Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

blog.23andme.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 245 posts

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#21

Post by travisp »

sami36 wrote: post #6

If their results are accurate to a degree, why are their tests not being subsidized by insurance companies. How much would an insurance co save by alerting a patient to her chances of getting diabetes, not to mention the money the patient would itself save.

It depends what you mean by "results". The genetic results are very accurate (a >99% call rate and >99.9% reproducibility rate).

However, medical knowledge isn't at a high enough level for these accurate genetic results to translate into truly meaningful medical results except for a handful of conditions. What does a 10% increased risk of getting diabetes mean to the average person? In practice, it means nothing, because you would act the same with or without this risk.

Second, 23andMe is already walking the fine line of not needing FDA approval. If insurance companies were to pay for it, there's a good chance it would require this. There are several conditions that can be self diagnosed through 23andMe that require genetic tests that cost more than $99 through your doctor, but each of those tests has gone through a medical approval process.

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#22

Post by ciferkey »

Interesting! In the past if you made an account on their site and signed up for the new letter (but never actually bought a test), after a while they would send discount offers. The last one I received was $50 off, but the tota l cost was still over $200. No I have no excuse (cost wise) not to try it.

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#23

Post by sami36 »

maratd wrote: post #15
sami36 wrote: post #6

If their results are accurate to a degree, why are their tests not being subsidized by insurance companies. How much would an insurance co save by alerting a patient to her chances of getting diabetes, not to mention the money the patient would itself save.

There are really 3 sets of results they provide. 1. Genetic disorder. Tay–Sachs, etc. This stuff is priceless, because in the past, you had to pay thousands of dollars to get these same tests tone. These are accurate and very worthwhile ... but the majority of people will come back with all negative results, which is actually a good thing. 2. Your "increased risk" to certain diseases, like heart disease, etc. IMHO, t…

Yes , but wouldn't Nbr 2 in itself be worth a lot if the patient would make lifestyle changes in response to increased risks highlighted in their genetic profile. Suppose you have a genetic proclivity for alcoholism, wouldn't most people watch their consumption a lot more if provided with that information.

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#24

Post by apaprocki »

dsplittgerber wrote: post #16

Is the most obvious question being adressed in any jurisdiction yet? - Do you legally have to disclose your results to any insurance company you already have an existing contract with or prior to any new insurance contract? By chance, I just read a typical life insurance contract and it already stated that if you have undergone a genetic testing, you do have to disclose your results if you enter into a life insurance…

In the US, President Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 which covers these topics. Some relevant parts are available here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00493:

edit: Specifically, "`(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this section, a group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan, may not adjust premium or contribution amounts for the group covered under such plan on the basis of genetic information."

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#25

Post by travisp »

tejaswiy wrote: post #19
Rickasaurus wrote: post #4

I paid in at their first $99 discounted rate (2010) and was very disappointed when they tried to demand a non-discounted new sample for newer tests about a year later. If I had paid the full $500 I would have been downright peeved. Still, I'm glad I did it, 23andMe is a very enlightening experience. I even found some distant relatives I never knew about.

Honest question: Why would you need newer tests? Isn't your genetic code fixed along with all the risks it implies?

23andMe works by testing only a subset of all genetic SNPs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism ). It's not full DNA sequencing. The newer DNA microarrays contain a greater number of SNPs that they test for.

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#26

Post by mhb »

tejaswiy wrote: post #19
Rickasaurus wrote: post #4

I paid in at their first $99 discounted rate (2010) and was very disappointed when they tried to demand a non-discounted new sample for newer tests about a year later. If I had paid the full $500 I would have been downright peeved. Still, I'm glad I did it, 23andMe is a very enlightening experience. I even found some distant relatives I never knew about.

Honest question: Why would you need newer tests? Isn't your genetic code fixed along with all the risks it implies?

They aren't giving you the results of a complete sequence ($$$). They are looking for genetic variants. So newer tests will look for additional variants.

See: https://customercare.23andme.com/entries/21262606

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#27

Post by apaprocki »

sami36 wrote: post #13
gnaritas wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who on earth would share their genetic profile with their insurance company? That's just asking for trouble.

Why not ? laws could be passed to forbid the use of genetic profiles in establishing premium rates the same way gender or ethnicity are not allowed for use when calculating credit scores. We're talking about a win-win-win (consumer, insurance company, state/ fed) situation for everybody if only we could learn to trust a lil bit. Why does every relationship between a consumer & a service provider has to be rooted in m…

The law was already passed in the U.S.:

"`(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this section, a group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan, may not adjust premium or contribution amounts for the group covered under such plan on the basis of genetic information."

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#28

Post by timdorr »

tejaswiy wrote: post #19
Rickasaurus wrote: post #4

I paid in at their first $99 discounted rate (2010) and was very disappointed when they tried to demand a non-discounted new sample for newer tests about a year later. If I had paid the full $500 I would have been downright peeved. Still, I'm glad I did it, 23andMe is a very enlightening experience. I even found some distant relatives I never knew about.

Honest question: Why would you need newer tests? Isn't your genetic code fixed along with all the risks it implies?

They are not mapping your full genome each time. They are looking at specific genes that are known to be linked to certain conditions or attributes. When they release a new test, they are sampling more genes and therefore can find more potential conditions or attributes about you.

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#29

Post by MichaelSalib »

maratd wrote: post #15
sami36 wrote: post #6

If their results are accurate to a degree, why are their tests not being subsidized by insurance companies. How much would an insurance co save by alerting a patient to her chances of getting diabetes, not to mention the money the patient would itself save.

There are really 3 sets of results they provide. 1. Genetic disorder. Tay–Sachs, etc. This stuff is priceless, because in the past, you had to pay thousands of dollars to get these same tests tone. These are accurate and very worthwhile ... but the majority of people will come back with all negative results, which is actually a good thing. 2. Your "increased risk" to certain diseases, like heart disease, etc. IMHO, t…

Category 2 appears to be worthless for me. For many of the risks there, I have conflicting results (i.e., 5 studies were done on this disease and according to 2 of them, I'm at increased risk while the other 3 indicate that I'm at decreased risk).

Re: 23andMe raises $50M, cuts price to $99, sets goal of 1M genotyped customers

#30

Post by carbocation »

sami36 wrote: post #23
maratd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are really 3 sets of results they provide. 1. Genetic disorder. Tay–Sachs, etc. This stuff is priceless, because in the past, you had to pay thousands of dollars to get these same tests tone. These are accurate and very worthwhile ... but the majority of people will come back with all negative results, which is actually a good thing. 2. Your "increased risk" to certain diseases, like heart disease, etc. IMHO, t…

Yes , but wouldn't Nbr 2 in itself be worth a lot if the patient would make lifestyle changes in response to increased risks highlighted in their genetic profile. Suppose you have a genetic proclivity for alcoholism, wouldn't most people watch their consumption a lot more if provided with that information.

But if one is predisposed to alcoholism, they might think, "Why even try to fight it? I'm going to succumb at some point anyway, might as well give up now and just enjoy it."

This is just to say that that sword has two edges.

EDIT: Made it abundantly clear that this is not my own personal fatalistic perspective.

Post reply on HN