Anything an insurance company can do to lower their pay-outs means they get to keep more money. Helping to improve people's health achieves just that.
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
So why should the people who try to be healthy pay higher premiums just for those who in some cases choose not to?
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.
There's a big difference between unlucky genes and poor lifestyle choices.
We won't get into healthcare debate, but the concept of healthcare being 'free' is extremely flawed just like the concept that your AWatch will be 'free' from your insurer. Everything costs money, it's just a matter of who pays.
[doublepost=1502741965][/doublepost]
You're an unhealthy person if you're lifestyle choices correlate with your bad health.
If you're good lifestyle choices don't correlate with your health, you're unlucky.
[doublepost=1502742069][/doublepost]
Actually I understand the concept of insurance fine, there's no rule that insurance means you pay the same amount for it as the next person. If you have been in accidents before your insurance for your car is higher than someone with a safe driving record. But you knew that right?
You paranoid types are high -- there is no way for the insurance companies to read your HealthKit data off your Watch. None. And Apple isn't going to allow back-door access to your Apple ID health data.
Please cite specifics if you believe otherwise.
Please cite specifics if you believe otherwise.
To a limited degree, I won't argue - a bit of economic incentive is a good thing. Non-smokers paying less for life insurance, safe driver discounts, etc. Still, "Good health is its own best reward."
However, there's a difference between providing a bit of a carrot to prevent or mitigate those illnesses that can be affected by lifestyle choices, and penalizing a person for being ill (or more likely, penalizing an entire family for the illness of one member). While some people do get sick due to matters within their control, others get sick for reasons that are beyond their control.
The whole point of an insurance pool is to spread the cost among "lucky" and "unlucky." Today's healthy person may be tomorrow's unhealthy person, and vice versa. A younger, ostensibly healthier person pays something today towards their higher cost of healthcare tomorrow.
Breaking health insurance into "experience pools" simply means people who are unhealthy end up subsidizing the costs of people who are even more unhealthy than they are - it's adding insult to existing injury. In the extreme, it means people end up paying for the exact cost of their healthcare, with added administrative costs and profits for the insurance company. What would be the point of insurance in the first place?
This whole, "Young people don't need health insurance" thing doesn't quite hold water anyway - they have accidents, raise children, are treated for diabetes, have early-onset cancers... an injury or illness can drive a young, uninsured family into poverty, or they'll avoid medical treatment until the issue is far more expensive to treat.
Privacy-wise, I appreciate the skepticism re: insurance company monitoring health data. Because of that, I feel that they would get far better participation by limiting access to the customer's physician(s). "By accepting this discounted/free device, you agree to share your health data with your primary care physician..." Patients who have better engagement with their physicians tend to have lower costs over the long run. While it's not outside the realm of possibility, the insurance company using the data to deny future coverage or increase premiums is the fastest way to guarantee non-participation.
So does anyone here actually have Aetna and have gotten a discounted Apple watch from their previous program.... When this program came out, I asked our Aetna rep if she had gotten her Apple watch and if our plan was going to subside it. She didn't know what I was talking about. I haven't been able to find anything on their website (logged in or not) about the Apple watch discounts and when you google it, all you get is the big story last September which was vague on details. Either this program didn't go fully into effect, was very poorly advertised by Aetna or is more marketing than anything else because I can't seem to get any real info about the program at all, even being an Aetna subscriber.
Exactly. Don't be surprised when you get denied a claim or enrollment due to some "pre-existing condition" when your Apple Watch detected an irregular heartbeat for 4 seconds 3 years ago. Once the GOP finishes taking away all consumer health care protections, the floodgates will be open again.
A company that I saw offering this didn't do this in exchange for data, but for data that showed some good amount of activity.
How/where did you get the offer? I haven’t been able to find any info about it on Aetna's website.
Buy watch, get reimbursed for insurance company, sell watch, profit.
Pay down premiums with the profits.
Or buy a gym membership.
Or invest it.
Or blow it on cigs, donuts, chicken wings, booze and the like.
Also, my guess is Series 2 or older are the only ones eligible, also, the basic aluminum one.
Pay down premiums with the profits.
Or buy a gym membership.
Or invest it.
Or blow it on cigs, donuts, chicken wings, booze and the like.
Also, my guess is Series 2 or older are the only ones eligible, also, the basic aluminum one.
It's cute that you think they have your back and wouldn't sell you out for profits.
As a kite, m8. Because my insurance company isn't crawling up my ass to monitor me full time.
It has nothing to do with blind fanboism, but everything to do with past actions/experience.
I've yet to have any personal information compromised as a result of being in the Apple ecosystem. Have you?
When this program first started last year, someone in my company asked about it. Our company was not participating at the time. We do get health club membership reimbursed already, so it wasn't surprising that they didn't add the watch discount on top.
As long as you know that you have to give up that information to accept the watch and continuing your insurance isn't tied to accepting, i don't see where there is a problem. I mean my health insurance gets all kinds of information about me from my doctors via the claims they file. Maybe not always exact details but enough to give them a fair idea if I'm a money risk
Wow, 23 million Watches, they'll triple sales overnight! X-)
...seriously though, how much trouble is Apple having selling these things to go seek out a deal like this?
...seriously though, how much trouble is Apple having selling these things to go seek out a deal like this?
Right! Trust me. If your stats aren't perfect then your premiums will be raised more than enough to pay for it. It's the ultimate holy grail for greedy insurance companies.
Congratulations, but please keep in mind, YOU DID THAT, not the Watch. Taking personal responsibility for your achievement will help insure your future success.
The day that I ditched my SS link forever was when I came up 1 calorie short of my daily calorie burn goal, which killed a several-month streak of all my goals being met or exceeded. I was livid and realized I was addicted to those stupid rings, and Apple wasn't even smart enough to call 599/600 a win.
And don't get me started on how my "day" ends at the stroke of midnight, even though I'm clearly still awake and active until 2-3am. There's no excuse for this kind of sloppiness, especially from a bunch of california health nuts, like Phil. X-)
Well, that's the optimistic version. The more sinister version is that they'll use it to justify denying coverage or increasing premiums. Although potentially both could be true.
This is just one insurance company doing this, so I doubt Apple initiated it. More than likely Aetna is the one that started it to attract customers.