Life assurance + unlimited access to medical records?

barrygardner

I was planning to take out some life assurance as I am the main earner and mortgage payer in my household (my partner works part-time). I cancelled it when I read the terms which would have given the assurance company the right to access my medical records whenever they wanted. That seemed a bit extreme to me. I don't mind them contacting my GP now and upon my death, but at any time in between doesn't seem necessary. Is this standard practice, and found in all life assurance agreements?

Barry

dunstonh

I cancelled it when I read the terms which would have given the assurance company the right to access my medical records whenever they wanted.

What's wrong with that?

I don't mind them contacting my GP now and upon my death, but at any time in between doesn't seem necessary

It does if they are given any reason to think that you didnt disclose a material fact. It allows them to check later. However, it is very rare for them to do so.

Is this standard practice, and found in all life assurance agreements?

Typically, yes. Rather than specify a range of events and make a declaration even longer than it is, it makes sense to keep it open ended. Remember that the bulk of life assurance policies never involve the doctor at any stage.

barrygardner

What's wrong with it is that I am not prepared to surrender my privacy. If that's the price of life assurance, I won't buy it.

dunstonh

barrygardner wrote: »

What's wrong with it is that I am not prepared to surrender my privacy. If that's the price of life assurance, I won't buy it.

That is your choice to make then. I just hope your dependants feel the same way if you die and they lose the house and suffer the drop in living standards that goes with it. Are your principles really enough to put your family at such risk?

_Andy_

barrygardner wrote: »

What's wrong with it is that I am not prepared to surrender my privacy. If that's the price of life assurance, I won't buy it.

How do you propose your partner would continue to pay the mortgage if you died?

Woby_Tide

they lose the house but at least the insurer never got to know about his piles

jamesd

dunstonh wrote: »

That is your choice to make then. ... Are your principles really enough to put your family at such risk?

It's the lack of principles of the insurance company, not the principles of the poster. An independent third party could check whether the terms have been complied with without unsupervised compromise of the privacy of the policyholder.

The prospect of one insurance company per year making copies of medical records that can be lost or stolen and abused isn't enticing. Nor is the prospect of granting unlimited access, whether justified or not, due to error or not, access to medical records.

I wonder if this actually complies with the principles of personal data protection, which generally require that there is a clear business purpose for seeking and retaining personal information, and doing so only for the information which is actually required for the task. Ad-hoc access to the whole medical record doesn't seem to be sufficiently controlled based on business need to meet that standard when lower access would be sufficient to determine whether policy conditions may have been breached, then proceeding with greater access only if truly necessary.

dunstonh

The only time the insurers go for medical details are at application (if required), if it comes to light there was non-disclosure (if required) and on death (if required). The vast majority never get a medical check at any point.

An independent third party could check whether the terms have been complied with without unsupervised compromise of the privacy of the policyholder.

And who is going to pay for that? Especially when you consider that this is such a non issue. The FSA already oversee issues of data control. The records held by the insurer are probably more secure than those held by the doctor.

I wonder if this actually complies with the principles of personal data protection, which generally require that there is a clear business purpose for seeking and retaining personal information

Data protection isnt an issue here. Insurers have a justifiable need to know. They also have a justifiable reason for retention of information (just ask those companies that destroyed endowment files thinking that they couldnt keep them).

Ad-hoc access to the whole medical record doesn't seem to be sufficiently controlled based on business need

I havent seen anything to suggest there is any lack of control. Ironically, the main control may be the cost of getting information from doctors.

10past6

barrygardner wrote: »

I don't mind them contacting my GP now and upon my death, but at any time in between doesn't seem necessary.

I would much rather the onus is on the insurance company, we hear of horror stories where a company refuse to pay out because something wasn’t declared.

I have no objection with any insurance company viewing my medical records, at least I know, if anything unto wards happened to me, those that are due to benefit won’t have to deal with a disputed claim.

barrygardner

Thank you for your concern _Andy_ but when we took out our mortgage we behaved responsibly (unlike everyone else it seems) and took out a mortgage that can be paid for on one income (so we have a small mortgage which will be paid off within 4-5 yrs - life assurance is not essential, but I was considering it as an option).

Thank jamesd for your support - I'm amazed, I was of the view that participants here would be on the side of the consumer, not of the financial services industry (and they have our best interests at heart don't they?). I asked a simple question, I did not expect contributors to utilise emotional arguments in order to explain to me how irresponsible I am (you don't know about my personal financial position therefore you do not know whether I am responsible or not). A simple response to the question concerning whether it was standard practice when taking out life assurance to surrender your privacy and to accept any administrator in the employ of insurance companies to go on fishing expeditions through your medical records at any time. As for data security - any IT security expert will confirm that the first principle is that data becomes less secure when it is stored in more places and when more people have access to it. I'll trust paper records in my GP practice more than data stored on multiple servers - by the way, I worked for years in the IT sector - anyone who argues that records held by the insurer are more secure than those held by the doctor demonstrates only their own naivety, I am unaware of millions of patients medical records being lost (and yes, I have opted out of the computerisation of my records). Just one final annoyance for dunstonh, who right now be fuming at my last point, I'll not be returning to this thread, even probably this forum - enjoy yourself telling me how irresponsible I am! I won't take lectures on principals from a financial adviser!

jamesd

dunstonh wrote: »

The only time the insurers go for medical details are at application (if required), if it comes to light there was non-disclosure (if required) and on death (if required). The vast majority never get a medical check at any point.

Then it appears that the access requirement could at least be constrained to those times rather than at any time.

dunstonh wrote: »

And who is going to pay for that?

The insurer, paying their customer in advance so the agency doing the checking is either neutral or an agent of the insured party rather than the insurer. Just as they pay costs now for access to records.

dunstonh wrote: »

Especially when you consider that this is such a non issue. The FSA already oversee issues of data control.

It's far from a non-issue when there's a past history of insurers improperly declining to pay claims based on medical details that weren't relevant.

It's also an issue for those who are reluctant to take insurance for this and other related disclosure reasons and the insurers who don't get their business as a result.

dunstonh wrote: »

The records held by the insurer are probably more secure than those held by the doctor.

Every extra copy is one more copy that can be compromised.

dunstonh wrote: »

Data protection isnt an issue here. Insurers have a justifiable need to know. They also have a justifiable reason for retention of information (just ask those companies that destroyed endowment files thinking that they couldnt keep them).

The have a justifiable need to know if there is information in the medical record that would affect their decision to offer the policy or whether a claim is payable. Where's the business need for the rest or the need to actually know the contents of the medical record rather than solely whether and what is relevant to the policy?

dunstonh wrote: »

I havent seen anything to suggest there is any lack of control. Ironically, the main control may be the cost of getting information from doctors.

That's a useful control IMO. Not sufficient - I'm not keen on any avoidable disclosure of personal medical information and insurers seem to habitually seek complete access even though their actual need is just for information relating to the cover they are providing.

Where's the legitimate business need to know about an ingrown toenail or fungal infection 20 years ago when providing a life only term insurance policy today?