3 ms·

Insurance companies already track whether you smoke, drink, or do recreational drugs. I wonder how long until they start to ask questions that indicate your ris

Insurance companies already track whether you smoke, drink, or do recreational drugs. I wonder how long until they start to ask questions that indicate your risk based on chemical \ microplastic consumption.

drjasonharrison 2y ago
Perhaps the blood tests will/already do include this analysis. Asking people about their behaviours/habits/diets is usually a very poor data source. Not only do people have poor memories, but they are motivated to recall only positive behaviours, etc. Many studies on health interventions (diet, exercise, sleep) have had to handle these problems and usually have to resort to much more controlled studies to demonstrate the effect beyond the "very large numbers, very long time" post-hoc analyses.
- dfxm12 2y ago
  In this specific case, I doubt a significant number of people would have any idea what would be "positive" in the context of risk related to phthalates...
wil421 2y ago
This reminds me of a banking software company I used to work at. One of their products was assessing risk for loans, too many purchases for fast food or restaurant categories on your bank statement could cause you to not get a loan. I could see insurance companies purchasing your rewards accounts from data brokers to see what your habits are.
- lifeisstillgood 2y ago
  That’s a fascinating thought. Our digital footprints are becoming more telling of our real lives, as more of our lives are mirrored digitally. And in many ways that’s great - not only is booking a flight easier but my eating habits when combined with millions of others can reveal what epidemiology of yesteryear could only dream of But I think this is where the privacy debate falls down - privacy is not real (secrecy is real, privacy is the politeness of our neighbours). What is concerning is what do others do with our information - and I think the best answer is the medical ethics answer - nothing unless it is in the individual’s best interests. Yes there is a lot of wriggle room in those words but still
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    This is why we need real ownership and control of data about ourselves. It should be totally unacceptable for a bank to pull what OP described. Banks and loan underwriters should not have access to this kind of data about us in the first place, let alone use it to discriminate for/against people. Insurance companies should not have access to this kind of data either. We should be able to control access to these data and companies should not be allowed to discriminate based on whether or not they can obtain consent to access it.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      This is a legal problem and not at all a technical one. It can be achieved today with current tech under the right legal framework, and it will never be achieved regardless of what tech exists without that legal framework.
      - lifeisstillgood 2y ago
        As the OP I think I agree with you - the privacy problem (and the surveillance opportunity) is a legal problem - the right framework we get enormous benefits, evenly distributed and minimised downsides. The wrong framework and the benefits are concentrated in the wealthiest and the rest of us get the predatory downsides.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    > what do others do with our information - and I think the best answer is the medical ethics answer - nothing unless it is in the individual’s best interests. How is saving money not in an individual’s best interest? You have person A who chooses to consume known carcinogens and excess carbohydrate, and person B who abstains from them and exercises control for their diet. Why is it ethical for person B to have to subsidize person A? Similarly, person A chooses to spend more money on less nutritious fast food meals, and person B makes quinoa salad at home and takes it to work. A lender may conclude person B exhibits behavior that indicates they have a lower probability of default, so why should person B have to subsidize person A’s lifestyle? If the counter argument is that person A is poorer, had poorer parents, had a worse upbringing in a worse neighborhood with worse influences, then the correct way to subsidize person A is via government spending (cash, education, raising the floor on pay to quality of life at work ratios).
s1artibartfast 2y ago
This data would only be useful if it was accurate and predictive. I dont see it getting there on either front.
- sqeaky 2y ago
  Yeah, microplastics seem to be systemic. I don't know that we actually have good data on this, but many sources claim that most microplastics are from polyester (a plastic) clothing and industrial nylon fishing nets. If true then wearing and washing a tacky shirt could be more hazardous that drinking from tons of plastic bottles and that would make such questions hard to ask in a predictive manner.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    That doesnt say anything about accuracy or predicative power.
BaculumMeumEst 2y ago
What questions are you expecting them to ask? "Do you eat chipotle"? "Are you alive"?
ok_computer 2y ago
Those prior ones are binary lifestyle classifications whereas your exposure to microplastics is ubiquitous and the results are probably dose-dependent. I personally use stainless lunchware and cotton clothing but if we’re to run an analysis of variance on my ingestion the effect is likely nil compared to walking on office carpet or drinking from aluminum cans or brushing my teeth. Like refinery operators and gas station workers are exposed to benzene at different levels. But what about people who buy or lease new cars every two years. There’s too much noise vs signal for insidious risks like these not well understood factors.

drjasonharrison 2y ago

Perhaps the blood tests will/already do include this analysis. Asking people about their behaviours/habits/diets is usually a very poor data source. Not only do people have poor memories, but they are motivated to recall only positive behaviours, etc. Many studies on health interventions (diet, exercise, sleep) have had to handle these problems and usually have to resort to much more controlled studies to demonstrate the effect beyond the "very large numbers, very long time" post-hoc analyses.

dfxm12 2y ago
In this specific case, I doubt a significant number of people would have any idea what would be "positive" in the context of risk related to phthalates...

wil421 2y ago

This reminds me of a banking software company I used to work at. One of their products was assessing risk for loans, too many purchases for fast food or restaurant categories on your bank statement could cause you to not get a loan. I could see insurance companies purchasing your rewards accounts from data brokers to see what your habits are.

lifeisstillgood 2y ago
That’s a fascinating thought. Our digital footprints are becoming more telling of our real lives, as more of our lives are mirrored digitally. And in many ways that’s great - not only is booking a flight easier but my eating habits when combined with millions of others can reveal what epidemiology of yesteryear could only dream of But I think this is where the privacy debate falls down - privacy is not real (secrecy is real, privacy is the politeness of our neighbours). What is concerning is what do others do with our information - and I think the best answer is the medical ethics answer - nothing unless it is in the individual’s best interests. Yes there is a lot of wriggle room in those words but still
- ryandrake 2y ago
  This is why we need real ownership and control of data about ourselves. It should be totally unacceptable for a bank to pull what OP described. Banks and loan underwriters should not have access to this kind of data about us in the first place, let alone use it to discriminate for/against people. Insurance companies should not have access to this kind of data either. We should be able to control access to these data and companies should not be allowed to discriminate based on whether or not they can obtain consent to access it.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    This is a legal problem and not at all a technical one. It can be achieved today with current tech under the right legal framework, and it will never be achieved regardless of what tech exists without that legal framework.
    - lifeisstillgood 2y ago
      As the OP I think I agree with you - the privacy problem (and the surveillance opportunity) is a legal problem - the right framework we get enormous benefits, evenly distributed and minimised downsides. The wrong framework and the benefits are concentrated in the wealthiest and the rest of us get the predatory downsides.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  > what do others do with our information - and I think the best answer is the medical ethics answer - nothing unless it is in the individual’s best interests. How is saving money not in an individual’s best interest? You have person A who chooses to consume known carcinogens and excess carbohydrate, and person B who abstains from them and exercises control for their diet. Why is it ethical for person B to have to subsidize person A? Similarly, person A chooses to spend more money on less nutritious fast food meals, and person B makes quinoa salad at home and takes it to work. A lender may conclude person B exhibits behavior that indicates they have a lower probability of default, so why should person B have to subsidize person A’s lifestyle? If the counter argument is that person A is poorer, had poorer parents, had a worse upbringing in a worse neighborhood with worse influences, then the correct way to subsidize person A is via government spending (cash, education, raising the floor on pay to quality of life at work ratios).

s1artibartfast 2y ago

This data would only be useful if it was accurate and predictive. I dont see it getting there on either front.

sqeaky 2y ago
Yeah, microplastics seem to be systemic. I don't know that we actually have good data on this, but many sources claim that most microplastics are from polyester (a plastic) clothing and industrial nylon fishing nets. If true then wearing and washing a tacky shirt could be more hazardous that drinking from tons of plastic bottles and that would make such questions hard to ask in a predictive manner.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  That doesnt say anything about accuracy or predicative power.

BaculumMeumEst 2y ago

What questions are you expecting them to ask? "Do you eat chipotle"? "Are you alive"?

ok_computer 2y ago

Those prior ones are binary lifestyle classifications whereas your exposure to microplastics is ubiquitous and the results are probably dose-dependent. I personally use stainless lunchware and cotton clothing but if we’re to run an analysis of variance on my ingestion the effect is likely nil compared to walking on office carpet or drinking from aluminum cans or brushing my teeth. Like refinery operators and gas station workers are exposed to benzene at different levels. But what about people who buy or lease new cars every two years. There’s too much noise vs signal for insidious risks like these not well understood factors.