Proposition 55K0263

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 4 avril 2014 relative aux assurances en vue d'établir dans le domaine de l'assurance maladie et de l'assurance individuelle sur la vie une restriction de traitement des données à caractère personnel concernant le mode de vie ou la santé issues des objets connectés.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Malik Ben Achour, Ludivine Dedonder, Ahmed Laaouej, Christophe Lacroix, Patrick Prévot, Sophie Thémont, Philippe Tison
Vooruit Melissa Depraetere

Submission date

June 20, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

data protection new technology information technology applications insurance law health insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Oct. 8, 2020 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Our rapporteur is colleague Freilich. He refers to his written report.

The first speaker in the general discussion is Mr. Lacroix whom I confused with Mr. Ben Achour.

There is obviously no concern. I don’t have such a susceptibility as being confused with my colleague and friend Malik Ben Achour would cause me a problem.

We have worked a lot on this bill. The Parliament has been working for many years on the topic of artificial intelligence, its remarkable advances, but also the dangers underlying the use that can be made of it.

Parliament, in the past, has been concerned and has taken initiatives regarding the major challenge of consumer protection, in particular consumer protection related to the breakthrough of new technologies in our economy.

I would like to quote, without going back to Mathusalem, the work that was done during the previous legislature in the Senate, where I was sitting at the time, at the initiative of my group. This work resulted in an informational report on the impact of the development of new technologies and artificial intelligence on the economy.

And then, during the previous legislature, much of the work was carried out in the House by the Opinion Committee on Scientific and Technological Issues. It investigated the use of big data in the health sector. A resolution, adopted in March 2019, provided for various recommendations, one of which specifically concerns our work and the text on which we are about to vote. The recommendation said that patients should be protected against any risk of misuse of their health data, including by insurers or for commercial purposes.

This proposal is therefore fully in line with this perspective and this dimension.

Dear colleagues, today, connected objects are present in an important way in our everyday life, whether it is homework, mobile applications to calculate the number of steps or the number of calories we ingest per day, GPS geolocation on smartphone, etc.

Globally, by 2020, we have ⁇ 20 billion connected objects.

While the data collected may constitute an opportunity in the medical field and really interesting opportunities, they represent a risk specifically in the insurance field, both in terms of privacy protection and in terms of access or cost of insurance for our fellow citizens. Examples are not lacking. In Belgium, car insurance companies for young people under the age of 26 already grant a premium discount if the driver embarks in his vehicle a connected object that analyses at all times his driving, his look, his speed, his braking, his accelerations. Abroad, some insurance formulas incorporate customer sports habits and food behaviors measured using a connected bracelet, good behaviors resulting in premium reductions or benefits such as movie seats or airplane tickets.

One can say that effectively, having a system that encourages good behavior and that brings a reduction of costs for the consumer is a good solution but the perverse effect of this system is that we individualize the price, the rate, the access to insurance. The cost of it does not take into account the inequality of each and every one in relation to health.

When you are more precarious and you live in a home that is on the edge of unhealthy, that there is humidity in this home, that there are fungi, mycoses that develop in this home, your health suffers, yours, that of your children. You are a victim of your social and economic precariousness. It would therefore not be normal for those citizens who are already victims of social or economic precariousness to be victims of an insurance surcharge or a refusal of insurance because they are considered to be people at risk and that insurance companies decide not to insure these people in terms of health care insurance. Now, if there is something that is on the agenda today and that will still be so for a long time, it is the health concern. How do we ensure that our fellow citizens remain healthy regardless of their socio-economic situation?

In relation to these dangers underlying artificial intelligence, I would like to give you two quotes to nourish your reflection. The first really does not come from a socialist or a communist. It comes from Henri de Castries, CEO of AXA in 2014. I do not think that he is part of the section of the Municipal Socialist Union of my area.

Henri de Castries said this: “Big Data makes it possible to understand the customer much better than he understands himself.” He said it without fear. A second quote comes from Insurtech Capital’s chief executive, Mr. Minh Tran, who said in 2018: “Insurance companies today have the ability to make personalized insurance, ⁇ thanks to user data that can be retrieved through connected objects. And then it’s more interesting to ensure healthy people.” – CQFD. So you see how the insurance sector wants, through connected objects, to secure the "good" risks, that is, to secure the people who are less likely to get sick or who, in any case, are less likely to be hospitalized because they benefit from a health capital that is interesting for the insurance company.

During the debates we had in the committee, the majority of colleagues martelled – and I will redirect it here – a real rejection of this insurance model where personal data from connected objects are collected on the internet and allow the insurer to exclude “bad” risks – and we know who they are: the most precarious people – or to pay more for those that an algorithm (artificial intelligence), regardless of any medical examination, will be considered as part of the “bad” risks.

One principle seems fundamental to us socialists – but this must be the case for other colleagues – because we believe that solidarity between insured persons must remain a central piece in the functioning of insurance. Therefore, this bill provides for two measures in the field of insurance (life and health). First, it is necessary to give consumers the right to refuse to acquire or use a connected object as part of their risk-free insurance contract, whether the company removes it or excludes it. Second, this bill aims to prohibit the insurer from practicing different pricing, so-called segmentations, depending on whether the consumer agrees to use a connected object or on the basis of data from the said objects.

The aim of this bill is therefore – I summarize it in a sentence – to better protect the consumer and to avoid certain deviations related to the use of connected objects in the field of insurance (life and health).

I sincerely thank all colleagues in the Economic Committee for their constructive collaboration in this case. I would like to thank you for having access to the perchoir for a few moments, which will allow me to greet you in a very sympathetic way.

We are all living in a world in constant evolution. New technologies, digital advances carry many advantages and allow, it is true, a real improvement in our quality of life. Data backup, easy access to commercial services, mobility to work, direct exchange with consumers, the advantages are many.

But in the field of health, if new technologies are also a real opportunity to revolutionize medicine, it is not without perverse effects for consumer protection and respect for the right to privacy. New apps that are emerging allow users to record data related to their lifestyle or health status and this is worrying. Some insurers require access to these private data, which raises many questions regarding the security and confidentiality of these data. Some discrimination could even be found between their healthy customers and other less healthy customers.

A legislative framework was therefore essential to prevent this kind of deviation. The goal is simple: protect personal data and prohibit the use of this information by insurance companies. For my group, it is essential to encourage technological innovation, of course, but not at the expense of consumers. The protection of their personal data is a priority. We will therefore support this proposal. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to intervene to provide our support for a bill that, in our opinion, allows us to set an indispensable framework for current technological developments. We recognize, in fact, that these developments want to bring some progress, such as the fact that connected objects can improve our lifestyle. But we want these advancements to be oriented to the service of the people, only to the service of the people. Because we all know that these new technologies represent now, and even more in the future, an extremely fruitful business.

The multinationals, with their choice of unlimited profits, obviously do not fail to claim their share of the cake. Not surprisingly, the insurance sector is not left behind. He well understood that the exploitation of personal data from connected objects allows to increase their margin, as if it was not already comfortable enough elsewhere.

With the PTB, we reject this behavior of vaults. We reject that the marketing of our personal data serves to increase the profits of certain firms, unskrupulous of ethical values. The practices of a few companies abroad already testify to this trend. Thus, the price of certain life and health insurance is conditioned by the results of the connected object, which measures the person's proper sporting and eating behavior. This means that it will again be the vulnerable public who will pay the high price. Thus, because a person does not know how to afford a healthy diet, they will pay more for their insurance premiums. This is a double punishment for these people. So, yes, this type of practice that came right from the United States should be banned in Belgium! This is not our model of society. Insurers should know this. The risks are mutualized, not individualized. This is the foundation of our social protection system. The insurers will not escape.

Then comes the question of the processing of our private information, which is raised by this bill. At the time of Big Data and the monopoly of some computer giants, such as Google, citizens are deprived of their own personal data. So, banning them from using some of our data, coming from connected objects, is sending a strong message to these multinationals. They need to understand that they are not doing anything.

For all of these reasons, the PTB will support this text.