Slashdot Mirror
John Hancock Will Include Fitness Tracking In All Life Insurance Policies (venturebeat.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from VentureBeat: John Hancock, one of the oldest and largest North American life insurers, will stop underwriting traditional life insurance and instead sell only interactive policies that track fitness and health data through wearable devices and smartphones, the company said on Wednesday. The move by the 156-year-old insurer, owned by Canada's Manulife Financial, marks a major shift for the company, which unveiled its first interactive life insurance policy in 2015. It is now applying the model across all of its life coverage. Policyholders score premium discounts for hitting exercise targets tracked on wearable devices such as a Fitbit or Apple Watch and get gift cards for retail stores and other perks by logging their workouts and healthy food purchases in an app. In theory, everybody wins, as policyholders are incentivized to adopt healthy habits and insurance companies collect more premiums and pay less in claims if customers live longer.
Not fit enough, eat too much red meat, drive too fast....sucks to be you.
tracked on wearable devices such as a Fitbit or Apple Watch
Yeah, THAT will go over well with my employer. Specifically, no smart watches in the building. AT all, ever.
About time!
but if the public gets smart and demands that their data requires reimbursement for its use...
Its like the auto insurance companies wanting to monitor everything I do in my car.
These should be things that one has to "opt-in" for.
I don't want the "discount" for being on an electronic leash......
There is just something about this that rubs me the wrong way.
I would rather die...
love is just extroverted narcissism
So they're basically saying, you will be paying your life insurance premium and they get to spy on everything you do basically.
Sounds recipe for making it easier for insurance companies to deny claims and nothing more.
And if you're a good little insured person, they'll give you swag. Seriously? Like the same types of swag we used to get from Marlboro miles? No thanks.
I read a story about a guy who hacked his Progressive car tracker thing so it would transmit when not plugged into his car.
Here's the reddit story: https://www.reddit.com/r/hacki...
Looking forward to the creative hacks people will come up with for these forced insurance trackers.
This is about life insurance policies not health care policies. Many people carry life policies outside of work.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
As you're healing up from that $8k torn ACL you got trying to earn it. And does anyone really believe this?
"Tingle said, as Vitality policyholders worldwide live 13 to 21 years longer than the rest of the insured population."
a friend of mine mentioned that when he wears his fitbit on his right hand and plays his ukulele, his recorded activity level goes through the roof. so getting those insurance discounts while sitting on your couch will be easy. ditto for posted food choices. when the company figures that out their next move will be to become big brother.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- A.E.
How about a different idea? How about all health insurance policies including some life insurance?
they could make the system voluntary
Sounds like they are. Just buy your life insurance elsewhere.
I don't know how they will handle existing fixed premium contracts. If you have one, you are probably good until it's term (if any) is up.
Have gnu, will travel.
It sucks that they are going to pry into what I do, when I do it. It sucks worse that they will sell this information, and not invest in the data governance and security required to protect that information.
The sad part is people will be ok with this. Fuck them, too.
What is this, a space mission where our vitals must be constantly monitored?
No tattle dongles on my car, no smart watch on my wrist. If the insurer balks, Iâ(TM)ll take my shit elsewhere. If my employer balks, Iâ(TM)ll look for. New job.
Fuck 5em, fuck 5em, fuck them, and may the inbred spawns of bacteria that came up with this idea and all ideas like it have an interesting life. I wish them a very interesting, quite educational life.
Good thing I have more years behind me than in front of me, if this is the direction the world is going I have no interest in partaking.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
The bad news is your life insurance premium just went up.
More bad news is that the more it increased, the more likely actuaries and statisticians and people who study this kind of thing think it is that you might die soon.
I have a Mi Band 2, but the data is only for me...lol, I'm not that naive. I just assume Xiaomi is counting the steps I take and the hours I sleep and even my heartbeat. I refused to grant the app access to my contacts and location and got over it.
I probably wouldn't be comfortable sharing it with my insurance company though. I haven't given in to pressure from my auto insurer to transmit data to them either even though I'm sure I almost never do anything that would look bad. Seriously, I'm a slow and lazy driver these days and I almost never have to brake hard. I still don't want them monitoring me.
I'm impressed at the accuracy of my fitness tracker, but I also see that very often it is horribly wrong. The heart rate is often way off and even ignoring the obvious outliers it only gives you a general idea of whether or not your heart is faster or slower than it normally is.
It sometimes thinks I'm sleeping when clearly I am walking around. Perhaps it thinks I'm sleep-walking. I'm very skeptical of whatever science is in their algorithms so that's probably why I'm so impressed with how accurate it actually is despite its faults.
Other fitness trackers are probably even more accurate, but how much more? And what value do they actually give you? I still consider mine an interesting gadget rather than something I should take too seriously.
Put the tracker on your dog (or a small child). That will log so much exercise the insurance would be free.
1. Live a healthy lifestyle.
2. Don't buy life insurance from this company.
What is up with all the griefers?
A fitness tracker, like the stupid BMI calculation, would show me as layabout. Every actual measure of my health shows me to be in great health. I'm 65 and compete successfully at a world level in judo and bjj for my age. This is the classic case of how vs what. Look at the actual thing to be measured, not a poorly defined process that tries to look at how something MIGHT be measured. .
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Why all the negative comments. The insurance company doesn't want to pay out and neither do you. It's insurance. You hope you don't need it but you get it just in case. If your insurance company wants to give you incentives to live longer that seems like a good thing. Yes they are sharing your information when they try and get incentives for you to do things but 99% of the people not on slashdot give all that information away for free.
Back around 1950 a major insurance company with an excellent reputation and very low premium rates set stringent requirements for its customers. Agents would fill in the forms with the usual information for clients; age, address, some medical background, etc. But potential clients had to qualify for the insurance policy. Like any company; older people would pay more for life insurance. People with accidents would pay more for auto insurance. But unlike other companies, many medium risk clients were simply not allowed to buy from this insurance company. At any price. And all approved clients got low premiums and were happy.
But they went beyond that. Agents had a secret checklist for every potential client. Things you might never guess could disqualify you for the money saving policy. One item that has stuck in my memory all this time is this: any potential client who enters the agent's office wearing boots is automatically disqualified.
Actuaries must have determined risk factors far beyond the norm. Perhaps they consulted psychologists and did unusual surveys to come up with odd criteria. Nevertheless, insurance companies take risks and need to protect themselves. If you want cheap insurance from a reliable company, expect to prove that you are worthy.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Let those that care pay higher premiums reflecting the reduced information available to the insurance company
Nah....it will reflect the worst case scenario because you obviously have something to hide. Just like spoliation of evidence in a court case. You will get the highest possible premiums, not an average.
Is wrong thread, Ivan.
This is really just a gimmick by the insurance company to make you think you are getting a better rate. The risk of death - especially for younger people - is really quite low. Even though exercise reduces that risk, it's hard to believe that it would make a meaningful difference in insurance rates (particularly because you don't really need life insurance when you are old). But, it gets them lot of attention and its customers think they are getting a great deal because they are into fitness.
What if you don't want to be so obviously tracked and monitored by some goddamned corporation, even more so than most people already are?
What if you don't have or want a smartphone? I don't and refuse to have one and I'm far from alone in that.
This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've heard lately. Won't last.
> In theory, everybody wins,
Except those who have been paying their life-insurance premiums for 30 years and are forced onto these "New & Improved" spyware policies which immediately classify them as a high risk and void their policy.
Which is probably EXACTLY what this change is designed to do - dump all the boomers who have been dumb enough to pay for life insurance for decades now that they're getting to the age where 90% of them will be dead within 10 years.
So why should I give up money now, so that I can have more when I am dead?
The pitch I've seen most often from AIG's kinetic-typography-driven TV commercials is that life insurance allows your children to complete their education at a trade school or four-year university despite your untimely death.
Talking fitness trackers mandatory for life of health insurance. No mute button. But it will provide very helpful advice. Obey or pay more than you make for a premium. For example:
Jim, you are not exercising enough. Cotton picking is great exercise. We have provided a field ready to harvest. Instructions are uploaded to your Phon.
Now, pick that cotton Jim.......more........more.......pick faster.......come on! Put your back into it BOYYY!!!
then the rest of the industry is probably going to follow suit soon.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You're also free not to buy at all.
Even better. Don't buy a life insurance at all. It is the most worthless insurance ever. Put the money you would pay to the insurance company on your savings account. That is a much better deal.
My life insurance policy (through employer) of about $200K, costs about $3/month. That's about $36/year. Over 30 years, that's a whopping $1080 at the current rate. If I were to just put that money in a savings account and let it gain interest, it wouldn't amount to much.
And hey, if I die in an accident, it's $400K. Score!
Actuarial background.
For life insurance, risk analysis and pricing is done at the time of sale. How healthy are you now? For 1 year term (policy expires in 1 year) this is very accurate. For a whole life policy (inforce until you die or stop paying premiums) policy this is a statistical question. Thus actuaries... Policies can be on the books for up to 100 years (issue around birth, inforce until death). (Aside: This is a technical debt nightmare from a systems perspective)
The article says there are discounts for things like exercise, insurance is traditionally a fixed premium situation (excepting UL/VUL policies where premiums have a floor but can mostly be determined by the insured - there are tax limitations). That's interesting and novel.
What are they attempting? John Hancock is trying to pre-select who they insure. They want to focus on those who have a healthy lifestyle and are willing to be tracked. They want to only sell Preferred policies (skipping table ratings for more risky individuals). Makes pricing much easier, and they can probably undercut competitors who to some degree subsidize more risky individuals via a bit higher premium on preferred customers.
Finally, I highly doubt the phrase "will stop underwriting traditional life insurance" because they will still want to know if you smoke or have pre-existing medical conditions. They may be skipping the medical testing (I'm sure they won't for larger policies).
It's a rather clever play on "If you don't have anything to hide...".
BlameBillCosby.com
I have a business idea - open a robotic "gym" next to a pub. After work you drop off your bracelet for a "workout" and go out with buddies to have a pint and shoot some pool.
I've mentioned before, the real danger of a dystopian panopticon future comes from insurance companies, not governments.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Where I work we have a health plan set up with Virgin Pulse, and everyone is strongly encouraged to get trackers for #of steps etc.
Pretty much everyone has them, because hey - they're cool right? And it automatically uploads your info. Luckily for me, you are still able to manually enter your steps and other info - so I wrote a script I run every morning to go log into the site and enter them. Why would I even bother? Because they charge you a lot more for your policy if you don't. You have to hit a certain goal for the quarter or they penalize you.. whoops, I mean, you don't get the discount. And it is several hundred dollars.
But I REFUSE to be tagged and tracked like a wild animal, all for the sake of "fitness". Which is a total sham. The "nutrition advice" and pseudo-medical tips they constantly hammer you with on their site are garbage. I lie on the surveys, and tell them what they want to hear. Not because I eat garbage and don't want them to know, but because I know better than their one-size-fits-all advice. I know what I know through personal research, and listening to actual experts on these things. I have been at my ideal weight for 6 years, and the only "concern" with my health is high cholesterol - which I don't really know if it is a concern or not. I haven't tried to get a real lipid panel done because my insurance won't cover it. There are 5 indicators for metabolic syndrome, and my cholesterol is the only one that isn't perfect. Yet doctors will try to put me on statins - based on one overly generalized test that tells you nothing valuable. High cholesterol, in and of itself, tells you nothing about possible risks to your health. "any history of heart issues?" Yes, my father had 2 stints put in a couple of years ago. "ahh, I see... so we should put you on statins". Oh, by the way, my father has an absolutely normal lipid panel. So why do you want to prescribe statins to me again?
Our healthcare and insurance industries are abysmal. I went for a checkup once (required by the healthplan) and all was well. A couple of weeks later, I got a letter from my life insurance company that said I was required to enter rehab in order to keep my policy. I called my agent, who I knew pretty well, and he said he couldn't talk about it. I tried to call my doctor, and doctors don't talk to you. This went on for a few days, and finally I was a bit frantic and my life insurance guy said "your doctor indicated that you use drugs, so you need to attend rehab to keep your policy". I was LIVID. I left a VERY terse message at my doctor's office and did something that I hate - I threatened legal action if they did not contact me. I eventually found out that the medical assistant, who had done the whole "do you smoke... do you drink... " questions at the beginning of that visit had checked that I use marijuana. Which I do not. I still never found out why, but have to assume it was some mistake - why would I say I did? Anyway, I demanded that they send a letter to my insurance company to tell them it was a mistake on their part. Now... I don't tell my doctor anything. I answer all their stupid little questions the way they want me to, and I go about my life. What REALLY burns me about this is that it was my life insurance company (not my health insurance) that knew about this mistake - but because it was protected information, they couldn't actually tell me what was going on. It's an old word, but "cahoots" is about as perfect of a word that can be used to describe it.
My point is - don't play into these types of programs. It may seem easy, but it is such a slippery slope. It's only paranoid if they aren't out to get you - and these fuckers are out to get you! Not to mention that their data collection is only to benefit them, not you. If you think all the people who have those fitness trackers are getting healthier because of them... think again. Everyone is still the same. The overweight lady who wears her tracker and goes to the gym every day is still gaining wei
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
My life insurance policies are through my employer. Guess you haven't worked for the right place yet. Many large companies include life insurance (among others) as a part of their benefit packages.
Not people who think those devices are nothing but toys and hate installing unnecessary apps on their phone.
Just another company to stay away from.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
If this becomes at all widespread, it won't be long before someone develops a device that spoofs these things to make it look like you're doing exactly what these companies want in order to give you a discount. Just slap the fitbit on the DiscountWrist(tm), and go about your business as usual.
As long as the device costs less than about a year's worth of discounts, they'd sell like hotcakes.
Busy bodies want everyone to live, eat, breathe like THEY do, so now they are getting us use to having our heart rate, activity levels on our phones, watches for "your convenience", then the insurance companies will start using the data, as well as the government allowing or not allowing health care, once they end up taking over the health care industry in a few years. They are also getting us use to not paying "in cash" by using our phones, watches, of course, for your convenience. Once people ditch cash, they can just make it a law that you CANNOT use cash. Once THAT happens everything you do, everything you buy will be MONITORED. Tie health care into that, and then when you want to order a cheese burger, your card, tap, implanted under the skin chip will not be allowed, because you were too fat at your last mandated government checkup. Plus, if the government gets in trouble, like they did in Greece, just take the money from the banks. It's all just data anyway, no "cash" that you can hide. DON'T think it can't happen!
This is where it all begins...
In the book, everyone's behavior is tracked, and risky behavior reduces your eligibility for life-extension therapies. So someone who is smoking, drinking, eating fast food, riding motorcycles, getting in bar fights, driving too fast, neglecting exercise, etc - will not be deemed a good investment of the life extension tech. What makes the novel a good read is that this is certainly a reasonable first pass at a fair model from a utilitarian perspective - you don't want to drop a limited resource on people who will waste it. What's the good of extending someone's life by 300 years if they are likely to die from risky behavior in the next 5?
It's an interesting discussion to have. Assuming the technology exists, who should get to live forever? The people who can afford it? The people who show they won't squander it via behavior tracking like this? Random lottery?
It is in fact directly within their business model to care about what you do in private
You are flat out arguing that it is reasonable that your right to privacy is defined by an insurance company's business model.
Your user name is in agreement with your post. John Hancock is not forcing someone to give up their right to privacy, it is offering the prospective purchaser lower rates if monitoring shows healthy behavior. The purchaser's actions are voluntary. You don't sacrifice your right to privacy by speaking in public, which is a much broader dissemination of information than fitness monitoring.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
What is the LD50 of bacon?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Your user name is in agreement with your post.
Ooh, a name flame. How original.
John Hancock is not forcing someone to give up their right to privacy,
I didn't say they were. Even so, if you work for someone who provides that as a benefit, and you don't want to have to pay for it out of your own pocket while others get it as a perk, you have no choice. I'll point that this is very similar to the issue of insurance covering abortions. If it is not provided under the "company plan", then women would be forced to buy insurance or pay for the operation out of their own pocket. Case law says this is discrimination.
What I was responding to was the claim by the OP, which you didn't read. He said that it was reasonable for the insurance company to demand you waive your right to privacy if you want their insurance BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR BUSINESS MODEL. Read all the words, please.
Just to clarify, I do NOT think their actions are reasonable. I think it's a horrible invasion of privacy, and absolutely object to it being a requirement, and don't want it to spread to other companies. However, the colloquial phrase "none of their business", doesn't apply in this case. It IS their business- in the sense that they make profits and losses and business choices, based on this data. It, quite literally, is their business model.
P.S. You are complaining that parent didn't read, but then made up the word reasonable, which I never ever said....
Just to clarify, I do NOT think their actions are reasonable. I think it's a horrible invasion of privacy,
You said:
As much as I hate their policy, I have to disagree with your point that it isn't their business what you do in private.
If you disagree with someone who thinks it is unreasonable for this policy to exist, then you are defacto saying you think it is not unreasonable. Whether you hate the policy or not is a different matter. People can hate even the most reasonable policies for any number of reasons. For example, I hate the policy of an online library I use that you can borrow audio books for only a limited time. I want it to be longer, even though I think their policy is reasonable in context.
However, the colloquial phrase "none of their business", doesn't apply in this case. It IS their business
Which is it? Is it unreasonable and none of their business, or a reasonable policy based on their business model?
P.S. You are complaining that parent didn't read, but then made up the word reasonable, which I never ever said....
You said the equivalent, and if you can show me where I quoted you saying that specific word I'd appreciate it.
Considering mounting evidence shows no real link between hight weights and health outcomes, and that some obese people are even healthier than skinny people so long as they are active and eat healthy, this whole scheme seems like yet another way to attempt to shame obese people into being skinny
Shaming obese people simply makes them eat more and be depressed. It causes a cortisol concentration in their blood which even in skinny people makes you eat more and want to be comfortable, among other negative health outcomes.
So can we stop shaming fat people already and just learn to live with the fact that some people are bigger? It's proven that they rarely keep weight off with dieting. Giving them stress over it is the act of a douchebag masquereding as someone who cares.
Full disclosure: I've been skinny all my life. If I do light exercise I get pipes. I have no skin in this game other than compassion for other human beings.
Work out for 2 hours, man your clothes are soaked. Washed up, go home, stop by McDonalds. Log in only to notice that you have a net increase in your rate because you were hungry, it cross referenced your McDonalds app to find out you chowed down on 2 large shakes, 3 big macs, 2 packages of fries.