HIPPA, the regulatory framework governing health information in the United States, only covers and protects medical data – not search histories, streaming usage, or grocery loyalty data. But if you think your search, video, and food choices aren’t related to health, well, let’s just say your insurance company begs to differ.
But once the system can discriminate on a multitude of data points, the commons collapses, devolving into a system rewarding whoever has the most profitable profile. That 18-year old with flawless genes, the right zip code, an enviable inheritance, and all the right social media habits will pay next to nothing for health insurance. But the 18 year old with a mutated BRCA1 gene, a poor zip code, and a proclivity to sit around eating Pringles while playing Fortnite? That teenager is not going to be able to afford health insurance
He argues that with more data, insurance companies will raise rates for the people that will cost them more money. I don't doubt that this is true, and if left to their own devices insurance...
He argues that with more data, insurance companies will raise rates for the people that will cost them more money. I don't doubt that this is true, and if left to their own devices insurance companies will do everything they can to make sure they continue to make as much money as possible.
Should we then limit the amount of data available to them to prevent this? Possibly. I'd rather see the healthcare of everyone taken out of the hands of for-profit companies instead. Healthcare shouldn't be run by for-profit corporations whose main goal is to maximize profits. Actually paying for healthcare for people is explicitly against what these companies goals are. They will do everything they can to avoid it, or their profits go down, which is actually illegal due to their corporate charters.
In the US, we are already paying more per capita in healthcare taxes than every other country in the world except for Norway1, and we still have to pay even more out of pocket just to get insurance on top of that unless we're on Medicare or Medicaid. If the goal of healthcare is to actually provide healthcare for everyone, instead of maximizing profit, increased data about people can help to accurately estimate real costs. The issue isn't that it will cost more under the current scheme if insurance companies have more data, it's that we allow these companies to profit off of our suffering, take all our tax money, and still end up going broke if we happen to break an arm.
Stopping the for-profit insurance industry from raising rates based on non-protected data is like trying to bandage a paper cut while your leg has been cut off. Sure limiting the data they are available to use to set their prices may help a bit to even things out, but they will still do everything they can to avoid providing payment for medical services, as doing so hurts their bottom line.
I feel that this article is right to worry about increased prices because of the availability of data, but it is only a symptom of a much larger problem. The solution should be to remove our healthcare from for-profit companies, and distribute costs fairly through taxes across all the people of this country.
He argues that with more data, insurance companies will raise rates for the people that will cost them more money. I don't doubt that this is true, and if left to their own devices insurance companies will do everything they can to make sure they continue to make as much money as possible.
Should we then limit the amount of data available to them to prevent this? Possibly. I'd rather see the healthcare of everyone taken out of the hands of for-profit companies instead. Healthcare shouldn't be run by for-profit corporations whose main goal is to maximize profits. Actually paying for healthcare for people is explicitly against what these companies goals are. They will do everything they can to avoid it, or their profits go down, which is actually illegal due to their corporate charters.
In the US, we are already paying more per capita in healthcare taxes than every other country in the world except for Norway1, and we still have to pay even more out of pocket just to get insurance on top of that unless we're on Medicare or Medicaid. If the goal of healthcare is to actually provide healthcare for everyone, instead of maximizing profit, increased data about people can help to accurately estimate real costs. The issue isn't that it will cost more under the current scheme if insurance companies have more data, it's that we allow these companies to profit off of our suffering, take all our tax money, and still end up going broke if we happen to break an arm.
Stopping the for-profit insurance industry from raising rates based on non-protected data is like trying to bandage a paper cut while your leg has been cut off. Sure limiting the data they are available to use to set their prices may help a bit to even things out, but they will still do everything they can to avoid providing payment for medical services, as doing so hurts their bottom line.
I feel that this article is right to worry about increased prices because of the availability of data, but it is only a symptom of a much larger problem. The solution should be to remove our healthcare from for-profit companies, and distribute costs fairly through taxes across all the people of this country.