This is kind of going to break insurance.
When you create more risk pools, you increase the number of low risk people and decrease the number of high risk people who buy insurance. But it isn't clear that having more uninsured high risk people is a societal win -- especially if it means replacing insurance claims with bankruptcies.
Meanwhile "more [low risk] people with insurance" is not an unmitigated good, because people will buy things when the insurance is paying for it that they wouldn't when paying out of pocket, which significantly increases costs.
And it's easy not to have much sympathy for Those Dirty Drunks About To Get What They Deserve, but it's really the person the drunk hits who suffers when the drunk was driving without insurance because it was prohibitively expensive. Or the hospital who has to treat a bankrupt patient with no medical insurance.
And being high risk isn't always a result of some moral failing on your part. Doing genetic testing for medical conditions would certainly allow people without high risk markers to pay less for insurance, but what happens to the people who have them?
In the limit where the predictions become extremely accurate there is no point in even having insurance because your net lifetime insurance premiums will be so close to your net lifetime insurance claims that the only thing the insurance company is providing you with is overhead.
But if any insurance companies do this then it doesn't even matter whether all of them do, because the ones who do will get all the low risk customers and the other insurers will de facto end up with a high risk pool with high premiums. So we really need to decide if we actually want this as a matter of legislation.