Insurer John Hancock offers Apple Watch Series 3 for $25 - with regular exercise

Posted:
in Apple Watch
Life insurance firm John Hancock will soon offer everyone in its Vitality program an Apple Watch Series 3 for $25 plus tax, with the caveat that they must engage in regular exercise over the next two years.




People can perform any kind of exercise, such as running or swimming, but must earn at least 500 fitness-based Vitality Points per month to avoid paying off the device in installments. Normally the Series 3 costs at least $329 for a 38-millimeter GPS model.

In fact Vitality members will get a GPS-only Watch by default, and have to pay extra to upgrade to LTE, different bands, and/or different case materials. People can also pick a Fitbit tracker in lieu of a Watch.

The Vitality program is designed to minimize John Hancock's payouts by offering perks for healthy behavior, including not just exercise but going to the doctor and buying healthy food. The catch, of course, is that the company monitors personal habits.

It has already been offering earlier models of the Watch to a limited subset of customers, but starting Nov. 6, the Series 3 will be available to all new and existing Vitality members.

Apple has been working with several insurance firms to increase the reach of the Watch. Earlier this summer, it reportedly had a series of meetings with Aetna, which could bring the device to its 23 million customers.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,519member
    This is what needed for single answer to healthcare crisis in USA and other country, rising healthcare cost. More people are forced to pay attention(you can't stop them eating unhealthy food) to their own health doing something through exercise using Apple watch is win-win for everyone(less burden on healthcare system,)
    edited October 2017 NotsofastwlymLoneStar88netroxcali
  • Reply 2 of 9
    Great marketing all around!
    cali
  • Reply 3 of 9
    dcgoodcgoo Posts: 198member
    Maybe....   Though I am not sure I like the idea of my insurance company monitoring my exercise and physical activity directly.  I love the automation, but I think I'd rather keep it to myself.  Sponsored by my health insurance company sounds a little bit creepy to me.  No thank you.
  • Reply 4 of 9
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 138member

    As a healthy person I like this as it provides both carrot and stick for motivating healthy behavior.

    But what are the implications for those with chronic conditions that limit their mobility?  It seems unfair to them and it may discourage them from signing up if they see no monetary benefit.  These are the people that need to be monitored closely, not by an insurance company but by a doctor.  What incentives, other than staying alive, can be offered to those who are unable to qualify for the insurance company’s ‘healthy lifestyle’ requirements to get connected and monitored?

    And then there are the flagrant abusers of their own bodies.  It may seem self evident that people want to stay alive and will, therefore, do the common sense thing and get connected so their healthcare providers can monitor their health.  But one look inside any clinic will tell you that’s just not the case as you will see people who willfully and repeatedly disregard their physician’s advice.  Clearly, some other incentive is needed.  Or maybe we just have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that some people just can’t be saved from themselves.

  • Reply 5 of 9
    sandorsandor Posts: 460member
    dcgoo said:
    Maybe....   Though I am not sure I like the idea of my insurance company monitoring my exercise and physical activity directly.  I love the automation, but I think I'd rather keep it to myself.  Sponsored by my health insurance company sounds a little bit creepy to me.  No thank you.

    John Hancock sells life insurance, not health insurance.

    this is more like letting your auto insurer monitor your driving in exchange for lower rates, not like letting your health insurer have access to your genome to scout out genetic abnormalities to increase your rates...

    theothergeoff
  • Reply 6 of 9
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,283member
    dcgoo said:
    Maybe....   Though I am not sure I like the idea of my insurance company monitoring my exercise and physical activity directly.  I love the automation, but I think I'd rather keep it to myself.  Sponsored by my health insurance company sounds a little bit creepy to me.  No thank you.
    Your health insurance company has a vested interest in monitoring your exercise and physical activity. After all they are the ones PAYING your medical bills for god’s sake. Your insurance company already knows pretty much everything about you health wise anyway. I certainly don’t see it as creepy that the people paying my doctor bills want to encourage me to live healthier.
  • Reply 7 of 9
    dcgoodcgoo Posts: 198member
    Correct. Replace health insurance with Life insurance.  Same issue, if not worse.  Creepy surveillance.
  • Reply 8 of 9
    sandor said:
    dcgoo said:
    Maybe....   Though I am not sure I like the idea of my insurance company monitoring my exercise and physical activity directly.  I love the automation, but I think I'd rather keep it to myself.  Sponsored by my health insurance company sounds a little bit creepy to me.  No thank you.

    John Hancock sells life insurance, not health insurance.

    this is more like letting your auto insurer monitor your driving in exchange for lower rates, not like letting your health insurer have access to your genome to scout out genetic abnormalities to increase your rates...

    The goal here is for most life insurance policies... the longer you live, the more they collect.  My term premiums are $800 year for renewed 10 year term life policy paying $450K.  In very simple math, they are saying 1 in 60 (8000*60 = $480,000... 30K for expenses for those 60) people in my pool are going to die in the next 10 years.  If they can get half (30) to buy watches and manage their health, if they can make that 1 in 66, they just made 40K more revenue over that 10 year span).

    So, it's really 'gamification' the in the short term (do this to get a nearly free Apple Watch)  to increase your odds in  to 'losing the Life insurance bet.'   Also, people buying life insurance typically have significant cash flow (the bet is to cover income loss) to cover the watch to begin with.

    Health insurance really isn't insurance (it's usually a 'pay as you go game' and the payer isn't really you, but your employer... you just pay your 'ante', but the employer picks the coverage options and then sets a monthly target payment).  Under this model (very short term... quarterly/annual 'level ups' by your employer) it is unlikely 'health insurance' will cover this, unless the workforce is considered an asset.

    Once you move to health insurance pools... the more impressive wins would be in the poorest in the community... least likely to buy a $400 watch for a later rebate.   A different model will have to be developed  (here is where I would like the States to medicaid dollars and spend on wellness, and not treating those chronically ill because of lack of wellness).


    edited October 2017
  • Reply 9 of 9
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,605member
    wood1208 said:
    This is what needed for single answer to healthcare crisis in USA and other country, rising healthcare cost. More people are forced to pay attention(you can't stop them eating unhealthy food) to their own health doing something through exercise using Apple watch is win-win for everyone(less burden on healthcare system,)
    I don't think this would fix much of anything. The biggest problem is diet. The next biggest is that we have a disease control system, not a health care system. Adding a bit of exercise is good, but it isn't really going to fix much in the big picture.

    Listen to this... it's much cheaper than an Apple Watch:
    http://theshawnstevensonmodel.com/william-davis/
Sign In or Register to comment.