Could Gene Testing Result in Lower Health Insurance Costs?
March 26, 2008
The BBC today reports DNA testing companies’ increase in popularity in recent months. Companies such as 23andMe, DeCODEme and Navigenics are able to decode an individuals’ DNA, providing consumers with an idea of how prone they are to various diseases and more about why their body is the way it is.
While controversy exists within the field, some arguing it is a waste of money and others touting its potential uses for both individuals and pharmaceutical companies, I have to wonder about the ramifications this may have on the overall health industry if the information should be accessible to the public. 23andMe has said they would not sell the data, though I do wonder how insurance companies, or even employers who pay for insurance might react if they would get their hands on this information.
Might there be a lower cost for individuals who are considered “healthier” than others? Similar rate differences exist today between men and women when we purchase car insurance at the age of 16. Different rates exist for men than women, as men are considered more aggressive drivers at this age, yet, gender is something we cannot control, much like the DNA results from these tests.
Regardless, I think great potential lies in the practice of more and more individuals discovering more about their DNA and then acting upon those findings in order to live a healthier lifestyle. Preventative care would safe the health industry billions of dollars, so insurance companies would be wise to assist with paying for tests, such as this.
One final note that crosses my mind is companies using this information during the hiring process. While laws greatly diminish this type of discrimination, I wonder if that would be at all an issue, 40-50 years down the line.
Entry Filed under: Health. Tags: 23andMe, DeCODEme, DNA, Navigenics.
2 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
filtertown | March 28, 2008 at 7:10 pm
This is both wonderful and scary at once. It would be wonderful to know what nasty fate awaits us in the gene pool, but it seems like this information would be too hot for insurance agencies and potential employers to pass up. Predisposed to Alzheimer’s? Insurance hike! Cancer? Fired! And what about potential mates? Instead of testing for compatibility we could test for other things, like whether or not Sally is going to give Mike’s children Adenomatous Polyposis of the colon. And I’m sorry to say, it’s not looking good for Sally, folks.
I think this is going to be a major battle area in the years to come. We are going to know more about ourselves than we’ve ever wanted to know and everybody and their mother will be able to get their hands this precious information, too.
The question is, like you said, what we do with the information. Using it for good will be easy. Not using it to take advantage of people will be the real test.
2.
Greg | March 31, 2008 at 3:03 pm
In most civilized countries, where governments consider health care a basic right, I’d agree that genome testing will ultimately be used for the benefit of both the individual (due to higher quality of life) and the country (due to lower overall health care costs). The question for the governments in these countries is: When does the cost/benefit ratio of widespread genome testing drop to the point where it makes sense to adopt for some or all segments of the population? Based on our experiences collecting SNP data at SNPedia, it is clear that *at the moment* it is less a clinically useful tool than it is an exercise in “genomic vanity”, (or “new new thing”, “latest greatest”, “shiny object”, etc) and hence its appeal to the Dyson/Davos/23etal crowd.
In the US the benefits are murkier, although they could be improved by passage of the long-suffering GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) legislation. The cost/benefit equation of genomic testing for a private, for-profit health insurance company has to be based primarily on profit over the longer term, even in the face of high customer churn (turnover) between companies. And in the absence of GINA legislation? Even worse.
This predicts that widespread acceptance of genomic testing will occur soonest outside the US, and the issues you raise will occur at different times in different countries, depending on their views of who’s responsible for the costs of basic health care.