Should wearable biosensors continuously stream data to insurers?
- Vesna
- Jan 31
- 4 min read
Updated: Feb 28
Wearable biosensors were first invented in the 1950s by Leland C Clark, but was very simple at the time, and has greatly evolved since then into what we now know as Apple watches, FitBits, blood glucose meters, and more (Peterson et al. 2024). Many people, not only athletes and patients with chronic health conditions, use wearable biosensors to measure health data such as heart rate, calories burned, steps taken, sleep patterns, blood pressure, etc. in order to manage their own possible conditions and monitor their health and wellbeing. This data is protected in the wearable device and in the smartphone of the owner, and sometimes manually periodically shared with a healthcare professional in cases where it may be necessary.
Yet, the issue of whether biosensor data should be continuously shared with insurers has recently sprung up. Although it offers pros to certain people such as risk assessment, lower costs, early detection and personalized programs, many people have concerns about privacy, regulation, discrimination and more. This article will analyze this specific issue by evaluating the two different perspectives through a scientific and ethical lens.
Wearable biosensors that continuously stream data to insurers can provide real time data on health behavior and metrics, rather than a one time snapshot that medical professionals can get from a lab test (ex. blood draw) or a survey. This allows insurers to build ongoing risk profiles that can change as changes occur in a person’s life, which can more accurately reflect a person’s lifestyle choices (RGA 2021). This can in turn help insurers make more proactive decisions for an individual’s policy. This maximizes benefits and minimizes harm by allowing for earlier detection of risks that can improve outcomes for both sides. Continuous biometric data can help insurers write more flexible policies for potential holders, where risk assessments and premium pricing can be adjusted over time according to evolving health conditions. According to RGA, insurers can use sleep patterns and physical activity frequency to reward healthy behavior with lower premiums, as well as initiate early intervention when health metrics decline. By continuously updating risk profiles, this promotes justice, because it enhances fairness by ensuring that premiums reflect accurate health statuses rather than outdated information. Beyond writing policies, insurers are utilizing biosensor data to deliver personalized targeted intervention programs such as digital health coaching and preventive screening (RGA, 2021). Insurers can then use this approach to offer wellness incentives, lower premiums, and other rewards for meeting goals. Not only will this reduce claims, but it can strengthen retention, and encourage customers to stay for long term well being. These programs embody respect for persons by empowering people with personalized health support, preventative care, and reduced costs.
The continuous collection and sharing of biosensor data to insurers presents huge privacy risks. Current health privacy regulations (ex. HIPAA) were not designed with this kind of technology in mind, which creates ambiguity (RGA, 2021). Personal health data such as sleep patterns, heart rate, and metabolic data are highly sensitive and could be exposed through data breaches (GovTech, 2021). Also, many consumers are unaware of how insurers can use this data, which leads to issues about informed consent and control over personal data, and will lead to a lack of trust. This directly challenges respect for persons because it risks individual autonomy. Wearable biosensor data can reflect disparities linked to chronic illnesses, disabilities, or socioeconomic status which can’t be fully contextualized by insurers (PMC, 2022). For example, a lack of exercise may not be a conscious choice but rather limited access to safe exercise environments. This can cause insurers to increase premiums or deny coverage to seemingly high risk individuals, which can worsen existing inequalities. This directly challenges the principle of justice by creating a barrier in equitable access to insurance, which deepens existing disparities and affordability. Although wearable biosensors have improved a lot since the 1950s, inaccuracies still remain an issue. Factors such as skin pigmentation, device placement, motion artifacts, and inconsistent wear time can lead to inaccurate biometric readings (PMC, 2022). For example, sensors in smartwatches tend to be slightly off when reading heart rates in those with darker skin tones. This can cause flawed risk assessments and higher premiums if insurers don’t manually check for misclassification risks. This ties into the principles of both respect for persons and minimizing harm by ensuring accuracy and the careful interpretation of data which ties to premium prices and preventative programs.
There is a long way to go in terms of stronger policies regarding data protection, informed consent, preventing discrimination, and more inclusivity. Ultimately, this debate is centered around whether we want a future where our health data can empower our decisions and preventative medicine rather than control the prices we are forced to pay to keep our health under control. Ensuring justice, respect for personals, and maximizing benefit + minimizing harm should be the principle of any decision about biosensor use.
Here are the sources I used. If you have any questions or comments, drop them below or in the forum!
Sources:
Comments