In his piece he suggests that data portability will lead to a clash as consumers figure out that it’s not privacy of this data that’s the problem, it’s what insurers do to people they already know information about. And that behavior is inevitable in the absence of political reforms which said clash will cause….at some point.
Of course I think he’s smart because I agreed with him here!
Some fraction of investors (or some fraction of investors’ portfolios) seek investments in ‘value’ opportunities, variously defined as chances to invest in properties the market currently undervalues for one reason or another.
In a healthcare context, increasing value investment opportunities exist in the ‘distressed properties’ held by many of the chronically ill; their worrisome financial future, projected under the assumption that nothing they or their doctors or their current insurers can do will moderate their likely spending to thwart the effects of their conditions.
The chief problem seems to be that there is no recognized, off-the-shelf mechanism to capitalize the payout streams of these distressed properties in a way that attracts ‘workout investors’ who might be rewarded for addressing this thorny healthcare/financial care challenge.
The conventional mechanism – individually underwritten, data-insensitive health insurance – is generally regarded as inadequate if not hostile to the task. Why no evidence of exploration of some variant of the kind of financial innovation that transformed markets in home mortgages, or that may yet transform markets in carbon emissions?
Strike one for reason here. About time.