Aggregation of this data can be useful in emergency purposes, but I do not believe this information should be aggregated for the insurance companies to decide whether to cover an individual or a family. This is going to be a very complex issue in the future when the aggregation of data shows genetic “preexisting conditions.” While there are laws in place to stop refusal of health coverage based on genetics, how close is this to something of that nature? This is a very slippery slope.

The aggregation of medical and prescription information can be useful in providing proper care and diagnoses for patients, but the industry has proven that is not its intent. The industry’s intent (regulated by law) is to generate the most profit possible for its shareholders, not the patients’ best interests at heart. The way to generate profits is by insuring the healthiest people, those who will not cash in on their policies very often, if ever. Those who will be using their insurance often for prescription medication or for hospital visits are not those that will generate profit. Remember, insurance is to provide people with health care in their most vulnerable times; not when it’s convenient for the insurer.

This is precisely the reason many call for socialized medicine, take it from the hands of an “industry” and give it back to those who pay for it: the people. Socialized medicine (while it has its pitfalls and misnomers) will be able to provide care for precisely the 47 million Americans who “aren’t healthy enough” to get health insurance from an industry. To drive the point home, 12 years ago Dr. Linda Peeno in a Congressional testimony said that:

I wish to begin by making a public confession: In the spring of 1987, as a physician, I caused the death of a man.

Although this was known to many people, I have not been taken before any court of law or called to account for this in any professional or public forum. In fact, just the opposite occurred: I was “rewarded” for this. It bought me an improved reputation in my job, and contributed to my advancement afterwards. Not only did I demonstrate I could indeed do what was expected of me, I exemplified the “good” company doctor: I saved a half million dollars!

This is exactly what can happen because of non-disclosure of “preexisting conditions.” The same “preexisting conditions” which will get an individual denied health coverage, the same “preexisting conditions” which would be disclosed by the data aggregation shown by the article above. Industries have proven by acting in lewd and lascivious ways with information of this nature, who expects the insurance industry to be any different? If this data were to be used by an industry to actually care for their patients, I may not be so opposed to it. However, when the information deny care to those who had been rightfully paying for it because of some clause about “falsifying an application,” when the medication prescribed years ago is no longer an issue, seems a little asinine to me. Yes, this does happen when insurance companies look for discrepancies in applications or non-disclosures which result in denial of large payouts ex post facto.

Some will argue that “these data aggregation services will lower the cost of health insurance!” Let’s be real, it’s a more efficient way of denying those who need the insurance the most, which in effect raises profits. Remember, corporations (by law) are governed to ensure the highest possible profits for its shareholders; how would “lowering the cost” ensure maximum profits for shareholders?

Some will say that “lowering the cost of insurance doesn’t necessarily mean in price, rather by adding services!” Sounds reasonable, but let’s examine that point. Many health care providers will be launching websites (if not already) that allow patients to login and see their prescriptions, request refills, even attempt their own ailment diagnosis. It may allow readily available access to information (which is always good); it also cuts out the middle man, the health care professional. This in turn saves the insurer money from doctor’s visits, telephone operators (there’s no need to call if it’s all online, right?) and a myriad of other minor costs; but once all added up over millions of people will amount to a whole lot of savings on the insurer’s behalf. Again, it cuts the costs of the insurers, but not the cost to the consumers.

I may be cynic when it comes to the insurance industry, but they’ve given absolutely no reason not to be. Denying coverage to those who need it the most would seem to be the most inhuman, vile act imaginable; but it’s all in the name of the game … profit.