Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

An insurance company wants you to hand over your Fitbit data so it can make more money. Should you?

NorthCascades
NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
Saw this in in the Washington Post today, and thought it would be appreciated here. (Given another thread on the front page, I'll repeat that this is the Washington Post not the Huffington Post.)

Life insurance company John Hancock made a splash last week with the news that soon all its policies would come bundled with the option to let the company track your fitness — via either a website and app, or through the use of a fitness tracker like an Apple Watch or Fitbit.

The move underscores how fitness tracker data is an as-yet largely untapped gold mine for businesses — particularly in industries like insurance, whose financial bottom line directly depends on the health of their customers. John Hancock isn’t particularly shy about this: “The longer people live, the more money we make,” as the company’s CEO, Brooks Tingle, put it to the New York Times.

The published research on Fitbits and similar devices, however, has yet to uncover a clear link between fitness tracking and fitness, to say nothing of longevity and mortality, or of insurance companies' profits. But there is some solid evidence that if the use of the devices is paired with incentives like rewards, challenges and leaderboards (“gamified,” in social science parlance) people can see real health benefits. It’s probably no accident, then, that the John Hancock policies lean heavily on those kinds of incentives.

The big question: Will potential insurance customers buy it?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/25/an-insurance-company-wants-you-hand-over-your-fitbit-data-so-they-can-make-more-money-should-you/
«13

Replies

  • PapillonNoire
    PapillonNoire Posts: 76 Member
    I average 12-15k steps a day, so if a company was willing to incentivize what I'm doing anyway, I'd probably be happy.

    On the other hand, I allowed Liberty Mutual to track my driving and I regret it. They gave a small discount just for signing up, so no downside yet; but based on my results, I wouldn't be surprised if they did penalize me at some point.
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    Only if there was no negative - i.e., they could not charge more for the people who were not 'active enough' to meet their criteria. It would have to be bonuses paid out or fitness activities/lifestyle.

    If you get a bonus by having a fitbit, then it DOES cost more if you don't track or aren't active enough. Call that a base rate if you want, it's still costs that person more.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    This is LIFE INSURANCE.

    They already require all kinds of health screens before they underwrite you and you can be cancelled. I can see where health insurance companies might get pushback against this, but life insurance? Meh.
  • Keto_Vampire
    Keto_Vampire Posts: 1,670 Member
    edited September 2018
    I just spent two days at an insurance industry conference that in part dealt with exactly this.

    The sad reality is that they probably already HAVE most of your data. The actual benefits to the company of you allowing a device to track your driving or fitness is that you are more likely to actually modify your behavior for the better if you know someone is actively watching you.

    =Hawthorne Effect

    My health insurance actually does include activity/fitbit tracking as a part of a "wellness" program incentive to get a yearly discount; however, it is not mandatory nor is there any goal to meet (they want data (voluntary) but no objective measures like cholesterol, BP, weight/BMI, smoking status to hit). Seems plausible in the future to include such incentive into getting a discount

    I just think it's BS I have to waste my time & other Healthcare workers' time documenting & filling out paper work so I don't need to pay as much money (questionable whether this "discount" is really just an add on as overall cost)
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,463 Member
    My insurance company offers this. Both my spouse and I can earn up to $3/day for hitting certain step goals. $1 for walking 500 steps in 5min 6x/day, $1 for walking 3k steps in 30min, and $1 for walking 10k overall steps per day. The $6/day goes towards our HSA.

    It's no incentive for my husband. He refuses to wear a step tracker, so I wear two. I'm already pretty active, so it doesn't really change my habits. In fact, it pisses me off because I can have a 2hr gym session and only earn a few steps because I mainly lift and row for cardio. I have to strap it to my ankle when biking. The only thing it encourages me is to do the 30min of higher intensity cardio per day which I get in via playing a virtual reality game most nights. I wish they tracked other things than just steps.

    So you're wearing trackers for both you and your spouse to earn 2 bonuses?
  • mom23mangos
    mom23mangos Posts: 3,069 Member
    Yeah. He actually does do enough walking to meet the goals, but won’t wear it because it’s not “fashionable “. :/
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    I get fewer steps than a lot of you most days, I'm a cyclist. I rode 15 hilly miles today, and do anywhere from 75 to 100 miles in a week. But those aren't steps.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    I get fewer steps than a lot of you most days, I'm a cyclist. I rode 15 hilly miles today, and do anywhere from 75 to 100 miles in a week. But those aren't steps.

    This is the part that bugs me. I'm lifting weights because I think I should, and not because I enjoy it. So I wouldn't get "points" for that?

    I do get what they are trying to do, but it really is more about getting sedentary people to move than to reward those actually already doing activities.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    I get fewer steps than a lot of you most days, I'm a cyclist. I rode 15 hilly miles today, and do anywhere from 75 to 100 miles in a week. But those aren't steps.

    This is the part that bugs me. I'm lifting weights because I think I should, and not because I enjoy it. So I wouldn't get "points" for that?

    I do get what they are trying to do, but it really is more about getting sedentary people to move than to reward those actually already doing activities.

    Agree! It's like those weight loss contests at work, where you can win a prize for losing X percent of your body weight. Which excludes all of us who are at a healthy weight already. There's no prizes for starting off healthy and staying that way for the duration of the contest.

    I also have a real issue using something like a step-counter to monitor activity for incentive. Aside from all the people who do activities that don't include steps, what about all the people (and we are legion) who work in an environment where it's forbidden to bring in any device that has any kind of connectivity with any other device. Mechanical step counters would be fine, but how would you get the data?

    The place I used to work gave out a bunch of generic cheap wrist trackers and did a contest as a part of "The Summer of Wellness", which they did because our insurance rates and sick time used were sky high. Teams of 4, most steps for the week won gift cards, gym memberships, that sort of thing. They intended to do it all summer.

    First week, the three top teams were averaging 30,000 steps a day PER PERSON. There were two guys who had over 50,000 steps daily. People were sitting at there desks swinging their arm as they worked. People were telling stories of putting the tracker on the dog and letting it out back every night, putting it on their toddler, that sort of thing. No one got any prizes and the contest was eliminated. :neutral:

    I'll add, I have a Fitbit on my non-dominant wrist daily and it rarely credits me many unearned steps. But I could easily get it too if I wanted.

    I would not participate in the OP program. My cynical side is sure "they" already know far more about my day-to-day life than I'm comfortable with. But the idea of willingly giving them access and not really knowing how much data that really is and what it could theoretically be used for (and make me pay for) raises alarms for the curmudgeon in me.

    Ha, we had a similar program for a year, and yup, people were averaging up to 35000 steps daily, which coincidently was the max number of steps you could get credit for. While holding down full time jobs.
  • girlwithcurls2
    girlwithcurls2 Posts: 2,281 Member
    I'd do it if they'll give me a nice Garmin watch to track my laps in the pool. My steps might be nothing, but give me an hour and a half in the pool, and yeah, I'm working hard.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    I would love to see data on how this is viewed across demographics. I would imagine most American adults would be against this - viewing this as an intrusion of privacy. Are children, teens, young adults as wary of the invasion of technology and gamification of behavior?

    I would support this if and only if this would end up as a shared cost savings to customers, which it won't, so I am against it.
  • Keto_Vampire
    Keto_Vampire Posts: 1,670 Member
    edited October 2018
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    I would love to see data on how this is viewed across demographics. I would imagine most American adults would be against this - viewing this as an intrusion of privacy. Are children, teens, young adults as wary of the invasion of technology and gamification of behavior?

    I would support this if and only if this would end up as a shared cost savings to customers, which it won't, so I am against it.

    Younger generation seems more willing of sharing information; just look @ the explosion of social media (albeit this can be used to create misinformation too). I'm also not very confident these would result in cost savings...more like a justification to work against paying more additional fees (fights insurance companies on a daily basis as part of my job...insurance is constantly working against any freedom of choice for both prescribers and patients...drug, qty allowed, cost threshold, locations of choice, etc...got to save EVERY penny).
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    The number of steps, I don't have a problem with. I share my daily numbers with my employer in the summer, I get a little bit of cash for it.

    Heart rate data, though, I feel like there will be some way to misuse that. I have no idea what it would be, but I can't shake the feeling.
  • 4legsRbetterthan2
    4legsRbetterthan2 Posts: 19,590 MFP Moderator
    The number of steps, I don't have a problem with. I share my daily numbers with my employer in the summer, I get a little bit of cash for it.

    Heart rate data, though, I feel like there will be some way to misuse that. I have no idea what it would be, but I can't shake the feeling.

    My immediate though is increase in heart rate is often an early sign of illness. So, when average heart rate starts going up they start increasing your premium or something? Could that be considered a pre-qualifying condition down the road that would effect future coverage options? (this is my speculation, not something I know is happening/ in future plans)
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    The number of steps, I don't have a problem with. I share my daily numbers with my employer in the summer, I get a little bit of cash for it.

    Heart rate data, though, I feel like there will be some way to misuse that. I have no idea what it would be, but I can't shake the feeling.

    I think number of steps is a bad idea, as it focuses on only one aspect. Nothing for lifting or cycling. So if I'm running half marathons I get more credit than when you go for a long bike ride? And now that winter is setting in and I'm back to more weights, I lose out for running less?

    I don't know. It all sounds to "iffy" to me to be useful on the individual basis. Kinda like insurers basing rates partly on BMI.