Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Former MSE Rebecca
    • By Former MSE Rebecca 15th Apr 15, 3:47 PM
    • 113Posts
    • 96Thanks
    Former MSE Rebecca
    0 WOW
    Pre-existing Travel Insurance Guide Discussion
    • #1
    • 15th Apr 15, 3:47 PM
    0 WOW
    Pre-existing Travel Insurance Guide Discussion 15th Apr 15 at 3:47 PM


    Hi,

    We've written a new pre-existing travel insurance guide for the website and we'd love your feedback.

    How did you find the info? Was it useful? Do you have any other tips you would add?

    Thanks for your help,

    MSE Rebecca
Page 8
    • TwitTwoo
    • By TwitTwoo 8th Jul 17, 8:43 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    TwitTwoo
    Terminology Minefield
    I had cancer treatment 6yrs ago. One of my meds had a tendency to weaken the heart muscles so regular ECG's were required. My baseline ECG revealed a leaky valve (mitral regurgitation) which apparently 70% of population have to some degree AND which I may have had since birth! No symptoms or issues.
    All other ECG's during treatment showed no detrimental affect on the heart but, as the leak was found, I have had annual 'valve surveillance' scans. Still no issues.
    I have always declared history of cancer only - as I didn't perceive the medical criteria on electronic searches to be relevant to me . . . I haven't had treatment - just surveillance
    I rang LV to see if I could renew our lapsed policy but the operator's questions led me to mention the scans - for which a WW Annual renewal would hike from £132 to £890
    Obviously, I'm still of the opinion that I'm not receiving 'treatment' but that could fall into abyss of insurance terminology.
    I'd be grateful to hear your opinion on my reasoning or, if anyone else has come up against confusing terminology.
    • TwitTwoo
    • By TwitTwoo 9th Jul 17, 11:15 AM
    • 2 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    TwitTwoo
    Good News Update
    For anyone who may find this post - I followed some advice on previous posts regarding insurance companies but, I also did an online quote with 'Compare the Market'.
    I declared everything -none of which need treatment (only check ups) and there were a few good quotes.
    I rang 'Just Travel' who came out the best at £113.89 for single trip for a couple but after speaking to the advisor, the actual quote went down to £83.78
    Worth a look in my opinion
    • koru
    • By koru 9th Jul 17, 12:35 PM
    • 1,250 Posts
    • 630 Thanks
    koru
    ...My baseline ECG revealed a leaky valve (mitral regurgitation)
    ... I have had annual 'valve surveillance' scans.
    ...I haven't had treatment - just surveillance
    ... I'd be grateful to hear your opinion on my reasoning or, if anyone else has come up against confusing terminology.
    Originally posted by TwitTwoo
    I agree it is a stretch to say that investigations are treatment, but if they see it differently, there's not much you can do. In any case, the policy says:
    "We define the following as pre-existing medical conditions:

    If at any point in your life, you have suffered from:
    a heart condition
    a breathing condition such as asthma
    a circulatory condition such as strokes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol or diabetes
    a gastrointestinal or digestive tract problem a bone or joint condition
    any form or type of cancer
    If in the last 12 months you have had, or been recommended to have, any:
    − medical investigation or tests for any conditions or symptoms that relate to a diagnosed condition
    − treatment or surgery for any conditions or symptoms that relate to a diagnosed condition
    − prescribed medication for any conditions or symptoms that relate to a diagnosed condition"
    I imagine they would say you have a PMC because your valve thing is a heart condition and because in the last 12 months you have had medical investigation or tests.
    koru
    • Tardis4
    • By Tardis4 17th Jul 17, 1:27 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 111 Thanks
    Tardis4
    I got a quote from LV but was unhappily surprised to have a previous Pulmonary Embolism (years ago, no further treatment) not covered by the policy. Has anyone else had this experience? In my opinion, the policy isn't worth the paper it is written on if it doesn't cover anything pertaining to an embolism - as air travel increases the risk of all blood clots!
    • midian
    • By midian 19th Jul 17, 6:28 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 148 Thanks
    midian
    What I noticed on the comparison websites is that Saga came top for me each time (I am 51). When I checked with Saga website directly they were significantly cheaper than the comparison websites. For example, I just got back from Egypt - Saga was £400, comparison websites were £600 - that's a huge mark up. So now I use the comparision websites but then go direct to the preferred provider.

    Also Saga allowed me to add the two 17 year olds travelling with me onto my policy for an extra £25 each. this way if any of us fell ill and needed to return it would be uncomplicated as it went through one insurer.

    I don't think I will ever be able to afford the States again.
    • MissConception
    • By MissConception 1st Aug 17, 9:16 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    MissConception
    Disability discrimination?
    Not too long ago insurance companies were forced to equalise the car insurance costs between boys and girls on the grounds of sex discrimination.

    Having suffered the indignity of explaining medical conditions to many call centre staff who have little or no medical training and who do not even understand their own questions, I strongly object to the direction in which insurance companies seem to be headed. The questions are increasing in quantity and becoming more and more intrusive.

    I would like to see a MSE campaign to change the way the insurance industry treats sub-groups of travellers. I believe that insurance should be about sharing risk within broad categories rather than targeting higher risk groups (a principle that could be applied across the whole insurance industry, not just travel).

    Maybe the disability discrimination act could be a way to exert pressure?

    Does anyone else feel insurance questions are becoming far too personal?
    • Doc N
    • By Doc N 1st Aug 17, 10:41 AM
    • 6,226 Posts
    • 19,147 Thanks
    Doc N
    There's a useful CAB page covering some of these issues here:

    https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services1/goods-and-services-what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/what-doesn-t-count-as-unlawful-discrimination-in-goods-and-services/insurance-services-when-discrimination-is-allowed/

    I agree entirely with your sentiments, and it would be a very useful field for Martin Lewis to get involved with, but in most cases I'd guess that insurance companies are acting within the law.

    Like most areas of insurance now, the concept of sharing risk has changed - that was the way it used to be when most insurers charged much the same price to most of their customers. Competition changed all that, and the drive to lower prices, so that the old cross-subsidisation that used to cover the higher risk customers has now all but gone.

    So if you genuinely are low-risk, insurers love you and charge you low premia. But God help you if you're in any way likely to make a claim - then the premia become prohibitive.
    • MissConception
    • By MissConception 2nd Aug 17, 10:57 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    MissConception
    Disability discrimination?
    I think whether insurance companies are acting within the law needs to be challenged.
    Under the 2010 Equality Act sex discrimination was allowed for insurance companies, however that was overturned by the ECJ in 2012. In the opinion paper it explains that discrimination should not be allowed under a wide range of classes including disability:
    7. Title III of the Charter of Fundamental Rights contains provisions relating to equality. Article 20 of the Charter, headed ‘Equality before the law’, provides:

    ‘Everyone is equal before the law.’

    8. Article 21(1) of the Charter contains the principle of non-discrimination, which is worded as follows:

    ‘Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.’


    I'm no lawyer, just hopeful that this is worth pursuing before we Brexit.

    Apart from the intrusive nature of the questions (a person's health is traditionally one of their most private matters - a doctor will not even reveal anything to one's life partner - yet insurance companies feel they can ask any question they like with impunity).
    Furthermore, I really object to questions like "Have you ever had........" for example raised cholesterol levels.
    Who would know that without asking someone to trawl through their medical records? Especially if, yes, you once had it 10 years ago and what is the relevance of that to risk assessment? I would wager none but it could help the company defeat a genuine claim if it had not been disclosed.

    I'll stop now in case this topic raises my blood pressure :-)
    • EssexExile
    • By EssexExile 2nd Aug 17, 11:28 AM
    • 2,282 Posts
    • 1,522 Thanks
    EssexExile
    If they can't discriminate on health grounds when selling health insurance (with a few other bits tagged on) then the vast majority will be paying a little more & a few will be paying a lot less. Being one of the few it would get my vote!

    It would make the insurance industry's job a lot easier as they would only have to work out the risk for people in general, not for each individual. So prices would generally come down (or profits would generally go up).
    Tall, dark & handsome. Well two out of three ain't bad.
    • koru
    • By koru 2nd Aug 17, 5:32 PM
    • 1,250 Posts
    • 630 Thanks
    koru
    I think whether insurance companies are acting within the law needs to be challenged.
    ...
    8. Article 21(1) of the Charter contains the principle of non-discrimination, which is worded as follows:

    ‘Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.’[/I]

    I'm no lawyer, just hopeful that this is worth pursuing before we Brexit.
    Originally posted by MissConception
    The CAB webpage says that insurers are allowed to discriminate on grounds of disability. I can't see how a medical condition could fall in any other category in the list of grounds.

    But I agree it would be nice if the law was changed so that medical conditions were ignored in setting travel insurance premiums. It would lead to a small increase in cost for the healthy, but the less healthy would be able to afford to travel. And it would remove a huge amount of hassle going through screening and arguing about claims. That would reduce insurers' admin costs, partially offsetting the extra claims, and would make life a lot easier for those with PMCs.

    Perhaps the problem would be that lots of people who are at a high risk of falling sick and currently can't afford the premiums would decide to take the risk of travelling, knowing that the insurer would have to stump up. Claims costs might rocket.
    koru
    • Ganga
    • By Ganga 2nd Aug 17, 7:16 PM
    • 653 Posts
    • 301 Thanks
    Ganga
    The CAB webpage says that insurers are allowed to discriminate on grounds of disability. I can't see how a medical condition could fall in any other category in the list of grounds.

    But I agree it would be nice if the law was changed so that medical conditions were ignored in setting travel insurance premiums. It would lead to a small increase in cost for the healthy, but the less healthy would be able to afford to travel. And it would remove a huge amount of hassle going through screening and arguing about claims. That would reduce insurers' admin costs, partially offsetting the extra claims, and would make life a lot easier for those with PMCs.

    Perhaps the problem would be that lots of people who are at a high risk of falling sick and currently can't afford the premiums would decide to take the risk of travelling, knowing that the insurer would have to stump up. Claims costs might rocket.
    Originally posted by koru
    I think that should read " Claims costs would rocket "
    Also as premiums woul also get a lot higher the healthy punters would be on forums like this one complaining that they were subsidising the not so healthy.
    ITS NOT EASY TO GET EVERYTHING WRONG ,I HAVE TO WORK HARD TO DO IT!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,207Posts Today

8,101Users online

Martin's Twitter