Health Insurers Are Vacuuming Up Details About You -- And It Could Raise Your Rates (propublica.org)

schwit1 shares an excerpt from an in-depth report via ProPublica and NPR, which have been investigating for the past year the various tactics the health insurance industry uses to maximize its profits: A future in which everything you do -- the things you buy, the food you eat, the time you spend watching TV -- may help determine how much you pay for health insurance. With little public scrutiny, the health insurance industry has joined forces with data brokers to vacuum up personal details about hundreds of millions of Americans, including, odds are, many readers of this story. The companies are tracking your race, education level, TV habits, marital status, net worth. They're collecting what you post on social media, whether you're behind on your bills, what you order online. Then they feed this information into complicated computer algorithms that spit out predictions about how much your health care could cost them. Patient advocates warn that using unverified, error-prone "lifestyle" data to make medical assumptions could lead insurers to improperly price plans -- for instance raising rates based on false information -- or discriminate against anyone tagged as high cost. And, they say, the use of the data raises thorny questions that should be debated publicly, such as: Should a person's rates be raised because algorithms say they are more likely to run up medical bills? Such questions would be moot in Europe, where a strict law took effect in May that bans trading in personal data.

Comments

Re:That stucks

[b0s0z0ku]

Go to much of Europe outside the UK, and it's like a breath of fresh air.
(1) No warning signs everywhere, and no attempt to protect people from themselves. 10 year olds walk or take transit to school. Train windows open -- if you stick a hand out, it's your own problem
(2) Fewer nannying restrictions on alcohol
(3) Widely ignored and/or lax drug laws in many countries
(4) Fewer sexual taboos. Nudity/toplessness are much more accepted
(5) Stricter privacy laws. More restrictions on employers -- employers aren't allowed to meddle in private lives outside of work as much.

Re: That stucks

[judoguy]

you'd rather have the government make the rules.

Yes.

You want that heart bypass surgery? No problem, we'll pencil you in for July 6th, 2028.

An absurd exaggeration that flies in the face of actual data from countries with socialized healthcare systems, but absurdity is guaranteed when your argument has nothing of substance to stand on.

Not at all. I worked for several years on a medical office management system that ran in 12 or so countries. My team had members from Canada and the U.K. and they both had horror stories about the "free healthcare" involving their mothers. For the Canadian mom, she was diagnosed with a heart problem and was told to stay in bed until money was available for treatment. She was told that it shouldn't more than six months. The U.K. mom had breast lumps discovered in a checkup and was scheduled for a biopsy. In six months coincidentally. Both moms were brought to the U.S. right away for treatment even though it wasn't "free".

Regarding the medical office system we were working on, as much as a pain in the ass it was dealing with 50 states worth of insurance companies, the Canadian "single payer" system was A LOT harder to deal with. Unbelievably complex rules about who could get what at what age and in what Province depending on the time of year. This was a while back so maybe it's all rainbow farting unicorns now.

Re:That stucks

[b0s0z0ku]

No, the babies were beyond hope. "Treatment" would have at best created a brain-dead vegetable. Better to let their bodies die than offer false hope to the parents.

Rates aren't the problem

[rsilvergun]

the problem is pre-existing conditions. The current administration is allowing Texas' challenge to the ACA's pre-existing condition mandate to proceed unchallenged. It is very likely to end with the law being declared unconstitutional (elections have consequences and all that rot).

Prior to the ACA there were multiple instances of people in their 40s, 50s and 60s getting skin cancer and being denied care because they had acne medication when they were teenagers. The justification was that the the "acne" was in fact cancerous lesions.

If you think there's something wrong with that you're right. The only solution is to vote people who support single payer in. The hodge podge system we have now is going to collapse because it is being _made_ to collapse. So long as we don't have healthcare as a basic right someone will take it away for profit..

But the single payer folks now need overwhelming power thanks to our current SCOTUS, which is likely to cry the 10th Amendment on any legislation. We'll need to first get Medicare for All passed and then follow it up with a constitutional amendment guaranteeing all Americans healthcare. Otherwise we'll have to wait 40 years for the SCOTUS to change hands. We've got 45,000 people dying every year for lack of health care. If you're reading this you might be next. We can't wait that long.

Re:That stucks

[another_twilight]

Had they been in the US the tragedy would have unfolded in the same way. An experimental treatment that _may_ have offered an extension on life but which cost most of $1.5 million (in one example that I found).

That the NHS cannot and will not cover every treatment should be obvious. Where that line is drawn will always be tragic.

That these are the worst examples you can find either points to a deliberate attempt to appeal to emotion or the shallowness of your argument.