Life Assurance - at what levels do insurers ask for medicals etc. ?

property.advert

I am interested in the levels at which underwriters would ask for a proposer to either attend a medical or alternatively spend the time requesting medical records from a GP.

Now obviously, someone wanting £50,000 cover and appearing a regular risk is not going to be asked because the amount is so small and it is perhaps not worth it. On the other hand, someone wanting £5,000,000 worth of cover will probably be asked to undergo specific medical tests as the amount is significant.

I know age as well as amounts is significant. Someone 20 years old is a much lower risk than someone 40 years old for instance.

Somewhere between those two amounts is going to be a level where the risk profile requests further investigation. I am guessing that this is different for each age but some guidance would be appreciated.

starrystarry

All insurers have different levels and I doubt very much whether any company would be prepared to tell you what they are. I certainly wouldn't publicise what the levels are where I work.

Why do you want to avoid a medical or GP report?

OshayAway

Insurers do vary quite considerably on the levels that they automatically require addtional evidence and what that evidence involves.

This information is readily available to IFAs / brokers if they are willing to check. I'm not sure which insurer starrystarry works for but I've yet to find one that won't disclose this information.

I don't see a problem with choosing a provider on the basis that they won't request additional information providing that it is for the purpose of saving time and getting thepolicy on-risk as quickly as possible. Obviously, full disclosure is paramount.

sugared_honey

I'd say its more on a case by case basis, depending on your medical history as well as the amount of cover you wish to take out, if they need further information on a condition though, there isn't really a minimum amount of cover requested for them to not need doctor reports. As OshayAway advises, full disclosure is the key.
I think some eventualities are covered while they are requesting doctor reports if this is what you are concerned about.

SH

property.advert

starrystarry wrote: »

All insurers have different levels and I doubt very much whether any company would be prepared to tell you what they are. I certainly wouldn't publicise what the levels are where I work.

Why do you want to avoid a medical or GP report?

Why wouldn't you publicise this information ? National security ?

No-one ever said they wanted to avoid anything. Please do not read too much into my request.

property.advert

OshayAway wrote: »

Insurers do vary quite considerably on the levels that they automatically require addtional evidence and what that evidence involves.

This information is readily available to IFAs / brokers if they are willing to check. I'm not sure which insurer starrystarry works for but I've yet to find one that won't disclose this information.

I don't see a problem with choosing a provider on the basis that they won't request additional information providing that it is for the purpose of saving time and getting thepolicy on-risk as quickly as possible. Obviously, full disclosure is paramount.

Basically, L&G come back top for my requirements but the cheapest premiums by far are through a discounter. Way back when, the commission on level term assurance was astronomical, around 2 to 3 years worth of premiums in some cases. No way I'm handing that over to an IFA for 30 minutes work and paying 20 years of higher premiums !

property.advert

sugared_honey wrote: »

I'd say its more on a case by case basis, depending on your medical history as well as the amount of cover you wish to take out, if they need further information on a condition though, there isn't really a minimum amount of cover requested for them to not need doctor reports. As OshayAway advises, full disclosure is the key.
I think some eventualities are covered while they are requesting doctor reports if this is what you are concerned about.

SH

I fully understand risk. However, even if a proposition is put forward which is well within normal parameters, if the size of the insured amount is beyond auto acceptance, then delays come into place and extra questions are asked. I wish to avoid those and thus, if the ceiling is around where I need the insurance level to be, then I may adjust my requests.

OshayAway

sugared_honey wrote: »

I'd say its more on a case by case basis, depending on your medical history as well as the amount of cover you wish to take out, if they need further information on a condition though, there isn't really a minimum amount of cover requested for them to not need doctor reports.

The OP is clearly asking about financial underwriting limits assuming no medical issues. These requirements are based on set limits that depend on age and sum assured. This is not 'case by case' but automatically triggered.

OshayAway

property.advert wrote: »

Basically, L&G come back top for my requirements but the cheapest premiums by far are through a discounter. Way back when, the commission on level term assurance was astronomical, around 2 to 3 years worth of premiums in some cases. No way I'm handing that over to an IFA for 30 minutes work and paying 20 years of higher premiums !

I take your point but it seems like you're wanting to have your cake and eat it. If you chose a discounted route, like cavendish for example, you are typically paying a fee or vastly reduced commission in order to simply process your application. By comparrisson, a good IFA/protection broker would research the providers pre-application and thereby ascertain which insurer would be in your best interests to apply to. This service costs the IFA / broker something, their time.

In many cases, the latter route can save the prospective policy holder significant money when preferential terms are found. e.g. lower ratings based on high BMI, family medical history or past / present health issues. In this case, a good IFA / broker could save you time a hassle by researching the insurers they have access to due to financial underwriting limits. As you can imagine, the more providers that the IFA / broker has access to, the more effective the research is but also the more time consuming for the IFA / broker.

If you prefer not to pay for this level of service you can simply take a punt, pay your money and take a chance. It's worth noting that commission route does not cost more (in all but the tiniest % of cases) than going direct to the provider.

property.advert

OshayAway wrote: »

I take your point but it seems like you're wanting to have your cake and eat it. If you chose a discounted route, like cavendish for example, you are typically paying a fee or vastly reduced commission in order to simply process your application. By comparrisson, a good IFA/protection broker would research the providers pre-application and thereby ascertain which insurer would be in your best interests to apply to. This service costs the IFA / broker something, their time.

In many cases, the latter route can save the prospective policy holder significant money when preferential terms are found. e.g. lower ratings based on high BMI, family medical history or past / present health issues. In this case, a good IFA / broker could save you time a hassle by researching the insurers they have access to due to financial underwriting limits. As you can imagine, the more providers that the IFA / broker has access to, the more effective the research is but also the more time consuming for the IFA / broker.

If you prefer not to pay for this level of service you can simply take a punt, pay your money and take a chance. It's worth noting that commission route does not cost more (in all but the tiniest % of cases) than going direct to the provider.

I appreciate your points but the numbers do not stack up.

For instance, in my situation, paying L&G direct would be £55 per month whereas paying through Cavendish would be £40 per month. That is a 37.5% premium or £180 a year or £4500 over the life of the policy (25 years). It just isn't an option to anyone sane.

I was paid well, but I was not paid £9000 an hour (this job should take 30 minutes).

I think that if I were working near or in underwriting and someone asked, I'd tell them, or give a good hint. Don't know why people are so coy to be honest ?

Your argument of lower rates for high BMI etc. would seem to be copied from the "how to up your annuity" booklet; quite the inverse to life assurance quotes.

Life assurance is premium driven. It is a simple product, but there are limits where the computer pushes it out for human intervention. It is not rocket science, I just wondered if anyone knew and was willing to discuss those parameters. Apparently not.

OshayAway

property.advert wrote: »

Your argument of lower rates for high BMI etc. would seem to be copied from the "how to up your annuity" booklet; quite the inverse to life assurance quotes.

Nope, it applies to term assurance.