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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Aetna to Provide Apple Watch to 50,000 Employees, Subsidize Cost for Customers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
"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.
[doublepost=1475051776][/doublepost]
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.
[doublepost=1475051776][/doublepost]
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:
Apple Watch Aetna-FBI Edition. Available exclusively at Aetna and your local police station.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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]
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:
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.
lol you just wrote that so people know (without asking!) you bought that still ridiculous watch...
How's that tracking device in your pocket holding up?
[doublepost=1475075448][/doublepost]
They can see it on my wrist.
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.
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.