Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.23andme.com

51–60 of 245 posts

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

#51
post #18

Will they give my genotype information to FBI or CIA? Will they pay damages if information gets stolen? This is not some passwords or account numbers, this is data about real world which can't be changed.

Why not buy a gift credit card, and not use your actual identity to purchase the registration? They don't appear to require any rigorous proof of identity.

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

#52

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…

This covers only lucky ones, who are employed and have access to group insurance plans, isn't it? In this case entrepreneurs who just starting will be screwed.

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

#53
post #36
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.

[deleted]

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

#54

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 US bill explicitly excludes gender: "`(C) EXCLUSIONS- The term `genetic information' shall not include information about the sex or age of any individual."

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

#55
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.

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.

yours is a fatalistic perspective. I would change my behavior if I knew.

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

#56
post #15
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…

> A substantial portion of the risk for these types of diseases is related to lifestyle, so take it with a grain of salt.

In the case of cardiovascular disease specifically, one might not want to do that.

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

#57
post #52

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…

This covers only lucky ones, who are employed and have access to group insurance plans, isn't it? In this case entrepreneurs who just starting will be screwed.

If you read the bill, it covers individuals as well. I just didn't go copy-pasting the entire gazillion page document :)

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

#58
post #15
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…

"This stuff is priceless, because in the past, you had to pay thousands of dollars to get these same tests"

You still have to pay thousands of dollars if you need the results for actual medical purposes. 23andme only tests for a few of the common SNPs that can cause each disease, but the testing isn't as comprehensive as what you'd get from a doctor.

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

#59
post #40

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…

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.

Does the law even matter here? If it's illegal to discriminate, then the insurance becomes unprofitable and is no longer available. If it's not illegal to discriminate, then the insurance can remain profitable by jacking up the price, but then is no longer available to the vast majority of those who suffer from it.

Insurance really only works when either 1) what it covers is truly unpredictable or 2) everybody is required to participate regardless of whether they really need it.

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

#60

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…

Right. But the parent used life insurance as an example, not health insurance.
Post reply on HN