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.
Apple Aiming to Bring Apple Watch to 23 Million Aetna Subscribers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Like sheep to slaughter.
Enjoy the shiny toy at expense of freedoms and privacy.
Enjoy the shiny toy at expense of freedoms and privacy.
The relevant question here is who owns the data: the wearer of the watch or the owner of the watch?
If Aetna buys the watch are they buying the data stream?
On the surface, many of us would agree with that.
However, two (of likely many) issues come to mind (regardless of the privacy issues).
1) What is "unhealthy", exactly, and who gets to define that? How reliable are the measurements from the apple watch? In a parallel example: How will it be used? Formally, until the late 1990's, where I live here in North America, being gay was a mental disease, and technically I could be turned in to mental hospital for aversion therapy and lobotomy if the aversion therapy was not successful. That’s very recent still... Who sets those rules? If you are outside the norm—or their definition of healthy—in any way, what happens? From my perspective of being in medical research, this is an ugly area where money perspectives could wreck havoc (did you spend more than 20 minutes at your computer without a stretch and eye-break? You could be at risk for: hypertension, heart attack, stroke, diabetes, obesity, constipation; there is a correlation with increased stress, which could also lead to...etc.) Not saying forced 20 minute breaks are bad, but will all employers ensure this as a right? Can all employers afford, or work into all environments, standing desks? How the concept of healthy/unhealthy gets implemented will be to the insurance companies' benefit, not the individual.
2) Many people will fall through the cracks, in a bad way. My husband slipped on a friend's stairs, it caused at tiny hernia that required surgery. It seemed fine for 6 years, then we went through a period of 17 years and 9 surgeries to repair the damage from the deep, infected stitches. Due to time limits we could not sue, and physiotherapy/rehab therapy was at our expense, and much needed because at times it was even painful to walk. He also over-ate because of depression from the pain and being bed-ridden at times; he used to be an active runner, hiker, and volleyball player. He's still overweight and struggles with joint pain, and ongoing pain from all the scar tissue from the repeated surgeries. Now, our doctors just tell him to "loose weight" and "be more active", which continues to be difficult. He watches his diet carefully, but it's an ongoing battle, with no support, and he lost his job/had to retrain, again at our expense. Because of our problems, we know of many others in situations like this. One incident, not your fault, can change your life forever. The insurance companies don't care.
So, would I want my insurance company monitoring my every movement? Every change in my heart rate or my blood pressure (and whatever new iterations of the watch may bring)? No. In a field driven by profit over care of the individual, we'll all start losing out on money-driven decisions, offering our own data to disqualify ourselves, even if *we* think we are "healthy".
BCBS of TN's AlwaysOn app and Apple Health app allow me to limit what I send to AlwaysOn, and what they pull from Apple Health is mainly limited to workouts, steps, and flights climbed. All other health metrics are manual entry; so, if you don't want to track your weight, don't enter it. This is the easy way for me to get my $1600 into my HSA every year. There is a survey and health screening that I must do every year that is entered on the BCBS of TN website or auto entered at the screening at the yearly health event.
Because "free". Everyone knows insurance companies have your best interest in mind.
Reminds me of the "get insurance and receive a free Apple Watch". Everyone's in on it. even Apple. Someone i would have thought wouldn't go to this measure....But at least its discounted to employees..
It should also be discounted only for members as well. Apple's still gotta make money here.
It should also be discounted only for members as well. Apple's still gotta make money here.
Nothing is "free". You will pay for it via premium increases.
Pretty sure they'll be data mining your activity, or lack thereof, so they can use it in calculating your premiums and/or deductibles.
No HIPPA release required since they already have it when you signed up for coverage.
The cost of the watch is chump change in the grand scheme of things and is not going to increase your premium. The reason why insurance companies are interested in utilizing this data is for preventative and lifestyle change purposes. Insurance companies are not simply payers, they have thousands of nurses and doctors on staff who interact with members on a daily basis. Being able to use this data to predict which individuals are likely to develop serious chronic conditions, which are typically VERY expensive to treat, and work with those members, or their doctors, before **** hits the fan so to speak is really a win-win proposition. Additionally,healthcare is the most tightly regulated industry in the US (for a good reason) so nobody would risk not taking proper precautions when it comes to protecting your privacy or selling medical data to third parties.
We are sorry Jake but we can't cover the expenses for that heart medicine you require because you've fulfilled only 80 percent of your daily recommended exercise quota for the past three years. Have a good day.
Last edited:
Because you are an unhealthy person!
You can say “but I go to the gym 3 times a week”
Well, you’re unhealthy because there are people that will go 5 times a week, those are healthy and you’re not.
And those that exercises everyday, which are much more healthy than you!
From what I can tell, this is exactly how this company utilizes the data. Many others, like IBM, use fitness tracking for incentives and earnings. If you sync your Android watch to your CafeWell, for instance, you can have money added to your HSA when you hit certain goals. Many companies are going this route to help consumers pay for their out-of-pocket costs. They pull only the data you choose to send, from the program you choose to participate with, and that is automatically tracked. It's voluntary, and can really add up.
If your insurer really wants to know your data, they can get it from any of the providers you see.... so if they wanna offer me an Apple Watch to know how many steps I have, I'm all for it. I think it's excellent that companies are trying to help their employees become healthier on their own, using these sorts of tools to take control of their own wellness.
I didn’t say smart watches are going to make healthcare cheaper. But I do think insurance companies are doing a lot to try and bring costs down. I work for one. We have over 60 petabytes of data we use to try and bring better care to people. I don’t see what the problem is with adding connected device data to this. And yes I think it’s perfectly fine to reward people who try to eat healthier and workout.
Then you simple misunderstand the concept of insurance. The concept is we all put money in a pool so that if any of us get sick , it won't matter as much to the unfortunate individual as we all share the riosk and cost. If you just pay for your own costs ------- what the point of the pool.
Were you awake in class ?
We also know this is Apple who, for better or worse, don't give up customer data.
[doublepost=1502738260][/doublepost]
Isn't that a system more like the NHS that we have in the UK? Insurance, I thought, did vary. If you're a dangerous driver, you pay more car insurance. If you smoke, you pay more for health insurance - right?
Honestly asking - not trying to be an uber right wing nut!
You are so delusional that you think that insurance companies care about anything more than hiking premiums and reducing payouts? where have they ever made less expensive. Do you have any concrete examples ( not vague statements) , verifiable examples?
Yup shocked out how many on macrumors peeps are willing to give up health info that can create loopholes for an insurance company to get out of paying out claims but are scared about using a google app that mostly just tracks what websites you use for advertising purposes on things you might be interesting in buying.
Commenting here in general- I think the issue with insuring health is that it's not so clear cut. With other forms of insurance, like drivers insurance, it is very clear what is right and what is wrong- the rules of the road, if you will. You're either obeying traffic safety laws or you're not.
With health, what does it mean to be healthy or unhealthy? By what measure are we measuring? How do I know if you're consciously living an unhealthy lifestyle? Cigarettes are very clear cut, but is weight gain or loss? We think of weight loss as good, but what if the person has bulimic tendencies? Running is considered good, but what about premature wear and tear on the joints? Will that affect you later in life? Maybe, may not. Problem is, everyone is different.
Personally, I don't think a one-size-fits-all model is good for healthcare. The more options, the better in my opinion. Ideally, models like single payer, HSAs, private, and incentive based can and should exist alongside each other.
So if someone gets cancer, their family should be burdened by additional insurance costs? I suppose that argument could be made, but you wouldn't persuade me.
I grew up in a place where healthcare is free, and it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, healthy or sick, old or young, you always get the care you need. It's a pretty comfortable way to live.
I think the Watch could be quite useful for some people. Diabetes effects 10% of people in the US, and even higher percentage in China, and the numbers are increasing. Apple has been working on a non-invasive blood glucose meter and associated AI that works with the Watch. For diabetics being able to easily monitor their glucose level without taking blood samples multiple times a day could be a big aid.
I assume Aetna is in it because the yearly costs of covering people with diabetes can run upwards $10,000, and their are major complications like blindness, amputations, etc. A non-invasive meter can reduce the need and costs of blood strips, meters, etc., and get people to monitor their glucose more often. And with the correct AI could help people know that they are going to have issues, and should consult their doctors ASAP.
I assume Aetna is in it because the yearly costs of covering people with diabetes can run upwards $10,000, and their are major complications like blindness, amputations, etc. A non-invasive meter can reduce the need and costs of blood strips, meters, etc., and get people to monitor their glucose more often. And with the correct AI could help people know that they are going to have issues, and should consult their doctors ASAP.
Too bad they are leaving Texas.
On the other hand, I will probably just pay the fine next year if my insurance premiums goes up anywhere it's been going up since the passing of ACA (25 50, 15, for this year 40%). With deductibles going up almost 100%. Not much "Affordable" in ACA unless it's free for you. I'll just buy catastrophic insurance for the big ones and save the difference.
On the other hand, I will probably just pay the fine next year if my insurance premiums goes up anywhere it's been going up since the passing of ACA (25 50, 15, for this year 40%). With deductibles going up almost 100%. Not much "Affordable" in ACA unless it's free for you. I'll just buy catastrophic insurance for the big ones and save the difference.
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't know exactly what your arrangement is, but I might have a different view in your case. If the people managing the insurance are the people benefiting from it, and there's no profit motive to deny care, the calculus is a bit different.