from an actuarial perspective, these longitudinal studies on dementia are huge. early-onset is basically the hardest risk to price for long-term care because the tail of the claim is so long and expensive. finding a solid inverse correlation like this is the kind of thing that eventually shifts premium modeling for an entire generation.

▲

barbazoo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In other words coverage will soon be denied implicitly to people with these markers? Or will people opt out of coverage?

▲

insuranceguru 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s less about denying coverage and more about accurate risk pooling. If an insurer knows a specific marker leads to a 90% chance of a million-dollar claim, they have to price for that. If they don't, the 'healthy' people in the pool end up subsidizing the high-risk ones until the premium becomes too expensive for everyone and the pool collapses (adverse selection). The real challenge is that regulators often won't let insurers price high enough for those risks, which is why many companies just stop offering LTC (Long-Term Care) altogether.

▲

thijson 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It seems to me that risk pooling kind of negates of the intent of insurance, ie. to spread out risk.

▲

insuranceguru 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

that's the fundamental paradox of modern underwriting.

insurance relies on what philosophers call a veil of ignorance. it only works if we're spreading stochastic risk things that might happen to anyone.

once data gives us perfect foresight into a 90% chance of a million-dollar claim, it’s no longer insurance; it’s just a pre-funded bill. at that point, the pool isn't spreading risk, it's just facilitating a direct wealth transfer. the 'good' risks realize they're just subsidizing a known event for others and they flee the pool, which is exactly how the market for things like LTC collapses.

we're basically at a crossroads where better data is actually making 'insurance' as a concept mathematically impossible for certain risks.

	▲	jimjimjim 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This might sound crazy, but what if everyone in the country gave extra and as a result everyone in the country was covered?

▲

girvo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well of course, the actual intent of insurance today is to make profit.

▲

ch4s3 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not in the US it’s illegal under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008.

▲

cyanydeez 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

YEsh, they'll both raise your rates for not submitting this data and raise your rates for being in the cohert that's susceptible; they'll also raise everyone elses rates for having to recalculate the tables!

▲

direwolf20 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So you'll tell your customers if they eat some more omega3 they'll pay less for insurance, right?

Right?

Haha no you won't. You'll just raise premiums and nobody will know why.

	▲	simmerup 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In the UK there are providers that will reduceyour premium if you have workout activity logged by an iWatch

▲

jimjimjim 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wow, that is a depressing point of view. Advancements in "not paying for things" accelerates while advancements in "preventing things" just inches forward.

▲

getnormality 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Too bad the LTC industry is kinda dead!

	▲	insuranceguru 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		yep. it's a total market failure. 20 years ago, carriers completely underestimated the tail of cognitive decline and priced it way too cheap. now the legacy claims are bleeding them dry, which is why new LTC policies are basically non-existent or priced for the moon. it's a tough lesson in what happens when the actuarial data lags reality by 20 years.