Prediction 4 – More Money for Lawyers
There will be continued legal disputes over data sovereignty on both national and local levels. We will also see more legal wrangling (and hopefully fair legislation) around the political and ethical conditions of allowing greater data-fuelled personalisation in specific services, such as health insurance.
Our recent example and Cannes winner Data Tienda shows us the good that better data can do in people’s lives. Thousands of people got access to finance because banks were able to use previously unused data to provide them with a credit score. Of course, the emphasis is on those winners that got a usable credit score, but what about those that got a bad credit score? Arguably nothing has changed; they couldn’t get credit before and still can’t, but what happens when we start applying better data to established markets, such as health insurance?
In countries like America, where giant corporations privatise healthcare, could and should better data be used to deny people health insurance and healthcare? This certainly could be an area where people previously granted health insurance could have that insurance taken away or increased heavily in price, quickly and without any safety nets to cushion their fall.
Companies already offer seemingly innocent perks to those willing to share their personal fitness data through FitBit. They are ready to prove they can tick off certain fitness and healthy living goals like regular walks. The use of that data is currently relatively benign and overall positive. Still, there are over 20 clinical trials in the USA alone using Fitbits. With time, researchers and doctors will get even better at identifying signals of specific diseases in wearable devices’ data.
Wearing a fitness tracking device could earn you serious discounts from your health insurance company, which at first, sounds great for the people who participate and good for the companies who want healthier insurance customers.
Like our stroke example, better preventative healthcare could save millions of lives. Many flu treatments work best when administered within 24 hours of the onset of symptoms. But where it’s difficult to identify the flu so quickly, a Fitbit could make that much easier. If the device measures a sudden decrease in the number of steps the person takes per day, plus perhaps an elevated resting heart rate or new tremors signalling chills, that could signal the presence of a virus.
If an insurance company has access to that data, it could send a message to the patient. If the person was feeling poorly (rather than just having decided to watch TV all day), they could be encouraged to go to their doctor or an urgent care clinic. The person could see a health professional quickly, get an effective treatment, and be treated pre-emptively before the worst symptoms appear.
So, what is the cause for concern, and why might we need more money for lawyers and lawmakers? This development would have enormous consequences, and the age-old truism that technology is a double-edged sword could not be more applicable here. According to the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as many as half of all Americans have some condition that could be used to exclude them from coverage, such as cancer, diabetes, or asthma.
In the USA, the health insurance industry wields a massive amount of financial power, making them a gatekeeper for whether or not someone can afford to get well. With their ability to determine the cost of treatment, these companies can be the difference between a financial setback and utter ruin.
Would people feel able to object if insurance companies required customers to wear fitness trackers or other monitoring devices? What if this was no longer an optional perk? Would new patients provide access to past data a Fitbit collected? Could an insurance company consider it fraud if a user stopped wearing the device or somehow tried to falsify the data?
If used – and regulated – well, these devices can help individual patients change their daily habits to become healthier, saving insurance companies money and passing some of those savings along to customers. Alternatively, the devices could justify denying coverage to the inactive or unhealthy or boosting their insurance rates.
Just because you’re wearing a fitness tracker and sharing your data with your insurance company doesn’t mean they’ll use it to improve your health. With the potential for huge financial gains or losses at stake, insurers will be tempted to use your data in ways that benefit their bottom line more than your well-being. And with the uncertain legal terrain surrounding pre-existing conditions, it’s crucial to carefully consider the potential consequences before we all sign up.
Either way, the courts and legislators will continue to battle on, wading through the murkiness of new technology and how it affects our social conventions and attitudes to these coming changes. One thing is clear from the recent lawsuits that are already in progress: it could be very expensive to accidentally find yourself on the wrong side of these ongoing debates.
