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

181–190 of 245 posts

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

#181

Post by natrius »

martincmartin wrote: post #41
apaprocki wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Gender is determined genetically, and men and woman have different life expectancies. Does this mean you can't charge men and women different rates (all else being equal)?

The Affordable Care Act prohibits charging based on gender. This provision kicks in on January 1, 2014.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Afforda...

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

#182

Post by furyofantares »

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.

What are the chances my current insurance company has to pay for treatment many years down the line? If I change jobs there is a good chance I will change insurance.

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

#183

Post by barry-cotter »

mvleming wrote: post #133
hop wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, that's what happened. Also, procedures were different back then, so we could have many more siblings, hope we didn't hook up in college.

The percentages I've heard are all over the place, but a decent number of children are actually not genetically related to their fathers. (I've heard anywhere between 3% and 30%.) One theory that's been postulated is that women have affairs to increase the genetic diversity of the sperm that compete for her egg, thereby increasing the chances that her children will have good genes.

Non paternity events in the general population in Western nations occur in around 2% of cases. The higher the SES the lower the prevalence.

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

#184

Post by Florin_Andrei »

swalsh wrote: post #74
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.

I've been considering it too, it feels like as of recently the new findings coming out were done with new SNP's not tested previously. I'm just paranoid that i'll have to keep doing it ever 3 years. For now, i'm planning on waiting until there's a result i'm truly interested in.

> i'm planning on waiting until there's a result i'm truly interested in.

I did it on a whim, then it turned out I carry the gene for an elevated risk of something nasty. Then I was like, yeah, you got my attention now.

Just an example of how you could become "interested in" it post-hoc.

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

#185

Post by tokipin »

javert wrote: post #172
mvleming wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with you. I don't believe that every action is correctly designed to optimize gene transmissions and I think you put it into very eloquent words with: "it is trying to say that we are at a global maximum in a space that is probably more nonlinear." However, I think that there are certain actions that we take that are clearly defined by our genetics, like the fact that we eat, or that we have sex. A…

That we have sex is defined by our genes; who we have sex with is a choice we make by thinking about it, not something pre-encoded by our genes, as you are trying to say. Which actually makes sense given your premises. A good evolutionary "strategy" would be to evolve brains that can make choices far more complex (literally, inelligently ) than what can be pre-encoded by genes that change slowly and mutate randomly.…

there's a lot of stuff that people do that has nothing to do with thinking, and i'd argue that the idea of "intelligent choice" explains pretty much nothing in the context of mating/pairing. example: why are some people of the opposite sex "your type" and some not?

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

#186

Post by Florin_Andrei »

xspectre wrote: post #7
cupcake-unicorn wrote: post #3

Wow, looks like the announcement was pretty popular, I'm getting a 503! Luckily I got in during the sneaky "price test" on Cyber Monday at 50 dollars, so I'm good.

At 50 dollars I would have been in right away. Too bad I missed out.

They do discounts pretty regularly. Either subscribe to their twitter, or sign up for the newsletter.

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

#187

Post by xugle »

philh wrote: post #85
apaprocki wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure the spirit of the law is to prevent those types of situations from happening. Wouldn't this cover your situation? "`(1) IN GENERAL- A health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage in the individual market may not, on the basis of genetic information, impose any preexisting condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A)) with respect to such coverage."

In insurance, people who get lucky subsidize people who get unlucky. If you can test luck before getting insurance, then lucky people don't get insurance and there's nobody left to subsidize unlucky people. Forbidding insurance companies to discriminate based on luck does not solve this problem, because the problem is caused by customers selectively buying insurance based on their own luck. (Clarification: I'm descri…

There's an easy way to weed out unlucky people. Just randomly throw out half the applicants. (You can substitute any proportion for "half" based on business needs)

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

#188

Post by aaronblohowiak »

maratd wrote: post #36
sami36 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"The heritability of prostate cancer is estimated to be 42-57%." My chance of prostate cancer is 25% instead of 17% for baseline european-ancestry males. I eat even more fruits and veggies and avoid animal fats now.

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

#189

Post by shirederby »

wmat wrote: post #160

I really wish 23andme would merge with http://www.familytreedna.com/ I've done both, and to be honest, FamilyTreeDNA seems more comprehensive to me.

Would you mind expanding on this?

The genealogical data is one of the main things I'm looking for; 23AndMe has been "OK" and AncestryDNA has just been a waste.

I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to pay for a data import onto FTDNA.

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

#190

Post by nathos »

gnaritas wrote: post #31
tejaswiy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In which case they could make it a "voluntary" check. Like the shady employers that demand candidates' Facebook credentials.
Post reply on HN