Slashdot Log In
UK Allows Insurers To Use Genetic Test Results
Posted by
michael
on Thu Oct 12, 2000 07:42 AM
from the GATTACA dept.
from the GATTACA dept.
np-complete writes: "According to this article from BBC News, the UK government has decided to allow insurers to deny cover or increase premiums for those who have tested positive for Huntingdon's Chorea, despite the recommendation by the Human Genetics Advisory Commission for a moratorium on the use of such information. The government has decided that insurers should be able to use information from genetic tests if it is deemed technically reliable by the Genetics and Insurance Committee. The report claims this makes Britain the first country in the world to approve this kind of commercial use of gene technology. The government says it's 'good for consumers.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
UK Allows Insurers to Use Genetic Test Results
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 290 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
A broader question. (Score:3)
Is the optimum that a person's premimums are set so that over a lifetime of payment, they pay the cost of all their medical bills plus the overhead required to run the insurance companies overhead, make profit, etc? In this case, premimums that are strongly tied to risk factors (including genetic makeup) would be trend.
On the other extreme, is the goal that the cost of every customer's medical care over a lifetime equals the total paid premimums plus operating expenses, profit, etc? On this extreme, make a flat rate premimium would be possible (though not very probable when market forces are considered).
I'm sure economists debate this one. Which is it? (or better yet, where on the continuum is it?)
Good for consumers? (Score:3)
The thing is, they're right... if you're one of the lucky ones with the right genes. It'll mean lower premiums for the genetically "healthy" and higher premiums for those more susceptible to certain diseases. It's really just an extension of the existing system of higher premiums for smokers. The only question is where do you draw the line? Eventually, we'll end up with a system where the only people that can get life insurance are the ones that aren't going to need it anyway...
No, insurance exists to spread risks across a popu (Score:4)
Look, it makes no sense to only insure those who have little to no risk. Back in the days when Blue Cross was a regulated non-profit they spread their risks across a wide population and adjusted the premiums accordingly.
Recently, after the advent of HMOs and other cost cutting measures, we've seen insurers divide their customer pool by various risk assessments in order to differentiate premiums across the population by various risk factors. This, and other genetic tests like it, provides the insurance industry with yet another mechanism to assess risk in order to deny coverage, or charge higher premiums.
At a certain point, after the risk assessment gets good enough to set premium policy at cost with the coverage of care, as a society we should ask ourselves "what good is paying this policy if it only serves to charge a fee atop whatever my doctor costs?" In other words, when various risk assessments such as genetic testing get good enough at predicting risk, insurance companies will simply be tacking on their fee directly atop your doctor's fee; thereby dismantling the primary purpose of insurance, that of spreading risk across a population.
The subversion is nearly complete. (Score:3)
The bourgeois subversion seems to be successful. We're gonna have to call for résistance.
--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
Okay, let's follow this to it's logical conclusion (Score:3)
If there's no risk, where's the insurance? (Score:5)
The business idea behind insurance is that the insurance companies are, in exchange for money, assuming the financial component of risk -- the uncertainty of future events. By taking my money, they're in essence agreeing to assume my risk. And by paying them, I agree to forfeit money now to insure that I don't forfeit even more money. The risk I face is that I might not experience an event covered by my insurance, which is why insurance payments are generally foreited -- you don't get them back. (Except in the case of some life insurance policies that mature or expire).
By getting access to genetic information about what diseases people are either guaranteed or highly predisposed to get and being able to only insure those not likely to get those diseases, the insurance industry is in effect stacking the deck -- they're drastically eliminating their side of the risk equation. So where's the insurance?
This is in addition to the larger problem it creates for health care -- it distorts the risk pools. We'll have insurance carriers that only accept genetically healthy people -- those who would pay in more than they get out. And those who would get more out than they pay in? They're either non-insurable or they get stuck bloating inefficient government programs or paying ridiculous rates to the high-risk arms of the rich insurance carriers who won't mix risk pools.
In many ways this is corporate-sponsored eugenics, and it really scares me.
Genetic Testing makes a problem for all insurance (Score:3)
Then we have a situation where the consumer knows far more about his conditions than the insurance company. In fact, that is the problem. A person with a genetic defect can now expect a private corporation to take care of them through life.
The problem comes when one party knows more about the risk than the other party. Therefore it almost seems justified to demand the insurance company gets all the info the customer does.
The problem is that this causes a situation where people can abuse the system, or the system might abuse the people. What if the test is flat wrong? (happens sometimes) What if the results aren't revealed by the insurance company, because they don't want any trouble with the applicant? What if the company decides to raise the rates of people with a 50% chance of getting the condition to a rate so high it can't be afforded? And then the person doesn't get that disease, but gets into a car accident? Isn't this killing individuals or loading them with debt so they can't reproduce?
Genetic testing is quickly leading to eugenics. People now have the technology and the reasons to abort babies who may have conditions. They will lose their insurance coverage if the child is carried to term! Surely, this must end somewhere. And if it ends with only healthy, quick dying individuals who put the least amount of strain on the health insurance industry as possible, well that's that.
So the basic problem is the tests, and society itself. We can test for anything society doesn't like and eliminate it directly or indirectly. Society now has the ability to shape what genes you are allowed (moreso than before, I guess).
-Ben
Wrong: it hurts consumers (Score:3)
Hmmm. Let's look at this for a moment. It does in fact hurt the consumer, and I'll tell you why. There is no difference between charging more to one class of people and giving a discount to a different group. If they charge more to a particular group, then they'll set the base rate lower. If offering a "discount", they'll set the base rate higher.
When you control the base rates that you charge, it makes no difference if you offer discounts to one group, or charge more to a different group. It's discrimination no matter how you look at it, and discrimination based on genetic characteristics is just plain wrong.
---
Oh, great, all the economics ignoramuses come out (Score:3)
Geez, guys, learn something about economics before you comment on an economics issue. What you're saying makes no more sense to an economist than 3 + 3 = 7 to a mathemetician.
-russ
Re:No, insurance exists to spread risks across a p (Score:3)
And yes, I agree with you -- once risk assessment becomes so accurate that there are no unknowns, there is no reason for buying insurance. A risk is something unknown. Once you learn about it, it's not a risk anymore.
-russ
Shared risk pool (Score:5)
This is not a BAD THING! This is the way the system is supposed to work. If insurance companies are allowed to screen out (via huge premiums) those who are most likely to have a disease occur, then you're left with a pool of healthy people paying somewhat less premiums (don't let the insurers fool you into thinking they're going to drastically lower rates) while the insurers make out like big dogs raking in profits off of healthy people.
And those screened out by genetic testing (screened out again by higher premiums that will likely not be affordable)? They'll go on a government program of insurance, which means, if you're healthy, you're going to be paying for them anyway with your taxes.
My bet is that the marginal cost that you'll pay in higher premiums by disallowing genetic profiling will be much less than the additional taxes you pay to support a bloated government health bureaucracy built to handle those people who were screened out.
EMUSE.NET [emuse.net]
Re:It *is* good for comsumers (Score:3)
The test is only voluntary for now. With hundreds of other diseases waiting for approval to be included on the "statistically accurate" list, it may soon become mandatory for every person to be tested in order to claim health benefits.
This sounds like it will soon become a lose-lose situation for 20%-50% of the british populace, and only win-win for the perfectly healthy. That is not what insurance is about.
It may be time to dismantle the whole insurance industry, and replace it with a "universal coverage" overseen by the government. Something that ensures every citizen gets health care, whether their DNA shows a risk or not. Of course, britian's health coverage is a lousy example of this practice.
the AC
Insurance Woes (slightly OT) (Score:5)
This is a rant I've been thinking on for the last year or so.
I'm a 20 year old male, leasing my own new car and not living with my parents. I pay a huge amount for insurance on said car every month. My lease payment is $300/month. My insurance payment is $250/month. Yes, that's right. No, I didn't accidentally put that 0 at the end of $250.
Why, you ask, is my insurance so high? I must've totalled my last car so my premiums went up, right? Or I must have at least been driving under then influence, without a seatbelt, doing 175 in a 60, with expired license plates, right?
Nope, truth is that my driving record is spotless. I've never been in an accident, or even received a traffic violation.
I'm victim to statistical analysis, based on age, and gender. You see, statistics PROVE that I am VERY likely to get into an accident because lots of other people my age and gender have done so.
This is similar to what these people are trying to do. It's not terribly bad YET, but this definately opens the door to a Gattaca type situation where the insurance company decides that my DNA is CLOSE to someone who had (ie)Lukemia, so I am likely to get it or have it or whatever, so my life insurance should be higher.
Sounds a little like my current situation, huh? My question is: How is gender profiling even legal? I mean, what if the SAME stats proved that Black(or Hispanic, or whatever the politically correct terms are... sorry.) people get in more accidents than white people? Well, obviously, there would be minority groups protesting as far as the eye can see. Or what if outspoken gay people get in more accidents than non-gay people? Same.
But what can I do? I'm just a straight white guy. I'm walking politically incorrectness.
---
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. - Benjamin Disraeli
---
Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that. - Homer Simpson
---
US does the opposite (Score:4)
will they revoke my breeding permit? (Score:3)
--
DNA testing (Score:3)
So the UK now uses results like this to determine insurance eligibility? Very Very scary. Imagine being denied insurance , for something genetic testing has shown a weakness for. I have always believed insurance was a bit of a scam, this clinches it. Of course insurance is not designed to protect those who need it, rather it is a capitalistic tool used by the rich to get richer.
Disintermediation (Score:4)
Then medicine got higher tech, and for a lot of money we could fix some kinds of really serious injury and illness, and postpone death by months in some other cases. Very expensive months. Insurance now looks attractive and is sold as a way to insure that your family will have access to these expensive medical techniques just in case.
Thanks to the corporate bottom lines, we are soon confronted with the basic dilemna -- how much is a person's life worth to society as a whole, and to them individually? Some positive things do result like a new concentration on preventive medicine. At first, it is left up to individuals so at least the freedom of choice is preserved, and insurance remains fairly apolitical.
Soon though, medical insurance began to be provided by employers, partly thanks to the unions, and partly because there is economic efficiency in large purchases. The company benefits by a healthier and happier workforce, and employees benefit by being covered for less money than they could arrange on their own. However the chance to choose how to arrange medical insurance disappeared for many -- the insurance companies didn't really need individual business anymore. There is much furor over which expensive treatments are covered and which aren't. Medical care has become political in a big way.
Today, insurance companies are actually paying for propaganda to discourage behaviors expensive for them, and interfering politically in matters such as drug testing. It appears that they will also set standards for "good" DNA and "bad" DNA in a way that will directly affect the quality and length of people's life. Equality of opportunity implies that you should not be penalized for who you are, and surely your DNA is not anything else.
We should look back at this point, now that many agree that basic universal coverage is probably desirable. We can cut insurance companies right out of the basic coverage loop and we should. This is not to say someone doesn't have to make the tough decisions about who and what doesn't get covered given the finite amount of money available for medical costs. But since this decision is highly emotional and political it belongs in the political arena, not corporate boardrooms.
The nature of volentering such infomation. (Score:4)
So, if you *don't* agree to a genetic marker screening, what do you think the insurance companies are most likely to assume?
a) you are a privacy advocate willing to pay higher premiums to make an intelectual point (much like some of us who encrypt data communications just so there will be more encrypted info for the NSA to sift through)
or b) you are aware of a genetic marker that would disqualify you for low rates?
Bonus points if you can figure out what's likely to happen to your insurance rates.
Volentarily is just another word here for guilty till proven innocent.
On the other hand the UK has good universal medical coverage last time I checked, so it's probably not such a big deal as it would be in the states.
----
Remove the rocks from my head to send email
What this shows.... (Score:4)
Plenty of people have high insurance premiums because of factors that are discoverable _without_ technology. We don't prevent the insurance companies from demanding to know about those factors, do we? It would be unfair to mandate that insurance companies not ask people about their family history, or their past health, just because the company might raise the premium or refuse the insurance. What has technology got to do with it?
Surely the point is that insurance is a crap way to care for the sick. The people who are sick from birth can't get insurance, or if they can, they can't afford it. People at high risk of ill health for _any_ reason are in the same boat. In a society that agrees that the sick should be cared for if they cannot care for themselves, there needs to be another way to pay for it besides insurance.
The problem is that it's a Business (Score:3)
Not that I have an answer as to how to give everyone medical help, but this system sure as hell isn't doing it. People with pre-existing conditions can't get coverage. That means that the people who are very sick, and require very expensive medicines(cause making medicine is a business too) have to pay up the ass just to live.
I'm just waiting for this law to be proposed in the US. Though congrats to the British for having a dumb idea to hurt their people before us. Anyday it's not gonna be voluntary, and then, well, we're screwed.
Insurance works best with zero information. (Score:3)
As the industry allows more and more detailed genetic and statistical analysis, removing the element of chance, and identifying exactly who the people are who will get hit by an event... what the heck will the point of having insurance be?
If I test negative for Huntington's, I would be an idiot to get insured for it. If I test positive, the insurance company would be an idiot to insure me. Therefore, back to square one: no spreading of the risk, no benefit to me, or to the society, from the insurance industry. Now obviously, Huntington's isn't the only risk that might affect me, but nonetheless, the direction the industry is headed doesn't make long-term societal sense.
Re:It *is* good for comsumers (Score:5)
When the first designer babies come along in 25 years, see how much you appreciate being told your children will cost twice as much to insure as happily-tested, genetic-condition free whippersnappers. Do you risk getting your children tested? What if it turns out they are 'at risk?' You, and your kids, for that matter, are pretty screwed now, aren't you, since we have already seen in the last year alone what a great job of keeping information and medical records private big companies do--especially those that thrive on information, i.e. insurance companies.
Sure, this step is no big deal, since about .0001% of the population has this particular condition, nasty as it is, so you are better off getting tested, and saving a few bucks a month. But wait--in 5 years, the test for prostate cancer becomes 'technically reliable', and your genetic test is still on file somewhere. Lets just double check that real quick, shall we? Ooops, you just got denied coverage.
Dont think that when tests for the big killers, cancers and heart disease and the like, are 'technically reliable', that you will have the option of opting out of the testing. That quick blood test at the doctor's checkup when you get your coverage will be testing for a whole lot more than it does today.
And seeing as anything that brings down those premiums is good,You could do a lot of things to bring down premium costs that are most assuredly not good.
lilnobody
Should Keep Insurance Premiums Down (Score:3)
Genetic screening would allow insurers to keep their premiums lower, and provided that they make the screening results available to the applicant, it would allow the applicant to make alternative arrangements to insurance, such as investing an amount of money to pay for their medical care.
This isn't actually as bad as it sounds, as we do still have a free National Health Service here, so medical insurance isn't as important as say, in the States.
I'm sure the hype this decision will cause will cause some insurers not to take it up, and advertise this fact, just as some advertise "No medical required" at the moment.
Insurance = standard deviation reduction (Score:3)
Those replies saying insurance exists to spread risk across a population are missing an important factor. The purpose of insurance is not, and cannot be, to distribute the mean cost of an event (health problems, fire, flood, whatever) over a population. I explained why in another post, but I will do it here with a more mathematical orientation. The purpose of insurance is to reduce the standard deviation of cost of an event in a population without changing the mean cost for each individual.
Suppose two (or more) people are situated with a probability distribution of various costs occurring -- their house might be flood or struct by lightening, or whatever. Their costs in a particular year may be 99.9% of being zero and .1% of being $100,000 (just for illustration). Mean cost: $100. Standard deviation: $3,160. If they form a contract that each will share the costs, then when one house burns down, they each pay half. If both burn down, nothing has been accomplished, but suppose they live in different areas so floods occur simultaneously only by chance. Mean cost: $100. Standard deviation: $2,235. The mean is still the same because the chances of damages have not changed. The standard deviation is lower because they are sharing.
With two people, the standard deviation is 70.7% of its previous value (1/sqrt(2)). Do it with a million people, and the standard deviation drops to .1% of its previous value -- $3 a year. Insurance reduces the standard deviation. It does not alter the mean, except to increase it for the costs of administration and profit.
When you try to spread the risk among differently situation people with different means, the insurance model breaks. If Pat lived inland with a .1% chance of flooding per year and Chris lived on the beach with a 1% chance of flooding per year, and they agree to share the risks, then Pat's mean jumps from $100 to $550. Pat won't take that deal!
Of course, you could fix this by sharing the risk at 1:10 for Pat:Chris -- Pat pays 1/11 of any damages that occur, and Chris pays 10/11. Then Pat's mean stays unchanged -- but so does Chris's. So you haven't saved Chris any money on average. Pat, and people generally, will happily buy insurance if it reduces their standard deviation -- but not if it increases their mean greatly. So you can only sell insurance to people when it does not change their mean cost by more than they value the reduction in standard deviation.
Not good for consumers , and what next, sell data? (Score:3)
anyone who claims this is good for the consumer either works for the insurance companies, or hasn't read enough.
The insurance company wants to test me to find out if there's a chance I may be genetically inclined to suffer a disease later in life. Then they will triple my rates.
For now, I can decline these tests, but watch that option be taken away after the large number of sheep become acclimated to these tests.
When that option is taken away, I will either have insurance, or not. If my insurance is among my benefit package at my place of business, why then, my employer AND my insurance company have my genes on file.
Only a matter of time before the insurance company sells my data...
And they'll make it tough to say no- either take the test and get insured, and employed, or dont take the test, and have no job and no benefits.
I love to take things apart as much as anyone, but aren't there some things we weren't meant to tamper with??
"We're all sons of bitches now."
--Robert J. Oppenheimer, on witnessing the first test explosion of the atomic bomb.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
What's wrong with this picture (Score:3)
Ok, here's a simplified example:
1000 people buy insurance with company X, each paying 500 quid a year. The turnover for company X is 500000 quid
The company requires 100000 quid for administrative and all other costs
The total payout for claims is 350000 quid, leaving X with a net profit of 50000 quid.
Now, genetic screening comes into the picture and ten procent of the clients turn out to be a higher or high risk. The good citizens they are, they keep those clients, but raise the premium for those folks to 1500 quid a year. So now X makes 600000 gross.
The PR department jumps in and makes management aware that the premium for the other customers have to go down, otherwise there will be public outcry. So for the other 900 customers the premium is reduced to 490 quid.
Suddenly X makes a yearly turnover of 591000 quid, a net profit of 141000 quid given that the other parameters stay the same.
Oh yeah, and in a side move they fscked over all principals that apply to health insurance, being to evenly distribute the risk between the insured.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that an insurer has to take a 70 year old male, smoking three packs of Gauloises a day and quaffing two quarts of Makers Mark. But those are factors within (a certain amount of) control within an individual, but genetic disposition IS NOT
What a bunch of sad, greedy, corrupt wankers
Mixed messages from the Establishment (Score:4)
On one hand, "It is not a punitive step. This will actually benefit very many people seeking insurance. The only people who are likely to have taken a test for Huntington's disease are people with a family history of this disease." But on the other, insurees "would be expected to disclose the results of any genetic test for Huntington's disease they had taken in the past" and "insurance companies would have the right to refuse to offer insurance if a customer refused to reveal details."
Additionally: "a person at 50% risk of developing Huntington's often found their insurance premium loaded by as much as 300%." And this is only if you're at risk, which is different from being certain of it.
Is this fair? Probably. If you, personally, are likely to contract a certain medical condition, then why shouldn't you pay your own rates for that instead of expecting it to be evenly distributed, Medicare style?
On the other hand, this is definitely a slippery slope. I'll be one of the first to cite "Gattaca", and the instance where a day-care center wouldn't take a certain boy who was at risk for assorted genetic "defects", all because "the insurance won't cover it". Will our medical insurance one day have factors for our likelihood of cancer, Alzheimer's, and depression, the same way our homeowner's insurance now factors in our neighborhood and the age of the plumbing?
Insurance scam (Score:4)
Why is this a scam? An example will show you the trick. Suppose fire works are legal in your area. The "Fire Safety Institute" or some similar insurance industry backed group starts a big push to outlaw fireworks. "Look how much fire works cost you in extra fire insurance premiums" is one of their main arguments. The Push is successful - fire works get outlawed. So your fire insurance premiums drop - right? Somehow the Insurance companies 'forget' to pass on the savings to you that came from their risk being lowered.
Nice scam, and one that people have been falling for repeatedly for 70 years or so. Cars today are far safer than they were in the 1950's. Your chance of being injured in an accident in a 2000 model car is a lot lower than it was in one from 50 years ago, but your insurance rates are a lot higher. (That is not all scam, there are a lot more cars on the roads than there were in 1950, and like chemical reactions, accident rates go as the square of the density of the reactants. double the number of cars and the number of accidents goes up by a factor of four - given nothing else changes.)
In any case the basic scam is: "Make things safer by pointing out that X costs you money in higher insurance premiums, forget to lower the premiums when X disappears". Quick test, did anybody have their insurance rates drop when helmets for kids on bicycles got mandated? How about helmets on motorcycle drivers, did anybody get lowered premiums for that? How about when mandatory seat belt laws went into effect, did your auto insurance costs decline? No, but you can bet insurance company costs went down when those laws went into effect.
I once heard someone say "One more time through and the banks and the insurance companies will own everything." He wasn't very far wrong.
The concept of insurance (Score:4)
My house may not burn down. Your house may not burn down. But somebody's house is probably going to burn down this year. This is a terrible thing. Devistating. An asset that costs an entire lifetime's savings is gone in a few hours.
With share the risk, we all share in the risk by paying a little bit, and then when disaster happens, the money is available to "make us whole" again. If the cost of fixing burned down houses goes up, then everyone who wants to be covered under the plan needs to pay a higher premium to meet the cost of the outgoing claims.
It seems like insurance companies increasingly want to avoid risk. They want to collect premiums from everyone. But when disaster strikes someone, they don't want to pay out.
They increasingly want to cherry-pick. Especially in health insurance. We won't insure you unless you're in perfect health.
I know (health) insurance companies are not a bottomless pit of money to spend on outrageously expensive treatments. But insurance companies will no longer play the "share the risk" game, which is what I though insurance was supposed to be all about.
When it comes to health, there are lots of risks. Different people will have different problems. Problems will increase with age. You'll have more difficulty getting it up, etc. But our genetic diversity is a good thing. It is what helps make us resistant to nasty things that would easily wipe out a race of genetically identical creatures. After all, somebody is going to be more resistant to the black death, even if it wipes out a sizable fraction of the population.
Following from the genetic diversity, everyone is going to have different problems. So maybe nobody should be eligible for health insurance (no risk) -- but everyone should still have to pay premiums. I think I better switch careers to be an insurance executive. (Or maybe recording industry executive.)
Hmmm. Shades of Gattaca.
"Risky" genes (Score:3)
But what happens if you are in perfect health, and you take a genetic test and they turn up some high risk factor? Then you can never again get health insurance, or if you can, it will be very expensive and have clauses excluding any disease related to your risk.
But very few people will have the genes which put them in high risk groups. These genes are generally recessive and so it won't express itself in you because you don't have the correct combinations to cause the disease to become active. Only a small percentage of the population will be adversely affected.
Re:It *is* good for comsumers (Score:3)
Think of it like this: if you don't take the test, the burden is then on you to prove you're healthy. Since insurance isn't a legal system, you have no ability to defend your right to refuse such a test. Hence, using the logic of "only the guilty have something to hide", you're a disease-ridden, high insurance risk, unworthy of any coverage whatsoever. They'll smile, put a black mark against your name in their DB, and look for reasons to drop you. The other providers that they share your info with will already have more than enough reason to deny you coverage when you seek THEIR help.
This is a lose-lose situation.
Think about what it actually means. (Score:3)
If you were offered a ride in a time machine that allowed you to skip forward and see who won the next superbowl, betting shops would demand you disclosed that information, if you had it, before placing a bet. Otherwise, logically, you would only ever bet if you knew you'd win.
For all this appears to be the first step on a dubious path, that is all that is happening. The health insurers are saying, "If you already know the results of the bet, shouldn't we be given that information too?"
What really needs to happen is for health insurance to be categorisable. So, if you do find out you're likely to get Huntingtons in thirty years, you can still get insurance for everything BUT Huntingtons for a reasonable price.
Good for a few, and for the rest... (Score:4)
This is really an extension of current insurance practices. Insurance companies started skimming the healtiest people (young, non-smokers, etc.) off the top by offering them lower rates. Providers like Blue Cross, who insured a heck of a lot of people, got stuck with a higher-risk pool, and so their rates would be higher.
What insurance companies would like to do is to put everyone into a pool of one, i.e., they would have a reliable estimate of how much each individual person is going to cost them. Then they charge a bit more than that, and make money. Have a gene which guarantees a certain disease? We aren't going to have the people with good genes subsidize your care -- you have to pay more because you, as a single individual, are unprofitable otherwise. What would happen in the extreme, of course, is that there would be no shared risk anymore -- everyone would be evaluated on their individual profitability. Eliminate the uncertainty of the future, you eliminate the need to pool yourself with "riskier" people.
Some people would benefit with no insurance. Those who never get sick. The question is, do those that are not likely to get sick have a responsibility to those that won't? If the answer is no, then test away, and let the market decide the fate of those who are known risks. If the answer is yes, then we might have to limit the way people are pooled in health insurance. I suspect that many of the people would answer that question based upon their expectations of getting sick.
-------------
Artificially Mutated Gene Pool (Score:4)
Obviously, once this sort of testing starts, people with genetic risk factors for serious disease (meaning expensive to treat) will end up paying more for their health insurance, if they can get it at all. An interesting side effect will naturally enough be a huge upswing in abortions of "defective" (that is, expensive to maintain) embryos that would have been born as babies unable to get health insurance after a certain age (when many genetically-related diseases begin to manifest symptoms).
As other posters have pointed out, insurers can easily implement this sort of vicious health insurance discrimination by simply adjusting the base rates ever upwards while offering "discounts" to more and more people who "volunteer" to allow genetic tests "for planning purposes" and yet steeper discounts for "low-risk" individuals (meaning super-healthy). In this way, I've no doubt that the practice of "stealth" health insurance discrimination will spread fairly fast to the United States, and for just about every genetically related disease.
This nightmare scenario of "genetic outcasts" who can't get affordable or any health insurance, or even employment because employers don't want (for instance) to be sued for "negligence against the financial interests of the stockholders" has been well enough covered in many science fiction novels, although I leave it to the reader to find these novels (sorry, it's been years since I've had time to read anything much but technical or business material, and I've forgotten the names of even the ones I vaguely recall).
Just great.... (Score:3)
I'm not surprised, tho... I just wonder how long it will be before this hits the US.
Let's take this a step further (Score:3)
Why stop with genetic tests for Huntingdon's? Why not do a full battery of genetic, ultrasound, blood, and urine tests. Hell, throw in some psychological profiling for good measure... it wouldn't serve the consumer to raise premiums to cover drug addiction or psychological counseling, now would it? Then the insurance companies can deny coverage if any problems of any kind present themselves.
Isn't it reassuring to know that one day you'll only be able to get health insurance if you don't need it?
Huntingdon's Disease (Score:4)
Btw, That's A Link On What The Hell That Is.