Critical Illness Claim

dacouch

If some new or nervous people stumble on this thread it sometimes out them off posting as they think their post may result in them being shouted down or insulted.

Pedro I know you would want as many MSE members with Critical Illness problems to post up here so you can help / reply so it would work against your crusade

pedro123456

I take your point dacouch, and I agree.

Anyway I didn't mean to insult cabbage patch dolls.....lol................only joking.......well I found it funny..............once again sorry.
I shouldn't have ranted on............

Pete

OshayAway

staffie1 wrote: »

when I took out my policy I was told I could only have 1 policy covering the same thing - ie critical illness, income protection, etc. Maybe that was just a marketing ploy...?

You can have more than one critical illness policy but income protction is a little more complicated as you are limited by goventment legislation. There is a calculation applied to ensure that individuals are not better off financially if not working.

HTH

quietheart

The company is Friends Provident, the requirement is much clearer, I don't expect to get anywhere as diagnosis isn't 100% clear, I think it's very much a vague maybe on entitlement. Doesn't help that my consultant is a wet lettuce.......
Will send the additional info to them and see, obviously I have been honest on the forms so I'll just wait and see.
Thanks for your input, and Pete I may pm you when Ihave more info if that's ok!
Cheers

pedro123456

yep thats no problem rovers, if you want info on medical definitions and or the dates they were defined by the ABI let me know and I will try to help,as others will too.

Pete

dunstonh

pedro123456 wrote: »

yep thats no problem rovers, if you want info on medical definitions and or the dates they were defined by the ABI let me know and I will try to help,as others will too.

Pete

The ABI only recently set the minimum definitions and that only applied to new business and only for those companies that chose to meet the ABI standards (they didnt all move to them all at once).

pedro123456

"The ABI only recently set the minimum definitions" when was that then dunstonh?

Pete

somewhatnew

i think it was about 12 months ago.. cant be more specific because im not at work at the moment. the ABI uplifted any new contracts that were to be sold to a minimum 23 'core conditions'. the companies could then enhance the benefits (which is the ABI+) and add other conditions on if they so desired.

things you should know if you work as an financial advisor or insurance broker really

pedro123456

Your nearly correct somewhat, but not close enough to win a prize.


And of course the ABI "reccomended" definitions are just that "recomendations" and the clever Insurace Companies dont "have" to use/ammend them. they tend to like more recent definitions though because they are harder to attain............they get updated as the profits of the IC's are threatened, a loss of £1.75 off their millions profit will result in a definition change.

Pete

somewhatnew

I don’t understand why you asked dunstonh a question if you knew the answer. Why not just support his comment and help rovers out?

I hear what you are saying about 'clever insurance companies' preferring the 'new definitions'. You assume here that that all companies are in it for the money. What about the friendly societies that are run for the benefit of their members? Granted some companies are Ltd or PLC’s who are designed as profit making entities who need to distribute dividends. You can’t tar all the insurers with the same brush.

Playing devils advocate would you agree with me that over time as medicine has improved, people are screened more regularly, conditions are detected earlier, new medicines are invented and surgical techniques improved upon, etc.. things that were critical in time past ago are not as critical (albeit they are still obviously serious) as they once were?

The classic casing point would be breast cancer. The same number of women are still being diagnosed with cancer, but due to screening programs, drugs and treatment the condition is being sorted out more easily (if the work 'easy' can every be used for such a condition). Ergo what was once 'critical' isn’t as critical as it used to be as people survive longer and recover faster as they have access to better medical care. The insurance companies would then be right to reflect their policies advances in medicine?

Another example – prostate cancer for men, the same number still receive the condition but there are less deaths and more people recover. That’s why the claim made on the Gleeson Scale has to attain a higher number than it used to.

A number of policies bought before 2002/2003 will simply say ‘cancer’ as the definition, these days is more likely to be ‘cancer of an invasive nature…’. Quite simply, medicine has moved on – why shouldn’t the insurance companies?