Should genetic information be available to insurers?

[Elok]

There was a section on this in this week's Economist: genetic sequencing is quickly becoming cheaper and more informative. In the near future we may be able to tell accurately how much risk there is for an individual to get Alzheimer's, breast cancer, type II diabetes and other diseases, as well as how they respond to some treatments.

Should this information be available to insurance companies? On the one side there are fears that companies will shoot up their rates for certain customers so that said customers can't afford health care. On the other, there's the possibility that customers will get a cheap sequencing, determine their vulnerabilities, and order exactly what they need. That sounds good, but if only one side can play that game it could bring the insurance industry crashing down; their profit margins depend on playing the odds. And some people argue that genetic profiles aren't in principle different from family history, cholesterol levels or other risk indicators used by companies to calculate premiums; genetic profiles are just more accurate.

So, what do you think?

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, of course. It's very silly to restrict what an insurance company can use to calculate its rates.

[Japher]

I agree it should be made available. With the following caveat: premiums cannot be determine for an individual or demographic due to genetic malnormalities.

Insurance companies are good a spreading out the hurt. Thus, the healthy pay for the sick. All because a certain race, sex, individual is more prone to develop certain conditions shouldn't lead to an increase in premiums.

??? Hmmm... tough one

[Kuciwalker]

I agree it should be made available. With the following caveat: premiums cannot be determine for an individual or demographic due to genetic malnormalities.

Insurance companies are good a spreading out the hurt. Thus, the healthy pay for the sick. All because a certain race, sex, individual is more prone to develop certain conditions shouldn't lead to an increase in premiums.

Insurance companies are about spreading risk. When you know the person is going to need $500,000 in treatment (and they know it too), there's no element of risk.

[MRT144]

On the other hand the market for an insurer that caters to people who dont want their genetic info looked at could be lucrative.

[Kuciwalker]

No it wouldn't, since there would be tremendous self-selection of the most expensive customers.

[Kuciwalker]

The real problem is the insistence that all medical bills should be paid by through some sort of insurance. This made sense when such costs were unpredictable; as medical science improves and the amount of risk decreases, insurance companies should just stop paying for things that aren't risky.

If you think medical care is a basic right than the government should take over (to whatever degree is appropriate) at that point.

[Arrian]

I'm not sure, and I say that as someone who works in the insurance industry (not health insurance, thankfully).

I think Kuci's last post is on the right track.

-Arrian

[Japher]

Insurance companies are about spreading risk. When you know the person is going to need $500,000 in treatment (and they know it too), there's no element of risk.

Where's the risk then?

It's not about spreading risk, the risk always exists. They minimize risk vs. reward, and spread the cost of the hurt across the board. My primiums are higher than they should be because people smoke, drink heavily, and drive too fast. I don't do anything of these things, but I still pay for it. (I actually do these things, but that's not the point). You still pay for health insurance, even if you are healthy.

[Whoha]

If a person doesn't want to give that to an insurer then they shouldn't have it.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Japher


Where's the risk then?

It's not about spreading risk, the risk always exists. They minimize risk vs. reward, and spread the cost of the hurt across the board. My primiums are higher than they should be because people smoke, drink heavily, and drive too fast. I don't do anything of these things, but I still pay for it. (I actually do these things, but that's not the point). You still pay for health insurance, even if you are healthy.

Kuci's right when he says insurance is about spreading risk. That's the whole point.

The lifestyle points you make are valid, and that's why I'm unsure that this info should be given to insurers. What's next? Implants to monitor your activity level, intake of toxins, etc? Blech.

I mean, I see why an underwriter would love to have the info. Just 'cause it's useful to insurers doesn't mean it's a good idea to allow...

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Where's the risk then?

It's not about spreading risk, the risk always exists.

Risk only exists when there's uncertainty and/or imperfect information.

Insurance companies exist because people are risk-averse, that is, they are willing to pay more on average to eliminate the chance of having to face a huge bill (which they might not be able to pay when it comes).

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Whoha
If a person doesn't want to give that to an insurer then they shouldn't have it.

And if the insurer doesn't want to insure a person, it shouldn't have to.

[DinoDoc]

And if the insurer doesn't want to insure a person, it shouldn't have to.

Isn't that the situation that already exists?

[Kuciwalker]

No, sadly.