Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Privacy Social Networks Television The Almighty Buck The Internet

Health Insurers Are Vacuuming Up Details About You -- And It Could Raise Your Rates (propublica.org) 299

Posted by BeauHD from the nickel-and-dimed dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Health Insurers Are Vacuuming Up Details About You -- And It Could Raise Your Rates More

Health Insurers Are Vacuuming Up Details About You -- And It Could Raise Your Rates

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @05:32PM (#56965082)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      My employer offers a discount on health insurance for anyone who promises not to smoke, and another discount for anyone who logs their workouts. So we don't all pay the same rate even though we're all in the same pool.

      • Re:Who is affected? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @05:53PM (#56965210)
        This is also shit -- not everyone wants to be tagged with a GPS tracker like some weird migratory bird experiment. The sooner the private insurers are kicked to the curb and replaced with a fair system of public insurance, paid for by a per-cent tax on income, the better. And by kicked to the curb, I mean expropriated and ideally jailed for a few years in general prison population.

    • They can still be evaluating the group plans.

      I just doubt the effectiveness of the information for the stated purpose. This seems like another BigData Garbage Dump.

    • the one thing I can see them using the data is for setting the rate based on healthy they perceive the community to be. seems fair.
    • Among other possible cases, hiring and firing decisions are an obvious candidate: employer-pooled insurance doesn't remove the impact of high or low cost individuals; just average it across a bunch of employees.

      This creates a fairly obvious incentive to call the sickies, unless making an exception for some total rockstar. Which has the obvious consequences in both risk of being dismissed for some trumped up reason and in terms of reduced mobility(among those whose employers aren't actively cullingthe un

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        > Among other possible cases, hiring and firing decisions are an obvious candidate: employer-pooled insurance doesn't remove the impact of high or low cost individuals; just average it across a bunch of employees.

        That would make your employer ripe for a lawsuit from some bottom feeder more than willing to take your case on contingency. Depending on your condition, you might already have reason to have invoked the ADA explicitly.

        • Re: Who is affected? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @07:30PM (#56965712) Journal
          Only if you can take on the(generally sharply uphill) battle of demonstrating that you were rightsized and/or not hired because you were bad for health insurance rates; rather than for essentially any other reason.

          If your former or prospective employers are foolish enough to gloat somewhere discoverable about ditching the uneugenic, and you are able to make it through a long, punishing, probably expensive, case that will stamp a radioactive "NOT A TEAM PLAYER" on you whether you win or lose, perhaps you'll obtain a settlement of some sort.

          That's definitely not scary enough to discourage something so eminently cost effective.
    • I would suppose that in the most extreme possibilities, your employer would fire you because you're going to (potentially) cost them more money for their group medical insurance.

      This kind of bullshit is Minority Report meets HMOs.
    • n both cases they're not treated as individuals (from a buying point of view) by the health insurance industry, instead they're treated as part of a group (on the exchanges this is called "community rating")

      How do you think insurers come up with group pricing...?

    • Most people in the US get their health insurance either from their employer, or from the Obamacare exchanges. In both cases they're not treated as individuals (from a buying point of view) by the health insurance industry, instead they're treated as part of a group (on the exchanges this is called "community rating")

      The point of the article is that although individual lifestyle rating is not being done yet, today's data mining could be used to implement such a scheme whenever insurance companies find such data lucrative enough to justify putting in the IT infrastructure to monitor it.

    • How often, post-AHCA, do people buy insurance directly from the insurer in such a form that the insurer can actually benefit from having this level of information about their potential customer?

      You do if you're self employed, and there are quite a few of us out there, not everyone works W2 jobs my friend.

  • That stucks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by viperidaenz ( 2515578 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @05:34PM (#56965098)

    I'd hate to live in a country where basic medical care isn't free.

    Sounds like a third world undeveloped nation, where the government can't afford to run hospitals.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Solandri ( 704621 )
      No country has free medical care. The only difference is in how it's managed and paid for. The U.S. uses a combination of government programs, private insurance, and personal funding. A lot of countries use government programs and personal funding. So in countries with "free" health care, it's not free, you are paying for it via your taxes.

      As for the hypothesis that it's the lack of government-funded health care which drives up prices in the U.S., in 2009 prior to Obamacare passing, the U.S. governme

      • Re:That stucks (Score:5, Insightful)

        by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @06:48PM (#56965502)
        Problem is that an entirely government system might actually be cheaper. It wouldn't need parallel systems like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. It wouldn't need layers of bureaucrats to determine who's eligible for which services and which subsidies. The US has layers upon layers of inefficiency, both in private and public insurance.

        • Problem is that an entirely government system might actually be cheaper. It wouldn't need parallel systems like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA.

          Hmm...well, looking at the federal govt's track record for efficiency, cost savings, and high standard of care with those existing programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA)....I don't think they've proved themselves qualified to handle the care for ALL of us yet.

          Horrible costs, horrible management and poor standard of care.....that's all they've shown us they can

      • Re:That stucks (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @07:12PM (#56965628)

        Not sure I understand your reasoning. You're saying that because the US mostly private system is very, very expensive, the problem is not that the system is mostly private?

        No, the US isn't going to be able to fix it's system with a little bit of legislation. Powerful interests, from physicians to pharma are going to be pissed off. But data from the whole world agrees that some sort of socialized system is both most efficient and most effective.

        • Re:That stucks (Score:5, Interesting)

          by GrimSavant ( 5251917 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @11:07PM (#56966340)
          The reasonable assessment is that the US healthcare system has a lot problems beyond simply the payment system for health services. Which it does, US's health sector is bloated and inefficient in a wide variety of ways beyond private or socialized insurers. But those unnecessary redundancies and the intentionally crippled negotiating power of those payment systems are still a big part of the problem.

          Either a heavily regulated and subsidized private system or a more socialized system could work, but what the US has now is a Frankenstein system with various limbs from various systems sewn together, and entrenched interests who get their gravy train from the wide variety of inefficiencies and have sufficient political clout (largely as consequence of that wealth) to block any efforts for genuine reform. If we had a rational, above the board government right now they'd launch an even more aggressive legislative and regulatory assault on the problem than we got with Obamacare. Because we have a corrupt government that represents an ideology that venerates selfishness instead, we'll probably plod along until the system collapses under its own unsustainable weight and causes a massive recession or depression.

      • Perhaps the massive amounts of spending is because the government funded health insurance pays out private health care prices, making the private healthcare providers extremely rich.

        But yes, I do end up paying for "free" healthcare with my taxes. It's part of the ~30% I pay in tax. Slightly less than the OECD average according to your link.

        You've missed out one big part of the US funding model - massive private lobby groups manipulating government policy. Maybe that's part of the reason you pay 60% more tha

  • The 1st world is getting smaller by the day (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @05:39PM (#56965112)

    No other 1st world nation treats it's own citizens as badly as the USA does. Notable areas are health care, education and the private prison system.

    The sooner we let go of the idea that America is 1st world, the better. It no longer shares the western liberalism ideals that have driven much of humans forward over the last 200 years. Specifically, it's lost site of "equality" and replaced it with rampant capitalism.

    It wasn't always this way. America 1950 - 1970 was decidedly better for it's citizens than the late stage capitalism technological dystopia that is now before us.

    • You've got your history all wrong.
      In the United States, it's "life, liberty, property."
      In France, it's "liberty, equality, fraternity."

      Equality has never been a part of the American way of life, because the Founders were wise enough to understand that equality and freedom are incompatible.

  • Europe... (Score:3)

    by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @05:51PM (#56965198)

    "Such questions would be moot in Europe..."

    True. But not only for privacy reasons. Most European countries have either public or heavily regulated private insurance markets. Paying through the nose for insurance with sky-high deductibles, like many Americans do, would be unheard of.

    In the US, having a child costs thousands to tens of thousands. In most of Europe, it's covered, and out-of-pocket is equivalent to a few hundred dollars, if not less.

  • This is the point of community rating (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GrimSavant ( 5251917 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @05:54PM (#56965214)
    Community rating, charging the same premium across a cohort, is intended to prevent this sort of thing. Unregulated health insurance markets will use whatever data they can to underwrite potential policy holders, and try to isolate uninsurable individuals and either charge them unaffordable rates or deny them coverage. This is much more socially acceptable in other insurance contexts, such as an uninsurable risk for car insurance being unable to get coverage (due to many collisions or drunk driving convictions or whatever) and thus being unable to drive legally is acceptable. In the case of being unable to health coverage due to prior illness, the consequence can easily be death.

    So when there is the talk about repealing Obamacare or single payer or free market maximalism for health insurance, this is very much what is at stake. Unregulated private insurers maximize their profit by isolating high risk individuals and either pricing them in or kicking them off the rolls. The money and resources spent on these deep dives are wasteful and detrimental from the standpoint of society as a whole, but totally rational from the standpoint of the individual insurers because those downsides can be offloaded onto someone else.

  • This is the shit that will get peoples' attention (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @06:27PM (#56965376) Journal
    Too many of you say "oh, well, privacy is dead and nobody cares, so why bother even trying?". Well, now it may cost people more money, or get them booted out of their medical coverage entirely, or who knows, get them fired from their job because they'll (potentially) raise the group rates too much? People will suddenly start caring about their privacy and who has access to all the data about their lives. Hit people in the pocketbook and they'll suddenly pay attention to all sorts of things that they said they didn't care about.

  • Yet again, China is leading the way (Score:3)

    by GerryGilmore ( 663905 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @08:24PM (#56965952)
    They are already doing this, not only for medical reasons, but: should you get locked up; sent to a re-education camp; denied travel, even on trains; get a job; rent an apartment; etc. We're getting there.

  • In the end (Score:3)

    by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @08:41PM (#56966004)

    The insurance companies will simply get sued for discrimination*. They can claim that sick / unhealthy people cost more to insure, but that's the point of insurance. You rake in a huge pool of cash from both the healthy and unhealthy to cover the costs. In related news, if the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries were regulated, we wouldn't need insurance because the aforementioned industries wouldn't be allowed to charge anything they wanted simply because they can. Get that under control and healthcare for everyone might even be doable.

    *Especially when they start charging elderly folks or folks with inherited / genetic diseases more for the same coverage.

    It's cheaper to fly to another country and pay cash for a procedure than it is to get it done here in the US.

    • " In related news, if the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries were regulated, we wouldn't need insurance because the aforementioned industries wouldn't be allowed to charge anything they wanted simply because they can "

      As an example:

      A recent MRI ( of which I spent exactly ten minutes in the machine ) cost me $800 USD. EIGHT HUNDRED FUCKING DOLLARS for ten God Damn minutes.

      This kind of shit is why the whole system needs to be regulated.

      • You have to split up the cost of the $1.5 - 3.0 million machine across everyone who uses it. Not to mention the cost of keeping the liquid helium cold or replacing it if the machine has to be shut down. $800 is probably still too high, but I wouldn't imagine it being cheap either.

  • Rates aren't the problem (Score:5, Informative)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @09:07PM (#56966052)
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close