My new health insurance requires that I provide biometric data from my doctor, due March 2015, or else I have a higher monthly rate. What sort of data do they want? Well, things that are totally irrelevant in pregnancy, like BMI and waist measurement. There is no pregnancy exemption. WTF. Oh, and I'm due in April, so that should be spectacular. At least I get to check the "currently pregnant" box on the form.
**siggy warning**
Current Age 35, DH 33
Married 9/2011
BFP 8/2012, Miscarried 9/2012
BFP 9/2012, DS 6/2013
BFP 6/2014, Miscarried 7/2014
BFP 7/2014, DD 4/2015
Re: 2015 health insurance wants biometric data
**siggy warning**
Current Age 35, DH 33
Married 9/2011
BFP 8/2012, Miscarried 9/2012
BFP 9/2012, DS 6/2013
BFP 6/2014, Miscarried 7/2014
BFP 7/2014, DD 4/2015
What's next? Are we all going to have to wear a fitbit and if we don't walk 10,000 steps a day we have to pay more? If you have high cholesterol from bad genetics why is that something to be punished? Are we going to start charging higher rates for people who do exercise a lot because they are more prone to overuse injuries? Are we all going to be forced to hand over our DNA and have it tested and if it comes back with the breast cancer gene we get charged more?
They come up with this whole we're just trying to motivate people to be more healthy but that's all bullsh*t. We all know it's just about money and this ever expanding societal paternalism of we know what's best for you and you can't make your own decisions so we're going to force these things on you. It's a very bad precedent and road we're heading down.
Kelly, Mom to Christopher Shannon 9.27.06, Catherine Quinn 2.24.09, Trey Barton lost on 12.28.09, Therese Barton lost on 6.10.10, Joseph Sullivan 7.23.11, and our latest, Victoria Maren 11.15.12
Secondary infertility success with IVF, then two losses, one at 14 weeks and one at 10 weeks, then success with IUI and then just pure, crazy luck. Expecting our fifth in May as the result of a FET.
This Cluttered Life
@itsmevkb - I partially agree with you, but not entirely. If you think about car insurance, people who drive wrecklessly pay more. I think people who treat their bodies wrecklessly should pay higher rates for health insurance BUT not be punished for genetic things. For example, if you have genetically high cholesterol, but you are compliant with treatments, no higher rates. However, if you genetically have high cholesterol and don't give a rat's rear end about treating it, that is a different story.
I use asthma as my own personal example. I have pretty bad asthma, but I take my controller medication and have NEVER been to the ER for it. Compare that to someone who skips doctor's appointments, only sometimes takes their medication, and ends up in the ER every month. I should probably pay more for health insurance than someone without asthma, but not as much as the person who is noncompliant with treatment and costs the medical system thousands more per year.
Aside from my own personal insurance beliefs, my biggest pet peeve with this particular insurance requirement is that everyone knows my results won't matter when I'm pregnant. That means my trip to the doctor is a waste of my time, a waste of the doctor's time, a waste of the lab's time, and a total waste and misuse of medical resources. If insurance is so worried about the bottom line, maybe they shouldn't make exempted people go through all of this crap anyway.
**siggy warning**
Current Age 35, DH 33
Married 9/2011
BFP 8/2012, Miscarried 9/2012
BFP 9/2012, DS 6/2013
BFP 6/2014, Miscarried 7/2014
BFP 7/2014, DD 4/2015
My two boys are getting a surprise May 2015!