated and not transparent.

Zenst 6y ago

Oh, if India ab-uses this data for health insurance then how long until somebody games the system. The prospect of seeing people jogging with a dozen fitbits upon each arm is something I will not be supprised too see now. After all - people pay other people to walk their dog, not a huge leap to pay other people to take their activity monitor for a jog.

iamshs 6y ago

>“Haryana-based gang identified terminal cancer patients from rural, low-income backgrounds, got them to insure themselves with multiple companies by hiding their condition, waited for them to die, and then put their dead bodies through “accidents” This unbelievable con-trick story came out last year, and seems to have had real life effect that insurers have started denying insurance to the vulnerable. [1] - https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/haryana-scam-cashes-in-on-the-terminally-ill/story-Nr5HHN4jsWC5gUwA6sqGMK.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/haryana-scam-cashe...

michaelmrose 6y ago

Insurance is a worthless model where enough information is known to differentiate pricing between different classes of buyers. Asking insurers to pretend to be stupid enough to price their products inaccurately even as more and more information becomes available and playing whack a mole with regulations is a losing battle. The only solution is to abandon insurance as a model for paying for health care.

cowpig 6y ago
I've honestly never understood why anyone would advocate for anything other than a socialized health system. Consumers cannot exit the market for health services. So we will never get the benefits of a free-market economy. A "free" market where consumers cannot exit will always trend towards becoming the most expensive the economy can bear. I think the main reason this doesn't trend all the way towards this theoretical extreme is that people don't really get into healthcare just to make money.

wildredkraut 6y ago

Heh, it's just a matter of time till this scenario "fully" reaches us here in the EU, and in the US probably, too. E.g. my health insurance company (AOK) here in Germany called me last year, and tried to give me an Apple Watch for free. The main part of the contract was, to submit my movements for "a study". In return they offered me something like "bonus points", and cheaper additional insurance plans. I said no, and they asked if I'm interested to have this for my kids, and that they also have a smart toothbrush "to motivate" kids to brush their teeth 3 times a day, I just WTF'ed, and told them to not call anymore with such offers. https://apps.apple.com/de/app/aok-bonus-app/id1085724967 https://apps.apple.com/de/app/aok-bonus-app/id1085724967 with this App you submit your activity, this was part of the contract. 100.000+ downloads on Google Play says it all, Apple does not display an App download counter.

lloeki 6y ago
Generali has a similar program called Vitality (which apparently is a subsidiary or a distinct entity). You gather points for healthy actions you take, e.g walk/run a certain number of times/distance per month (sync your tracker), you stop smoking (proof of buying nicotine substitutes/doctor’a order), you take a yearly checkup at the doc (doctor’s order/medical results)... and you get coupons at Amazon, sport gear shops, get reimbursed an Apple Watch. The rebate on Garmin devices comes with no strings attached though. It’s an option to the health insurance contract, so in a way they already have much more data than whatever would be provided (since they process far more sensitive medical data for reimbursement), but as I said it’s also structurally a subsidiary.
henearkr 6y ago
But you know that insurers have only benefits to keep you healthy (because then you only pay your monthly fee and they don't need to refund you any medical expense), so there are lots of these health-preserving programs, as there always has been even before the wearables. Here where I live there is an insurance company offering you points to walk miles and/or go to the gym, and then exchange your points for presents. To keep you healthy and thus profitable to them.