upvote
In other words coverage will soon be denied implicitly to people with these markers? Or will people opt out of coverage?
reply
It’s less about denying coverage and more about accurate risk pooling. If an insurer knows a specific marker leads to a 90% chance of a million-dollar claim, they have to price for that. If they don't, the 'healthy' people in the pool end up subsidizing the high-risk ones until the premium becomes too expensive for everyone and the pool collapses (adverse selection). The real challenge is that regulators often won't let insurers price high enough for those risks, which is why many companies just stop offering LTC (Long-Term Care) altogether.
reply
It seems to me that risk pooling kind of negates of the intent of insurance, ie. to spread out risk.
reply
that's the fundamental paradox of modern underwriting.

insurance relies on what philosophers call a veil of ignorance. it only works if we're spreading stochastic risk things that might happen to anyone.

once data gives us perfect foresight into a 90% chance of a million-dollar claim, it’s no longer insurance; it’s just a pre-funded bill. at that point, the pool isn't spreading risk, it's just facilitating a direct wealth transfer. the 'good' risks realize they're just subsidizing a known event for others and they flee the pool, which is exactly how the market for things like LTC collapses.

we're basically at a crossroads where better data is actually making 'insurance' as a concept mathematically impossible for certain risks.

reply
This might sound crazy, but what if everyone in the country gave extra and as a result everyone in the country was covered?
reply
why would I agree to that when I'm not at risk of that? (Assume for discussion I have had this tested - whatever it is). I have my own life and like everyone more things (including vacation...) I want to spend it money on than I have money.
reply
Some of us think that a key aspect of society is that we take care of each other. If something terrible happens to you before you manage to amass a fortune, it’s nice to live in a society that won’t leave your family destitute.
reply
Well of course, the actual intent of insurance today is to make profit.
reply
Not in the US it’s illegal under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008.
reply
YEsh, they'll both raise your rates for not submitting this data and raise your rates for being in the cohert that's susceptible; they'll also raise everyone elses rates for having to recalculate the tables!
reply
So you'll tell your customers if they eat some more omega3 they'll pay less for insurance, right?

Right?

Right?

Haha no you won't. You'll just raise premiums and nobody will know why.

reply
In the UK there are providers that will reduceyour premium if you have workout activity logged by an iWatch
reply
Wow, that is a depressing point of view. Advancements in "not paying for things" accelerates while advancements in "preventing things" just inches forward.
reply
Too bad the LTC industry is kinda dead!
reply
yep. it's a total market failure. 20 years ago, carriers completely underestimated the tail of cognitive decline and priced it way too cheap. now the legacy claims are bleeding them dry, which is why new LTC policies are basically non-existent or priced for the moon. it's a tough lesson in what happens when the actuarial data lags reality by 20 years.
reply