
tommyguns2
Senior Moderators
Staff Member
- Dec 25, 2010
- 7,078
- 6,553
Here's an interesting article. I've advocated this for a long time, as I've been considered morbidly obese for insurance purposes for years, and have been elevated premiums in response.
medicalxpress.com
I spoke to an actuary once about this, and he said the BMI is good enough because the stats are baked into the numbers. Whether my BMI is due to fat or muscle, both groups are in the "bucket" that statistically will die earlier than people out of that bucket. While that's true, it ignores the fact that you could break that bucket into two sub-buckets with data that more accurately reflects each group. But the truth of the matter is, health insurance "works" for the insurance companies because otherwise healthy people pay a somewhat higher rate to subsidize those who are unhealthy.

Should we ditch BMI and use the 'body roundness index' instead?
Body mass index (better known as BMI) has long been used to get a quick and easy snapshot of a person's body fat levels. To calculate someone's BMI, you divide their weight in kilograms by their height in meters times itself. The resulting number is used to determine a person's health risk.
I spoke to an actuary once about this, and he said the BMI is good enough because the stats are baked into the numbers. Whether my BMI is due to fat or muscle, both groups are in the "bucket" that statistically will die earlier than people out of that bucket. While that's true, it ignores the fact that you could break that bucket into two sub-buckets with data that more accurately reflects each group. But the truth of the matter is, health insurance "works" for the insurance companies because otherwise healthy people pay a somewhat higher rate to subsidize those who are unhealthy.