« Poor Choice of Words | Main | Books I Should Have Read »
May 22, 2005
The End of Aetna
Really good op-ed today by Dr. Robin Cook restating the argument that genetic profiling will mandate single-payer health insurance. Essentially, we're finding that most all serious diseases have some sort of genetic component. That doesn't mean they're predetermined (indeed, genes interact with environmental and lifestyle factors to what's turned out to be a really surprising degree), but it does mean we're beginning to create technology able to identify an individuals risk factors for a whole host of conditions, essentially handing them a list of all the terrible ways their body may rebel against them in the years to come. The upside of that is, as I alluded to before, many of our genetic predilections can be sidestepped by lifestyle. If we know we're at risk for disease X, we will know to lead lives that short circuit disease X. Oh, and there's another upside: genetic profiling is going to make private insurance absolutely impossible:
Not only is microarray technology easily accessible, but for-profit private insurance companies have strong incentives to use it to protect their bottom lines by denying service, claims or even coverage.
It is precisely this danger, however, that may lead to a great breakthrough: the inevitable movement to universal health care. In this dawning era of genomic medicine, the result may be that the concept of private health insurance, which is based on actuarially pooling risk within specified, fragmented groups, will become obsolete since risk cannot be pooled if it can be determined for individual policyholders. Genetically determined predilection for disease will become the modern equivalent of the "pre-existing condition" that private insurers have stringently avoided.
Once individuals can find out their likely genetic destinies, the whole concept of private insurance goes up in smoke. The incentives for hyper-accurate cherry-picking are simply too great and te disincentives to finding our genetic risks too large. Indeed, if only patients are allowed to see their genetic profile, they'll know exactly which insurance to choose. The healthy can pick the most minimal of plans while those with an atom bomb of a microarray (the slide used to read your genes) can sign up for the most kickass, comprehensive plan available. That destroys the ability of insurance companies to turn a profit.
Conversely, if we let the insurers see our microarrays, no one will ever get them done. We don't need to go too deep into a Rawlsian veil of ignorance to realize that a bad readout would make health insurance prohibitively expensive just when we know we need it most. That would, of course, stop folks from getting their microarrays done, and thus deny them necessary health information that could save their lives. So that won't work either.
And that means the end of insurance. Unless we're going to outlaw genetic data, and we're not, there's no way one side or the other can have access to it without destroying the whole private insurance construct. Right now, the system operates off mutual ignorance -- we don't really know what'll happen to us, save in very broad risk outlines (we know if we eat fatty food, if we're 400 pounds, if we smoke, etc). Give everyone hard data and the gig is up. All that can be offered once that happens is single-payer government insurance with full risk pooling. We all pay the same, we all get the care we need, and those who drew a genetic straight help subsidize those with a crap hand.
May 22, 2005 in Health Care | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8347b6fcb69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The End of Aetna:
Comments
Your argument that no one would have their genes tested if health insurance companies could see the results makes no sense. You claim people would be afraid of bad results making their health insurance very expensive. However if all health insurance required genetic testing then the alternative is no health insurance at all.
High end life insurance now generally requires an AIDS/HIV test and people still buy it.
Furthermore risk can still be pooled even if it varies widely from individual to individual. Again look at life insurance where rates vary by over a factor of ten based on your individual risk.
Posted by: James B. Shearer | May 22, 2005 4:04:13 PM
A good point re:better information in the hands of either party spelling the end for insurance.
Extend it a bit: what other consequences of an age where accurate, useful genetic information is readily available to the masses?
The old saw is employer's unwillingness to hire people with some predilections to some illnesses. Even if they aren't providing health care, some illnesses make employees less useful, etc.
Of course there are also other privacy concerns.
Posted by: TJ | May 22, 2005 4:06:36 PM
Just for completeness' sake, there's a third option (the first two being 'only we can see our microarrays, so adverse selection eats the insurance companies alive' and 'the insurance company can see them, so nobody gets them'). It's the one that I imagine will happen, and which I think James is talking about -- insurance companies make you get DNA scans before they price you for a plan.
This ends up defeating the whole purpose of insurance, because a whole bunch of the financial risk that you wanted security against becomes part of the cost of your plan. So there's no way to avoid that big part of the risk, and everything sucks.
Posted by: Ethical Werewolf | May 22, 2005 4:20:00 PM
EW nails it. No one will allow insurance companies to demand their entire genetic profiles. They just won't, it's too unfair and their ability to cherry pick is too complete. If they try and demand microarrays before offering insurance, you're going to see Congress legislate against them (which they've already promised to do) or the rise of community pooling associations, much like the original Blue Cross. You will not, however, see a situation where insurance companies can find out your genetic predilections and demand payment accordingly. That just won't be tolerable, and it won't be tolerated.
Posted by: Ezra | May 22, 2005 4:33:41 PM
There isn't anything (including genetic screening) that pre-ordains national health insurance.
The country has accepted 40 million plus people without any health insurance at all.
Equally likely is that those with genetic defects that are serious won't be hired for jobs in companies that offer health insurance, joining the mass of the uninsured.
Even more likely is that health insurance won't be offered to new employees in major companies because of the existing and near-future costs. When it costs $1500 per car manufactured for GM to offer insurance, you can be assured that health insurance is about to become a non-benefit.
You are correct however that the only risk pool that makes sense, even today, is all US citizens. One way, short of national health insurance, is to require health insurance companies to insure anyone that applies. With that requirement, then real competition could occur on costs/benefits/service.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 22, 2005 4:37:27 PM
Ah, but who suffers from being uninsured? The poor, the politically powerless. Conversely, bad genetic cards affect us all. The country won't stand for it. better yet, it unites two sides of the debate: Leftists who want universal coverage and right-wingers who demand privacy. I don't see this one coming out in the insurance company's favor.
Posted by: Ezra | May 22, 2005 4:43:41 PM
The JIG is up. It's the same word as "jig" a dance (like the Scottish jig). First known use in the US is 1777, as 'The jig is over with us.' The idea is, the dance is over.
Posted by: JR | May 22, 2005 5:08:17 PM
Ethical Werewolf, I don't think genetic profiles determine health insurance risk as much as you seem to think. I think health history is much more predictive and hence existing condition exclusions seriously affect far more people. This also means adverse selection based on genetic profiles won't be that big a problem for health insurance particularly for group plans. As I understand it adverse selection has already made individual health insurance a very bad deal for most people.
Posted by: James B. Shearer | May 22, 2005 5:48:18 PM
Nuts. Environment and chance will still make a hash of things on an individual basis. All that can happen is bias in rates. There is already a tendency for people to be assessed on the basis of lifestyle choices.
Posted by: opit | May 22, 2005 6:13:37 PM
Fair enough, James. People do overrate the predictive power you get from knowing DNA sequences. But Ezra's larger point is still right. As science advances, we'll get more and more knowledge of how biological systems work, and be able to predict people's risk off of all sorts of factors, some of which are in the DNA and some of which aren't. So replace "DNA scans" in the above argument with "DNA scans plus antibody counts plus a dozen other things that they'll set up quick easy high-throughput tests for" and the argument will work.
Posted by: Ethical Werewolf | May 22, 2005 8:36:47 PM
Ah, but who suffers from being uninsured? The poor, the politically powerless. Conversely, bad genetic cards affect us all.
Ezra forgets the Calvinist leanings of much of the country. The take for the Republican Fundamentalist crowd will be that bad genetic cards deserve it. The dystopian outcome would be that those people plus the lobbying power of the pharma-insurance industry will prevent legislation from being passed. Then within a generation, those dealt bad genetic hands become the poor and unhealthy underclass as employers discriminate and insurers refuse to provide insurance. This of course will create a retroactive justification for their Calvinist damnation.
One hopes that's not the direction we go, but it seems all-too-feasible to me.
Posted by: paperwight | May 22, 2005 8:44:20 PM
paperwight there is already widely accepted discrimination by employers and others against those born dishonest, lazy or stupid so why should unhealthy be any different? Or do you think your genes only affect your health?
Posted by: James B. Shearer | May 22, 2005 9:12:43 PM
Ethical Werewolf the argument only works if significant improvements in predictive power are possible. I have my doubts. Current pricing is already very far from actuarily accurate and the system has not collapsed. How is more predictive power going to make it impossible for employers to continue to offer group health plans because of adverse selection?
Someone above mentioned GM and the purported $1500 per car for health insurance but don't Toyota's employees get health insurance also?
Posted by: James B. Shearer | May 22, 2005 9:31:21 PM
Toyota's health insurance is cheaper because it's mandatory and government-overseen. Lower overheads, spread over a larger pool. Adds less to the cost of a car.
OTOH, their system ain't perfect--it's got lots of internal issues as ours does (lots of fee-for-service driving up costs, highly paid docs, low commitment to error reduction) which are probably driving up the cost of health.
Posted by: theorajones | May 22, 2005 11:28:02 PM
I think the discussion of particular technology should be left out, as what exactly the technologies are will doubtedly be confused in this non-scientific forum. Just to inform a little more: microarrays are glass slides with tiny spots of nucleic acid. Each spot can be designed so that the nucleic acid in that particular spot can bind to a particular target nucleic acid (DNA or RNA). These spots, or probes, can therefore be used to measure the expression of 1000s of genes at once (in the form or their RNAs which the probes on the microarray can bind). All genes in an organism have unique sequences or code within them, the level of expression of all genes can be determined at once if their are enough spots or probes on the microarray.
Another use for microarrays, probably more useful in terms of disease risk, is to detect sequence differences between individuals. Particularly, there may be certain changes in DNA that can be associated with disease risk. A microarray offers the capability for detecting such variants in a high throughput manner.
These technologies are not the magic scan as of yet, but they do offer a high-throughput platform. We need to be careful of the "CSI-ification" of science in that the current view leads one to believe that the technology is available to say *shazam* and have such medical information at ones fingertips.
I have no doubt it will get there, but it is not there yet.
Posted by: CK | May 22, 2005 11:36:45 PM
Mr. Shearer is apparently genetically snide. Of course I don't believe that our genes affect only our health. I don't believe that only our genes affect our destiny either, particularly when it comes to character issues. But, if I've got a genetic predisposition for, say, clinical depression, or alcoholism, or heart disease, all of which can be dealt with effectively by behavioral discipline, which I follow, the question then becomes much more thorny unless one is of the Calvinist mindset (which Mr. Shearer seems to be).
Posted by: paperwight | May 23, 2005 1:30:18 AM
I can't get individual health insurance right now due to pre-existing conditions. Given my family health history, I'm pretty sure what a DNA scan would show, and I'd be even more uninsurable then.
Bleh.
Posted by: NJG from NYC | May 23, 2005 12:50:45 PM
I dunno, this discussion seems a little confused.
The way insurance works, presumably, is you pay a little more than your expected health care costs -- you are making a negative-expectation bet to protect yourself against variance (some catastrophe leaving you penniless).
As technology improves the variance of predicted health care outcomes will go down. (our predictions will get better.) There will always be some uncertainty, and wherever there is, there is plenty of room for insurance, including private insurers. (As long as there is uncertainty, there will be variance to protect against).
However, as we get really good at identifying future health outcomes, some people's expected value payments will be very expensive. Maybe we decide they're so expensive that we shouldn't expect them to pay for it all themselves (presumably because the genetic problems they have aren't their fault).
So then what we need from government is not insurance but simply money redistribution. As long as there is uncertainty to insure against, I think private insurers could probably do the job OK.
Posted by: mk | May 23, 2005 2:22:37 PM
Theorajones I was thinking of Toyota's US plants.
Posted by: James B. Shearer | May 23, 2005 8:50:35 PM
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
Posted by: peter.w | Sep 15, 2007 11:56:04 AM
Angel Tattoos
Bullseye Tattoo
Butterfly Tattoos
Celebrity Tattoo
Celtic Tattoo
Chinese Tattoo
Cross Tattoos
Dragon Tattoo
Fairy Tattoos
Flower Tattoo
Heart Tattoo
Henna Tattoo
Lower Back Tattoos
Miami Ink Tattoo
Religious Tattoo
Rose Tattoos
Skull Tattoos
Star Tattoos
Sun Tattoo
Tattoo Art
Tattoo Flash
Tattoo and Piercing
Tattoo Design
Tattoo Graphic
Tattoo Idea
Tattoo Removal
Tattoos
Tattoos of Scorpions
Temporary Tattoo
Tribal Tattoo
Emo Hair Style
Bang Hair Style
Sedu Hair Style
Prom Hair Style
Short Hair Style
Black Hair Style
How to do Hairstyles
Long Hair Style
Man Hair Style
Hair Style Cut
New Hair style
Formal Hair Style
Medium Hairstyle
Curly Hair Style
African American Hair Style
Hair Style Updo
Hair Style Magazine
Braid Hair Style
Teen Hair Style
Bridal Hair Style
Punk Hair Style
Kid Hair Style
Jessica Simpson Hair Style
Layered Hair Style
Layered Hairstyles
Color Hair Style
Cruise
Cruises
Royal Caribbean Cruise
France Cruise
Panama Cruise
Asia Cruises
Luxury Cruises
Alaskan Cruise
Caribbean Cruise
Princess Cruise
Baltimore Cruise
Boston Cruises
Cruises to Hawaii
Crystal Cruises
Carnival Cruises
Cheap Cruises
Norwegian Cruises
Cruise Discount
Disney Cruises
Best Price on Cruises
Cruise Critics
Mediterranean Cruises
Cruise Wedding
Celebrity Cruise
Singles Cruises
Bermuda Cruise
Posted by: Peter | Sep 20, 2007 1:37:15 PM
Posted by: sohbet | Oct 10, 2007 1:53:27 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.