Aetna to Provide Apple Watch to 50,000 Employees, Subsidize Cost for Customers

[truthertech]

I understand all that and have a top-tier plan, but it's still Aetna that provides benefits and management of them. My problem is with Aetna not fulfilling coverage that we pay for. Simple things like a prescription and they still push back. I'm no fan of Aetna but I'm sure all providers are similar just like AT&T, Verizon, etc.

Back on topic, I still don't want a watch from them.

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?

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.

You are way overthinking this. Pretty simple and nice idea: on average, people who go the gym are going to be healthier than if they didn't, which will benefit everyone from lower costs, more productive happier folk--ergo, it's a nice benefit and smart thing to do to throw a few bucks to subsidizing a gym membership or have an employee gym. Friendly suggestion, you might want to get a workout in and burn off some of that frustration; it's not doing your health any good.

 

[chrono1081]

Excellent move and I'm sure just the first. Other companies will follow.
[doublepost=1475000280][/doublepost]

Perhaps you should delete the opentable app from your watch?

Holy **** I just spit my drink out lmao!

 

[FelixDerKater]

In the past, it was possible to get a Fitbit or similar tracker through my insurance provider, but the Apple Watch was specifically off limits.

 

[DigitalCK]

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.

Baby steps. And that it does more help than harm.

Or be negative nancy

 

[spinedoc77]

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.

Ahh such a wonderful diatribe for naught. I was simply saying that gym memberships should be partially reimbursed as a method to encourage members to exercise, and a way to lower costs by having healthier members. The research is fairly straight forward in showing a myriad of health benefits to someone just getting up and doing something. I realize you don't need a gym, you can go for a walk for example, but that doesn't cost money. But it can be expanded to include non gym activities which have membership fees such as rock climbing, Aikido, etc. Now if the member goes to the gym and decides to sit down and eat chocolate bars and talk on their phone, well I suppose that's the risk the insurer takes. But most of those members will have some motivation to get in there and do something, and that doing something will help them in terms of health and has a high potential to reduce their healthcare costs as they age. It's called preventative health, and it works. As physicians our fees are capitated on many things and must be goal oriented, let's say we are judged on lowering a patient's blood pressure. You can be sure I'm going to tell that patient to exercise more as part of their health plan.

As for the other stuff, I don't necessarily disagree, it just has nothing to do with my point.
[doublepost=1475079281][/doublepost]

You are way overthinking this. Pretty simple and nice idea: on average, people who go the gym are going to be healthier than if they didn't, which will benefit everyone from lower costs, more productive happier folk--ergo, it's a nice benefit and smart thing to do to throw a few bucks to subsidizing a gym membership or have an employee gym. Friendly suggestion, you might want to get a workout in and burn off some of that frustration; it's not doing your health any good.

Well said, I don't need to add to it.

 

[sflagel]

Baby steps. And that it does more help than harm.

Or be negative nancy

Actually, by making people believe that standing for 60 seconds is beneficial to their health, or that panicking over your heart rate is good (heart rate means nothing), I do believe it does more harm than help... . It is not baby steps, it is quackery. Not appropriate for a firm like Apple.

 

[idunn]

Want to keep your job, not see your health insurance premiums skyrocket or just cancelled outright—wear an Apple watch or similar device . . . or else.

Until then, some will no doubt be pleased by this.

 

[Sill]

You are way overthinking this. Pretty simple and nice idea: on average, people who go the gym are going to be healthier than if they didn't, which will benefit everyone from lower costs, more productive happier folk--ergo, it's a nice benefit and smart thing to do to throw a few bucks to subsidizing a gym membership or have an employee gym.

I believe you're way underthinking this. Sure, anything is better than nothing when it comes to physical fitness. I'd like you to reconsider your use of "on average" though.

After having trained people for many years I saw - and studies have reflected - that "going to a gym" didn't help people "on average". If the proper approach - specific to that person - isn't put into practice, the results can be no progress or worse. Also, subsidizing something doesn't mean it will be used. Unless people pay for something out of their own wallet, they tend to not care about it.

Friendly suggestion, you might want to get a workout in and burn off some of that frustration; it's not doing your health any good.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I have a store of frustration over this. Was that directed at the two other posters you lumped together with my post?
[doublepost=1475082548][/doublepost]

Ahh such a wonderful diatribe for naught. I was simply saying that gym memberships should be partially reimbursed as a method to encourage members to exercise, and a way to lower costs by having healthier members. The research is fairly straight forward in showing a myriad of health benefits to someone just getting up and doing something. I realize you don't need a gym, you can go for a walk for example, but that doesn't cost money. But it can be expanded to include non gym activities which have membership fees such as rock climbing, Aikido, etc. Now if the member goes to the gym and decides to sit down and eat chocolate bars and talk on their phone, well I suppose that's the risk the insurer takes. But most of those members will have some motivation to get in there and do something, and that doing something will help them in terms of health and has a high potential to reduce their healthcare costs as they age.

As for the other stuff, I don't necessarily disagree, it just has nothing to do with my point.

I understand where you were coming from. I hope you didn't consider my reply to be personally directed at you. Your statement that they should subsidize memberships and goals "like going three days a week" gave me reason to point out that they can't do a blanket demand like that and have it work for the population at large. People have different needs.

I feel that corporate involvement in fitness is largely misdirected as its biased towards linear, cardio-centric work that doesn't offer much benefit past the first few weeks, and can ultimately turn people off from exercise when their results level out or vanish. Just offering a free gym membership as an employment benefit can be a wonderful thing for select people but a real shot to the head for a lot of other people.

 

[truthertech]

Actually, by making people believe that standing for 60 seconds is beneficial to their health, or that panicking over your heart rate is good (heart rate means nothing), I do believe it does more harm than help... . It is not baby steps, it is quackery. Not appropriate for a firm like Apple.

When you make comments that periodically standing is "quackery," or that your "heart rate means nothing," you lose all credibility. There is a reason your heart rate and pressure is a fundamental check at every doctor's physical. It will be game changing for people to be alerted to significant changes more than once a year at their physical. For the sake of your own health, and that of your family, please do some basic research. You are scarily ignorant.

 

[spinedoc77]

I believe you're way underthinking this. Sure, anything is better than nothing when it comes to physical fitness. I'd like you to reconsider your use of "on average" though.

After having trained people for many years I saw - and studies have reflected - that "going to a gym" didn't help people "on average". If the proper approach - specific to that person - isn't put into practice, the results can be no progress or worse. Also, subsidizing something doesn't mean it will be used. Unless people pay for something out of their own wallet, they tend to not care about it.



I'm not sure where you get the idea that I have a store of frustration over this. Was that directed at the two other posters you lumped together with my post?
[doublepost=1475082548][/doublepost]

I understand where you were coming from. I hope you didn't consider my reply to be personally directed at you. Your statement that they should subsidize memberships and goals "like going three days a week" gave me reason to point out that they can't do a blanket demand like that and have it work for the population at large. People have different needs.

I feel that corporate involvement in fitness is largely misdirected as its biased towards linear, cardio-centric work that doesn't offer much benefit past the first few weeks, and can ultimately turn people off from exercise when their results level out or vanish. Just offering a free gym membership as an employment benefit can be a wonderful thing for select people but a real shot to the head for a lot of other people.

Not to toot my horn, but I was an ACSM HFS for 15 years in a previous life and "going to the gym" does immensely help in terms of things like health markers, longevity, etc, both in my experience and what the research tells us. There is conclusive research which says that simply not sitting as much, and walking every day help long term health immensely. I am NOT saying "going to the gym" is the end all be all, no it's only a tool just as Aikido, or rock climbing, or simply walking around the block may be. The main thing is for people to get moving, whatever motivates them. As I mentioned in my first post, the gym subsidies would be based on attendance, I believe some health insurers already have options such as these. It's not required they go to the gym, or rock climb, or do Aikido, but if they can show they regularly do it they get a subsidy for that membership. I totally understand that this is a big generalization and may not work for some, but hey it's a start and will at least cover the majority of people where 30 minutes of walking on the treadmill 3-4x/week will help with their long term health. Beyond that it can be fine tuned and adjusted, but nothing will ever cover 100% of people.

I've also seen a big shift in corporate fitness and fitness trends in general going away from cardio centric work, if anything this shift has been happening for a long time, arguably the past 20-25 years. Combining strength training, functional training, core training, proprioceptive training, etc etc has been in effect for a while now. You also have to understand that cardio centric work is the easiest to teach I agree the wrong training program can turn people off of fitness, but at the same time each person has a responsibility for their own health and needs to seek out what works for them. We can't expect to hold each person's hand, but we should provide more education in terms of health and options for them. I think you are seeing this in too narrow of a focus, gym memberships may be the start and could be expanded to other activities. Most health insurers have some type of advisor who you can contact to get health questions answered, this point of contact could be utilized more thoroughly.

 

[Sill]

Not to toot my horn, but I was an ACSM HFE for 15 years in a previous life and "going to the gym" does immensely help in terms of things like health markers, longevity, etc, both in my experience and what the research tells us. There is conclusive research which says that simply not sitting as much, and walking every day help long term health immensely.

Agreed. Emphasis on the "not sitting as much" thing. Based on your name and your words, I'm going to guess you have more than a passing understanding of chair syndrome. I personally believe its destroying bodies faster than anything else I can think of in the typical workplace. Its like a "smoke break" for the pelvic structure and related soft tissue.

I am NOT saying "going to the gym" is the end all be all, no it's only a tool just as Aikido, or rock climbing, or simply walking around the block may be. The main thing is for people to get moving, whatever motivates them. As I mentioned in my first post, the gym subsidies would be based on attendance, I believe some health insurers already have options such as these. It's not required they go to the gym, or rock climb, or do Aikido, but if they can show they regularly do it they get a subsidy for that membership. I totally understand that this is a big generalization and may not work for some, but hey it's a start and will at least cover the majority of people where 30 minutes of walking on the treadmill 3-4x/week will help with their long term health. Beyond that it can be fine tuned and adjusted, but nothing will ever cover 100% of people.

I agree with much of that. In my experience I've found that stuff like treadmill work simply becomes a chore to people, something to get through, which is why I recommend outdoor work. I'd rather have someone do 5-10 minutes up hills (if there are any available) than any time at all on a treadmill. Though exercise stimulates certain portions of the brain, notably the involuntary responses, it does nothing to occupy that part which looks for environmental stimulus, hence people settle into that pattern where they hit the treadmill for 30 minutes while they stare at a book or a tv. I've found the outdoor environment provides a strange duality to exercise, in that it distracts that stimulus-seeking portion while enabling the person to focus more and better on the activity. I'd rather have people do natural movements outdoors than any kind of work in a gym, unless said work requires precision movements, for instance a power rack with safeties when a person is doing heavy squat work.

I've also seen a big shift in corporate fitness and fitness trends in general going away from cardio centric work, if anything this shift has been happening for a long time, arguably the past 20-25 years. Combining strength training, functional training, core training, proprioceptive training, etc etc has been in effect for a while now. You also have to understand that cardio centric work is the easiest to teach I agree the wrong training program can turn people off of fitness, but at the same time each person has a responsibility for their own health and needs to seek out what works for them. We can't expect to hold each person's hand, but we should provide more education in terms of health and options for them. I think you are seeing this in too narrow of a focus, gym memberships may be the start and could be expanded to other activities. Most health insurers have some type of advisor who you can contact to get health questions answered, this point of contact could be utilized more thoroughly.

I should probably explain myself better so you don't get the wrong idea about where I'm coming from on this topic.

I don't disparage going to the gym. If a person is motivated and they have a good plan, it can and will be life changing. It was for me.

In my experience with corporate fitness concepts, I've found that they are routinely geared towards discredited mantras like the lipid hypothesis and high-rep/low-weight workouts, and biased towards the aforementioned linear movement cardio-centric stuff. Believe it or not, I blame OSHA for this. The companies really want healthier people working there, but for liability's sake they're afraid to endorse any kind of movement or behavior that is outside the norm accepted by OSHA, which is working off half-baked studies that are decades old, and many times have political aims. In my company, our nurse agrees with much of what I say and yet she doesn't dare speak up about it because no one gets fired for parroting what OSHA says.

 

[spinedoc77]

Agreed. Emphasis on the "not sitting as much" thing. Based on your name and your words, I'm going to guess you have more than a passing understanding of chair syndrome. I personally believe its destroying bodies faster than anything else I can think of in the typical workplace. Its like a "smoke break" for the pelvic structure and related soft tissue.



I agree with much of that. In my experience I've found that stuff like treadmill work simply becomes a chore to people, something to get through, which is why I recommend outdoor work. I'd rather have someone do 5-10 minutes up hills (if there are any available) than any time at all on a treadmill. Though exercise stimulates certain portions of the brain, notably the involuntary responses, it does nothing to occupy that part which looks for environmental stimulus, hence people settle into that pattern where they hit the treadmill for 30 minutes while they stare at a book or a tv. I've found the outdoor environment provides a strange duality to exercise, in that it distracts that stimulus-seeking portion while enabling the person to focus more and better on the activity. I'd rather have people do natural movements outdoors than any kind of work in a gym, unless said work requires precision movements, for instance a power rack with safeties when a person is doing heavy squat work.



I should probably explain myself better so you don't get the wrong idea about where I'm coming from on this topic.

I don't disparage going to the gym. If a person is motivated and they have a good plan, it can and will be life changing. It was for me.

In my experience with corporate fitness concepts, I've found that they are routinely geared towards discredited mantras like the lipid hypothesis and high-rep/low-weight workouts, and biased towards the aforementioned linear movement cardio-centric stuff. Believe it or not, I blame OSHA for this. The companies really want healthier people working there, but for liability's sake they're afraid to endorse any kind of movement or behavior that is outside the norm accepted by OSHA, which is working off half-baked studies that are decades old, and many times have political aims. In my company, our nurse agrees with much of what I say and yet she doesn't dare speak up about it because no one gets fired for parroting what OSHA says.

Excellent discussion, great points. Just out of interest I'm doing a high rep, low weight workout now and have never felt better. I'm an old school heavy free weights guy, but at 45 that just ain't working anymore. Have you seen there were recently a few studies which noted that the strength and muscle mass gain was virtually the same between hi rep/low weight, and low rep/high weight participants, the major difference was the high rep/low weight guys were more proficient at doing that, where the low rep/high weight guys were more proficient in doing that. I must say I had great success training clients with high rep/low weight on a periodization program timed to coincide with overtraining of low rep/high weight. There is also what's called super compensation where you can explore the overtraining on purpose, I found changing things like rep/weight valuable in that process.

But we are off topic I suppose. I haven't trained anyone in a serious, or for financial recompense fashion in years and I'm quite behind the research in that field. But I still see little nuggets here and there.

 

[Sill]

Excellent discussion, great points. Just out of interest I'm doing a high rep, low weight workout now and have never felt better. I'm an old school heavy free weights guy, but at 45 that just ain't working anymore.

I'm in much the same boat as you, young'n.

I simply can't stand the nausea that heavy training gives me anymore, in part because I push myself so hard. Also, while I know consciously that hypertrophy is the result of tens of thousands of little "micro-traumas" to the muscles, subconsciously I'm experiencing what amounts to animalistic terror during heavy work. Theres mere oxygen debt, and then there's the feeling of drowning... thats the one that gets me.

I've switched from heavy, slow, linear work to more kinetic, adaptable stuff that works in three axes. I'm particularly fond of kettlebell work and calisthenics (though I avoid kipping like the plague). I get satisfying gains/maintenance without the nausea.

Have you seen there were recently a few studies which noted that the strength and muscle mass gain was virtually the same between hi rep/low weight, and low rep/high weight participants, the major difference was the high rep/low weight guys were more proficient at doing that, where the low rep/high weight guys were more proficient in doing that.

I haven't seen that, though I wouldn't be surprised. People who are serious about finding their path are going to push till they find what they enjoy, and the subset that gets adequate results will approach their chosen modality with near-evangelic intensity. The corresponding NME they develop in those movements is going to produce effects like what you're saying. If you have an abstract for any of those studies floating around, I'd enjoy reading it. I'm wondering if they made differentiation between muscle volume and muscle density, since those are two completely different ways to look at muscle growth. I'd also like to see how they approached controls like genetics, training background/skill level, environment, and about a hundred more things I don't want to use up space listing. Maybe TrutherTech was right earlier - I overthink things.

I must say I had great success training clients with high rep/low weight on a periodization program timed to coincide with overtraining of low rep/high weight. There is also what's called super compensation where you can explore the overtraining on purpose, I found changing things like rep/weight valuable in that process.

Wow, you and I approach stuff in a very similar fashion. My more advanced routines focused on paths like that. I also got into timing the routine schedule to come in right after the anabolic phase (muscle growth, not steroid use, obviously), peak output to stimulate GH release, and forcing anaerobic processes instead of aerobic in order to stimulate hypertrophy. I desperately wanted to research hyperplasia but my life and career path went in a far different direction.

But we are off topic I suppose. I haven't trained anyone in a serious, or for financial recompense fashion in years and I'm quite behind the research in that field. But I still see little nuggets here and there.

Same here.

 

[m0dem]

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.

You clearly have no idea how health insurance works. Health insurance companies have all the data from your doctors already and can get medical records directly from providers. There's nothing an Apple Watch will give them that details your health as much as your records would. Not to mention they can't raise a single person's premium based on their health.

 

[DoctorTech]

So if I become a customer I get a "free" Apple Watch? lol

I seem to remember someone saying "if you are not paying for it, you are the product."

I would really like to see the fine print on this program. Does Aetna get to take a peek at any data from the watches they subsidize?

Several years ago (right after iPhone became available for Verizon) I bought a new iPhone. About 6 weeks later my boss walked into my office and "offered" to get me an iPhone for work. I told him I had just bought one and that I didn't want to carry 2 phones and that I was OK with using my personal phone for work calls. He told me I could "send my personal phone back and just carry my work phone for work and personal use (which clearly violated the company policy against making personal calls on company owned cell phones). I told him my phone was on a 2 year contract and I couldn't just "send it back". He insisted that he "really wanted me to carry a company iPhone" which made me very suspicious because he is the type of guy who didn't want to spend company money on anything if he didn't absolutely have to.

 

[mikecorp]

Nothing is for free, what is the catch?

 

[satcomer]

I've gained 10 pounds since I've owned mine.

No you are just becoming older and stop outdoor or sport related activities.

 

[HartfordApple]

Awesome! 25% discount on AW, 50% increase in my premium.

Aetna just pulled out of the majority of state health insurance marketplaces because they were not profitable there. I guess they are trying hard in 2017 to make the other jurisdictions they still operate in unprofitable too. Seriously, I understand encouraging fitness, but the basic Fitbit does that at a fraction of the cost if that is Aetna's goal. Aetna doesn't need to provide customers with the non-health related features of AW.

Also what happens when people buy b/c of the subsidy, but then get board because they were not really motivated to exerise in the first place. $ down rat hole that will be charged to Aetna's customers later on down the road. There is no free lunch here, and this does nothing to lower the real cost of health care.

Because it's not about wellness. It's about a strategic move to attempt to help the movement toward consistently monitoring wearers and the insured, and making more effective business decisions based on that data, and doing things like charging people who drink soda higher premiums. There's always another dimension to these things.

Secondly, they pulled out of state marketplaces because the state run health insurance is insolvent, not due to their own business practices.
[doublepost=1475156089][/doublepost]This is a marketing and R&D investment. We are consistently giving up more of our personal data into incredible databases that are then utilized to market against us and curtail to get the most out of our wallets. Even if they don't have "magic watch you GPS" for the employees, the knowledge that they will gain from having 50,000 people test their app? Invaluable. Wait for another 10 years when they set the standard of wearing little bracelet beacons marketed as "smartwatches" in order to curtail your premiums up another 11%.

This has nothing to do with "wellness", or "promoting a healthy lifestyle". This has to do with profit - which is fine, legal and is what is the root of all innovation in a free market society - but what is scary is that they market/hide it so well, most folks have no idea of the long term plans.

In meeting rooms here in Hartford, Aetna has devised a new way to get every vital from every person ALL the time. If you think that's about promoting health rather than promoting their balance sheet, you watch too much television.

 

[Resqu2]

Nothing is for free, what is the catch?

It's not free for employees, I know a person that works for them, they are just giving them $120 toward the purchase. Not sure why there bragging about it being free for employees when it's not.

 

[ejb190]

Fitness based insurance plans do not reduce the cost of insurance for the healthy. They offer a legal way for the insurance companies to shift costs to the unhealthy or those who can't otherwise qualify. And it was all made legal by the Affordable Care Act... You know, the law that we had to read to find out what's in there... The law that was going to reduce health care costs for everyone...

 

[kilcher]

It's not free for employees, I know a person that works for them, they are just giving them $120 toward the purchase. Not sure why there bragging about it being free for employees when it's not.

It is free. It's just that the fine print says they have to buy a used, quite possibly stolen, Series 0 from some sketchy dude on Craigslist.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Because it's not about wellness. It's about a strategic move to attempt to help the movement toward consistently monitoring wearers and the insured, and making more effective business decisions based on that data, and doing things like charging people who drink soda higher premiums. There's always another dimension to these things.

Secondly, they pulled out of state marketplaces because the state run health insurance is insolvent, not due to their own business practices.

Your response stopped making sense at the very first sentence. If it's not about wellness then it's not a wise expense. The whole point to healthcare savings is getting people to adopt a healthier "wellness" lifestyle. It's not about data, as you content because the AW is NOT a medical device and the data it collects cannot be relied on for medical purposes. AW is not a professional tool, it's a consumer device. An insurance company basing business decisions on AW data is as negligent as a construction working using Ryobi tools.

Also you are wrong about why Aetna left certain exchanges. From the Washington Post article:

The company, citing $430 million in losses selling insurance to individuals since January of 2014, will slash its participation from 15 states to four next year.

Direct link here

United also left exchanges for the same reason. It had nothing to do with exchanges going bankrupt, just the companies inabilty to be profitable in those markets it left. You are thinking of healthcare Co-ops, where are different. That did happen in Oregon, but not relevant here.

 

[KeanosMagicHat]

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.

This is a saddening and accurate glimpse into the VERY near future.

Reflects my thoughts completely and one of the best posts I've read.

The "free" watch is the medical insurance equivalent of the Trojan Horse.

 

[ECUSnare]

I'm pretty excited about this. And, before some tin foil hat-wearing doomsday prepper calls me out, I frankly DGAF what the insurance company knows about me. They already paid for my colectomy/ileostomy surgery 100% as well as the vast majority of my Crohn's Disease treatments, so I don't think the AW picking up on 12oz curls and couch squats will really mean much.

 

[prasand]

Medical data has the strongest privacy laws than anything else in this country. Google: HIPAA

There is no way that Aetna can do whatever they want with the data. This is not a typical situation where privacy can be abused, like with emails and other matters. So before you speculate about what can be done, perhaps you should discover your actual rights. You're very protected in this case.