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

81–90 of 245 posts

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

#81

Post by MichaelSalib »

jellicle wrote: post #78
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…

Note that it doesn't prevent discrimination for life insurance, disability insurance or long-term care insurance; if you get a dangerous condition in your DNA testing you'll never get any of those types of insurance again. Also note the limitations are not very comprehensive. Health insurers could use genetic info and then find ways to deny you coverage on a technicality (didn't disclose tonsilitis at age 4 - DENIED)…

Health insurers could use genetic info and then find ways to deny you coverage on a technicality

How could that work once the Affordable Care Act goes into effect? It requires Guaranteed Issue, so insurers can't do that. Insurers have to accept anyone who requests their plan and they can only vary premiums based on age, location, and smoking.

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

#82

Post by jerf »

mhb wrote: post #76
jerf wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I think it is important for people to understand the difference between health insurance and a health care plan , there's no actual problem with people banding together and creating health care plans that are no longer, strictly speaking, insurance. I do think a nontrivial amount of the mess in the health care system is the confusion between the two. People want to create health care plans, but they are trying…

I think that the more certainty people have about their future medical issues the less likely health care plan groups are to work. What incentive does a future-healthy person have to join with someone who is certain to have high expenses? And why would you trust someone to tell you that they haven't been tested and know what lies ahead?

That's what I'm getting at. The more knowledge all the participants have (and that's both insurance and users), the more the fundamental contradictions between "insurance" and "health care plans" emerge. But closing your eyes and just remaining ignorant is a terrible choice too, because in the medical domain, knowledge isn't just power, it's life.

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

#83

Post by macey »

mtgx wrote: post #75
martincmartin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

That would be the same as charging women different for being more prone to car accidents.

Actually car insurance premiums do vary based on gender, at least under a certain age (teenage boys being the most expensive to insure).

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

#84

Post by apaprocki »

jellicle wrote: post #78
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…

Note that it doesn't prevent discrimination for life insurance, disability insurance or long-term care insurance; if you get a dangerous condition in your DNA testing you'll never get any of those types of insurance again. Also note the limitations are not very comprehensive. Health insurers could use genetic info and then find ways to deny you coverage on a technicality (didn't disclose tonsilitis at age 4 - DENIED)…

The coverage for life/disability/long-term on a state-by-state basis is here:

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/genetic-nondiscri...

While it isn't covered by law in all states (yet), my state restricts discrimination for life/disability and requires informed consent to use genetic information.

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

#85

Post by philh »

apaprocki wrote: post #46
im3w1l wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 describing reality-as-I-see-it. I'm not trying to make moral judgements on what laws we should or shouldn't pass.)

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

#86

Post by ef4 »

im3w1l wrote: post #40
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…

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.

> 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.

That does leave a time when the risk is still insurable: before the test is conducted.

One can imagine it evolving as an additional service that the testing provider may partner with insurance companies to provide. At the time you buy the test, they say "if you pay an extra $X now, you get insurance against us finding anything catastrophic."

(Just idly speculating here, who knows how these things will play out in a combination of regulatory, market, and technology changes.)

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

#87

Post by mseebach »

mtgx wrote: post #75
martincmartin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

That would be the same as charging women different for being more prone to car accidents.

It's very common that young male drivers (by virtue of being grossly overrepresented in accident statistics) have very high premiums.

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

#88

Post by tspiteri »

mtgx wrote: post #75
martincmartin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

That would be the same as charging women different for being more prone to car accidents.

As far as I know, women in the UK used to pay less for car insurance because they are less accident prone. I don't know if this has changed because of sex discrimination laws. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12600284

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

#90

Post by Joeri »

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.

Honestly though, to me it's strange that you pay them instead of the other way around. It's clear that their primary source of revenue will be the R&D they perform on the material obtained from you. It's a bit like a sperm bank that charges money for deposits.
Post reply on HN