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

31–40 of 245 posts

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

#31

Post by gnaritas »

tejaswiy wrote: post #14
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.

This might be the way we're going even if people don't want to share their genetic profile with their insurance company.. what if 23AndMe and UHC (insurance co.) get into a deal where they provide this service for free? And what if UHC raises premiums on everyone that does not take this test? What if employers require their employees to do this much like drug / background checks?

> And what if UHC raises premiums on everyone that does not take this test?

Don't think that's legal.

> What if employers require their employees to do this much like drug / background checks?

Also don't think that's legal.

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

#33

Post by khomenko »

apaprocki wrote: post #24
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 adj…

Also, California has put a more stringent law on the books in 2011: http://www.privacylives.com/california-passes-bill-to-prohib...

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

#34

Post by mhb »

mrtron wrote: post #17
apaprocki wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same people who would install driving monitoring devices to lower their auto insurance[1]. Not everyone cares about privacy. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/business/seeking-cheaper-i...

It is not just privacy...how about human rights? "Sorry sir your infant child is not eligible for that heart operation due to the genetic marker we discovered in your profile."

It's not just privacy or human rights; it's an apparently pervasive misconception about what insurance is.

The premise of insurance is that you are insuring against the unknown. If you know that something is the matter with you, then it's no longer insurance. It's getting someone to pay for a treatment that you know you will need. Whether other people should be paying for that is another discussion.

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

#35

Post by khomenko »

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.

Broadly speaking, because there are laws on the books that prohibit using genetic information for health insurance discrimination.

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

#36

Post by maratd »

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.

Let's go with your example. Let's say you have a 50% increased risk of alcoholism than the average population.

What does that mean?

If the probability of alcoholism is the general population is 1% ... well, that means yours is 1.5% ... or still ridiculously small.

Obviously those are just numbers I'm using to illustrate a point, but you see where I'm going with this.

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

#37

Post by gwern »

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?

It isn't entirely fixed, but what's changing are 23andme's tests: both genotyping and sequencing prices keep falling, so periodically they can upgrade the chips they use to ones which either cover more SNPs or improve the error rate (>99.9% accuracy still means a lot of errors on scores of thousands of SNPs) or both.

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

#38

Post by khomenko »

timdorr wrote: post #28
tejaswiy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They ran an exome sequencing pilot recently, so sequencing is certainly coming.

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

#39

Post by khomenko »

mhb wrote: post #26
tejaswiy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They ran an exome sequencing pilot recently, so sequencing is certainly coming.

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

#40

Post by im3w1l »

apaprocki wrote: post #24
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 adj…

I think this isnt a good solution. Imagine the following scenario. A disease hits with p=0.001. To cure it is Very Expensive. Everyone gets insurance that covers it.

Now imagine we have a test, that can predict it with certainty. Very soon only those with positive results will want insurance. The insurance against it will become unprofitable and discontinued.

Post reply on HN