Wouldn't the insurer be the most at risk in case of a vulnerability, since they have to refund insured parties? It's not clear to me what the unethical aspect is in this scenario, though I must admit I am not familiar with the insurance world.
-
Maybe, or maybe you only booked 15 minute checkups when you needed a 2hr physical, or you’ve got a rare disease only a special test could find, or new research came out with risk factors no one understood before, or you didn’t like my advice and ignored it, etc.
Even if there was a clear and continuing pattern of malpractice where a doctor should have known better, where does an insurance product (really, a prediction market) add any extra value here? If these failures are visible, isn’t that enough?
-
-
As a patient, I want to have the most thorough analysis of my health and not go bankrupt if something bad happens. As an insurer, I want all the info on my patients to evaluate the risks and properly price the coverage. In both cases, the doctor has the most knowledge on patients
-
As a patient, if you want to avoid dying early then you should take less risk. Insurers can take your medical records into account to offer you a policy, just like Nexus Mutual can read any public or request any private reports from us, with owner permission, of course.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.