Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
As I pointed out earlier in this thread from my experience with Progressive auto insurance and the device they encouraged people to plug into the OBD port in their car to potentially save money on their car insurance premiums, Aetna could entice the user to install an app under the guise that it will offer the user some benefit (potentially lower insurance premium, discounts on health-related services); but in exchange for the benefits, you have to agree to let the app provide them with your activity data and they reserve the right to use that data against you to raise your premium if they deem you to be a higher liability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trifid
Yeah, because what you want is a insurance corporation that tracks your health and adjusts your premiums directly on your stats.

Sure, 25% up front discount, but when they find out your health isn't great then boom, suddenly you are paying 50%, 100%, 500% more the originally? The the problem is they decide what good or bad health is, you can be fit but have a minor heart murmur your watch will pick up, suddenly you are paying 250% more the next time your insurance is renewed even if your own doctor says its nothing to worry about.

And you might think, "well I will just leave Aetna and go to another insurance company", only thing is they are all in cahoots so once they know you are at risk with poor health your records are shared with all insurance companies and suddenly you can't afford health insurance anymore anywhere.

And guess what, your employer will have access to your health records and at-risk employees might suddenly be laid off for whatever reason because a company doesn't want people that might drop dead or be a burden of long term disability leave in the future.

It amazes me how much people will jump at a marketing promotion to get something free or get a perceived savings on cost without thinking one damn minute about the ulterior motives. NO corporation wants to earn less money from you, there is ALWAYS an ulterior profit mongering scheme with anything any corporation does.

Aetna can spin this all they want, the reality is that they will use this information to increase profit off of at-risk customers OR simply cancel at-risk customers that prove to have health stats that might indicate future liability to the company when a customer might actually need to use their insurance for health reasons.

In the end, this is yet another greedy organization that is looking to make more profit by violating your privacy and it is surprising that Apple would allow this considering how vocal Apple has been to not collect consumer data for profiteering. But right now Apple just wants to sell more Apple Watches and could care less about your privacy by allowing apps such as this to tie directly into another corporation's profit scheme. Dangle a shiney bauble in front of you, suddenly people want to share their private information with a corporation.
I get where you're coming from, but you control the data that comes out of that watch, so Aetna wouldn't necessarily have more info on you unless you installed their app and allowed them to capture your info.
 
As a fitness tracker, doesn't it offer the same? Even the highend fitbit offers GPS.

Sending your heartbeat to your buddies and getting sport scores isn't going to help you lose weight
I would agree with you initially, and I have for a while. However, as much as I don't want to say this, the ecosystem with the iPhone is FAR superior to what you can find elsewhere. It's not about heartbeat, it's about on time notifications when configured properly and to your liking. I despised the watch initially, it's something you have to really "grow" into.

Fitbit was my mothers choice, I convinced her of the watch, because well, she has a 6s and in my honest opinion the watch is very suitable for her, she took a workshop out for it too on her own time, but I did teach her the basics. There is no comparison to fitbit and Apple watch if you have an iPhone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soccertess
Remove the blinders.

You think Aetna is paying money out of the goodness of their hearts? Yeah. Truth is, there's ample precedent for health insurers providing lower rates for people who share their activity data. But nah, you're right, I'm sure Aetna just really thinks the Apple Watch is neat and fun and just wants to share it with everybody. Cool how insurance companies are run by such nice people! :rolleyes:


No, Aetna is not doing it solely because it is a good thing for their employees, though that's a benefit, they are also doing it because it will save them money. Healthier employees will reduce health care costs. There are countless similar programs, such as subsidizing all or part of a gym membership. Sadly, I fear that your paranoid mind thinks employers are secretly paying the gym employees to report back to them on how many sit-ups you can do. And they are using the company picnic to see which employees eat the most.
[doublepost=1475040074][/doublepost]
They were talking about the service, not things like copays/deductibles which the company contracts. If Aetna decides a medical procedure isn't medically necessary and refuses to pay it has nothing to do with the employer, for example.


No, they were talking about being nickel and dimed, and approving procedures has everything to do with what the employer's contracted coverage is with Aetna
 
Just because you buy a fruit and vegetables doesn't mean you're going to eat them healthily.

Aetna could offer a discount for fruit and vegetable purchases. You could then take them home and deep fat fry the heck out of them, and eat them in all their greasy artery-clogging glory.

Aetna is taking a bet that for a $269 payout, that a certain percentage of people (not 100%) will take advantage of the fitness aspect and become healthier. They figure that each person might save their company like $500 on average. It won't work for everyone, but they are betting that it will work overall.

You buy fruit and vegetables only to be eaten, since they serve no other function. Apple Watch on the other hand serves lots of other functions besides keeping track of workouts and other health-related activities. So this seems to be a long-odds wager on Aetna's part unless they have a specific plan for encouraging their policy holders to use it, something more substantial than give it to them and hope they get used in a way that helps them financially. Since Aetna is an insurance company, it can be assumed they know all about wagers, so what plan they are betting on is my question.
 
It's amazing but also frustrating and scary to see how many people would blindly follow these kind of actions. It's an insurance company for crying out loud! These vultures will do anything to lower the costs and maximize their profits. They don't do in goodwill or altruism without a greater cause...

"Oh, but Apple doesn't allow that..." I've seen that one many times here. No, Apple doesn't! But they develop their own app(s), and if one of the terms and conditions say that you should install the app(s) and allow data collection if you want to benefit from the discount, then it's a contract/agreement between you and the insurance company. And if it's linked to an account, they will be perfectly able to see that.
But of course, it's also possible that there won't be any catch for the time being and that they're only looking at the horizon... for now. Slowly looking into what's possible and what people would like to give up just to get a bit of discount. Let's talk again in 5 years!

Anyway, our high tech world is pushing evolution in the wrong direction. These are the kind of people I'm afraid of! They turn into brainless sheep that would do/give up anything just to get a piece of fancy hardware.
 
Awww crap. My employer (big private corporation) just got rid of Aetna health insurance (the coverage we had last year) in favor of some cheaper HMO plan. :mad:
[doublepost=1475051776][/doublepost]
So this seems to be a long-odds wager on Aetna's part unless they have a specific plan for encouraging their policy holders to use it, something more substantial than give it to them and hope they get used in a way that helps them financially. Since Aetna is an insurance company, it can be assumed they know all about wagers, so what plan they are betting on is my question.

Of course. They are an insurer, and they are supposed to spend years and years of statistics on how to reduce health risks, reduce health morbidities, reduce accidents, reduce injury, reduce sick days, etc etc. Several members in my family have insurance licenses. And they almost talked me towards that career path in my younger days, so I know what insurers do.

But the problem is that the Apple Watch is still a relatively new device, so how many valid "studies" could they have run to conclude that the use of the Watch and affiliated health apps could have a beneficial effect on the health and well-being of the customer base?

Like you said, they are betting that this project will lead to long-term (health and wellness) benefits. But based on what studies? I just don't think the Watch has been around long enough for anyone to have come up with some decent statistics/studies.

Skeptical at best.

But on second thought…. this is the Age of ObamaCare, and Aetna has to do what it needs to do to survive and stay relevant, or else it ends up being a roadkill in the age of ObamaCare.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, because what you want is a insurance corporation that tracks your health and adjusts your premiums directly on your stats.

Sure, 25% up front discount, but when they find out your health isn't great then boom, suddenly you are paying 50%, 100%, 500% more the originally? The the problem is they decide what good or bad health is, you can be fit but have a minor heart murmur your watch will pick up, suddenly you are paying 250% more the next time your insurance is renewed even if your own doctor says its nothing to worry about.

And you might think, "well I will just leave Aetna and go to another insurance company", only thing is they are all in cahoots so once they know you are at risk with poor health your records are shared with all insurance companies and suddenly you can't afford health insurance anymore anywhere.

And guess what, your employer will have access to your health records and at-risk employees might suddenly be laid off for whatever reason because a company doesn't want people that might drop dead or be a burden of long term disability leave in the future.

It amazes me how much people will jump at a marketing promotion to get something free or get a perceived savings on cost without thinking one damn minute about the ulterior motives. NO corporation wants to earn less money from you, there is ALWAYS an ulterior profit mongering scheme with anything any corporation does.

Aetna can spin this all they want, the reality is that they will use this information to increase profit off of at-risk customers OR simply cancel at-risk customers that prove to have health stats that might indicate future liability to the company when a customer might actually need to use their insurance for health reasons.

In the end, this is yet another greedy organization that is looking to make more profit by violating your privacy and it is surprising that Apple would allow this considering how vocal Apple has been to not collect consumer data for profiteering. But right now Apple just wants to sell more Apple Watches and could care less about your privacy by allowing apps such as this to tie directly into another corporation's profit scheme. Dangle a shiney bauble in front of you, suddenly people want to share their private information with a corporation.

It's couldn't care less.
 
Wow, great rant. Curious how exactly insurance corps are going to get all of this information you are so concerned about off your Apple Watch. You think Apple, who would not breach privacy for the FBI, is going to do it for insurance companies? Your employer?
Apple Watch Aetna-FBI Edition. Available exclusively at Aetna and your local police station.
 
Admittedly, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you but I think in this case you can dial it down a notch. It really does seem like a legitimate attempt to help customers.

They say the same thing about the people who do tracking for targeted advertising.
 
Everyone concerned about Aetna tracking their stats, can't you just turn off data/background refresh on their apps so they can't actually pull anything? Unless Apple specifically bypasses those settings for Aetna, I would plan on getting a free watch with no reciprocation if you're smart enough to turn off the data initially.
 
No, Aetna is not doing it solely because it is a good thing for their employees, though that's a benefit, they are also doing it because it will save them money. Healthier employees will reduce health care costs. There are countless similar programs, such as subsidizing all or part of a gym membership. Sadly, I fear that your paranoid mind thinks employers are secretly paying the gym employees to report back to them on how many sit-ups you can do. And they are using the company picnic to see which employees eat the most.
[doublepost=1475040074][/doublepost]


No, they were talking about being nickel and dimed, and approving procedures has everything to do with what the employer's contracted coverage is with Aetna

Approving procedures based on medical necessity has NOTHING to do with the employer's contracted coverage.
 
Is there a camera in the watch? ... at least that we are told about? No tinfoil here, just seems like an excellent idea for a company to track something that they adjust their fees upon. This will catch on as I know several smaller companies doing this as well, for a healthy employee base.
Some funny posts in this thread.
 
I figure this is two fold what they are looking for:

1. A portion of the people who take advantage would improve their health which saves more money down the line beyond the cost of the Watch.
2. Used to track how people are managing their health and fitness if they require any data sharing

Would make more sense to just use a Fitbit since the upfront cost is lower unless there are some deals with Apple going on.
 
You buy fruit and vegetables only to be eaten, since they serve no other function.

Actually, I'll be buying some fruits soon for decorating! :)
pumpkin-icon.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: CB1234
I would immediately sell any and all stock that I owned in Aetna. How can this possibly be a wise decision in spending shareholders investment dollars? How does this create a clear and long lasting value?
 
It's very simple, folks.

1) Apple Watch health feature encourage improved health through a variety of ways (breathe, stand, workouts, fitbit-like tracking)
2) Improved health in this ridiculously obese and fatlogic-ridden country is the lowest hanging fruit for health insurance, as reducing health problems reduces expenses for them
3) They profit, and the member gets something nice too

*YES* it is a for-profit move to improve the business of Aetna. This comes with the side effect of both increased health for some, and a device many people want.

How is this bad again?
 
The next step after buying it is to get active. The watch won't do that for your, silly beans! :p

Or... just get active. The watch is, believe it or not, not necessary for any sport. Use the £ 300 for the membership in a 5-a-side football league.
[doublepost=1475069000][/doublepost]
It's very simple, folks.

1) Apple Watch health feature encourage improved health through a variety of ways (breathe, stand, workouts, fitbit-like tracking)
2) Improved health in this ridiculously obese and fatlogic-ridden country is the lowest hanging fruit for health insurance, as reducing health problems reduces expenses for them
3) They profit, and the member gets something nice too

*YES* it is a for-profit move to improve the business of Aetna. This comes with the side effect of both increased health for some, and a device many people want.

How is this bad again?

I assure you: breathing, standing a bit, and having your stagger to and fro the vending machine counted do absolutely nothing to your health.

If one wants to improve ones health, one has to stop drinking, stop smoking, stop eating carcinogens (e.g., grilled meat), stop eating processed food (including burgers, sausages, all packaged foods, most hams), stop eating all sugars, and move to a place without car fumes; and do 30 minutes of rigorous (i.e. extremely tiring and painful) exercise every day.

The Watch does none of those things for you. Its is not even helpful: it can't warn you about what you eat or smoke, it doesn't know how much you sleep, it can't detect bacterial or viral infections, it can't measure your insulin levels, it can't analyse your saliva for hormonal deficiencies; and it is useless as an incentive to exercise. $ 100 per workout is an incentive, the promise of romance is also, a silly red ring is not.

So why anyone expects a correlation between having an Apple Watch and good health is beyond me, other than as a medication reminder.
 
Last edited:
I have Aetna and love them.

The coverage is based upon what your company provides to the employeees and what package and what % they cover.
 
It's only cool if wearing a tracking device on one's wrist appeals.

Thus far smartwatches remain a gadget, a niche product of dubious value. Especially AW since it's tethered to an iPhone.

How's that tracking device in your pocket holding up?
[doublepost=1475075448][/doublepost]
lol you just wrote that so people know (without asking!) you bought that still ridiculous watch...

They can see it on my wrist.
 
This is speculation. Apple doesn't roll like that. Have you ever seen any preinstalled carrier crapware on an iPhone? If it were an android wear watch that might be different...
[doublepost=1475010898][/doublepost]

You apparently don't understand the Apple philosophy or how Apple products work so why are you commenting? You are in control of your Apple products.
I was talking about Aetna not Apple vis-a-vis fitness data access. Why else would Aetna be so generous? The more data it collects the better it can control its costs.
 
They should subsidize more gym memberships. My Aetna only subsidizes a few gyms which are very far away, and only a few dollar per month. They should subsidize you if you meet a certain goal, like going 3 days a week or something. I don't know wtf subsidizing an apple watch is really going to do unless they are going to have the manpower to monitor the health findings.

This reminds me of those ridiculous charts that used to show body condition based on height vs weight. A body builder friend of mine comes in as "obese" on the chart despite being in quite excellent shape.

The problem with that approach, as with "subsidize more gym memberships" and just about every other fitness-encouraging approach companies take, is that one size does not fit all. Some people may need five to seven days a week of fitness training, some need three, while some may only need one.

Fitness goals differ considerably. Even within a particular category of training - say strength training - you will have some extremely varied plans. A person who runs will want to train more frequently than a person who lifts weights. A person who trains for a marathon will have a wildly different regimen from a person who simply runs hard to exercise. A person who trains exclusively for hill climbs will probably leave both of them in the dust. I know that from my training days, a person at a high level of strength may only train once every eight to ten days and be able to maintain an optimum physique, whereas a person who has very little experience may want or need to train five days a week.

So, what do you do when the person gets extremely fit, and therefore needs to decrease their time at the gym for better benefit? As an insurer, do you penalize them for going to the gym less frequently? Recovery ability plays an important role in any training plan, as a person who begins strength training can see gains of double and triple their initial strength in a few months, but their recovery ability will only increase by half, so regardless of other concerns the training frequency needs to reduce, or the intensity needs to reduce. Both will apparently result in a "downgrade" from the insurer or health advocate, or whatever they're going to call themselves.

The blindness of the current fitness approach in this country is evident everywhere I look, from "cut out animal fat and limit salt" to "make sure you get your heart rate up at least this much", but its especially evident in the Apple Watch. There is no way that thing is useful for other than the most general fitness tracking, and given my admittedly limited experience with any other tracker, I'd say none of them are useful. They're all biased towards running and walking, which are extremely limited, linear movements. I'm pretty sure that I could do an afternoon of rock climbing, or Aikido, or even calisthenics or kettlebell work (though I doubt the Watch would survive a KB clean), and that thing would tell me I didn't meet basic fitness goals for the day even though I would be dead on my feet afterwards. I'd really like to see how it reacts to a slow workout with heavy weights, where the heart rate could go exceedingly high, but the body pretty much stays rooted to one spot. The lung workout would be far more strenuous than a run, too. Yet according to a fitness tracker, that workout just ain't cutting it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.