Critical Illness Claim Statistics - 2009

Nicko67

Claims ratio? As in the number of policies that exist and the number claims made every year?

If so, I'm not aware that these are published. Even if they were I'm not sure of the relevance to this discussion.

pedro123456

Correct Sou,but my guess is they know what i'm asking, and that they are choosing to avoid answering, or more likely they haven't a clue of the CLAIM rate.

Lets say there is a claim rate of 10%, that's 10 people out of 100, correct Nicko and Oshay?

Out of those 10 people 90% (insurance companies own figures) get paid.

So in effect, out of every 100 people who take out CI insurance only 9 people will ever have to claim.

If you are one of those 9 people then fair enough the product works, but my opinion is that paying premiums on a 9% chance of having a critical illness claim PAID (not suffered) isn't a good bet.

If indeed CI products were so good for the individual person, then by inference they are not in the interest of the IC, and seeing that the IC's and ABI are bending over backwards to sell/promote them to the public indicates they are very profitable for the Insurance Industry

The public have to think of IC's as Bookies, and that the IC/bookies are constantly looking for that "edge", looking at ways of stacking books in their favour.
The public may have an occasional good result, but in the end the public loose,and the bookies have the punters pants down.

I suppose the only difference is that the IC's are the Trainers & Jockeys, and of course when there is a decision to make they are the Stewards too !!!!

starrystarry

pedro123456 wrote: »

The public have to think of IC's as Bookies, and that the IC/bookies are constantly looking for that "edge", looking at ways of stacking books in their favour.
The public may have an occasional good result, but in the end the public loose,and the bookies have the punters pants down.

I suppose the only difference is that the IC's are the Trainers & Jockeys, and of course when there is a decision to make they are the Stewards too !!!!

All insurance could be viewed as a "gamble", not just CI. The whole point of any insurance is that a group of people pay into a pot in the knowledge that a small amount of those people will take money out of the pot. That applies to car insurance, house insurance, pet insurance etc etc.

Of course the ICs make money out of it, that's what they're there for. Do you think they should make a loss on it?

I think you'll find the FOS is the steward by the way.

Nicko67

Thanks Starry, my sentiments exactly.

The fact that thousands of millions have been paid out for CI seems to have been (conveniently) overlooked again. When I mentioned it before all I got back was a sarcastic comment.

And I'm still no closer to finding out what lies behind this irrational hatred of the industry....

Soubrette

I suppose this is the kind of website that at least attempts to show why some people do think that the claims ratio is relevant. Unfortunately the figures are a few years old and doesn't include Critical Illness Cover.

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/insurance/which-insurances-are-still-ripping-you-off-3141.aspx

In my opinion some insurance is good and some is not so good and some are down right rip offs.

When I took out my credit card and activated it, I was asked if I would like to take out insurance that would cover me if my card was ever stolen or used fraudulently. In the terms and conditions of the card, it quite clearly states that as long as I have alerted them to the card being stolen then I would only be liable for the first £50 of losses and I also happen to know that in practise, they will usually waive those as well. When I asked the sales girl, she agreed that this was the case and that she was offering peace of mind. I told her I would keep £50 just in case and that would give me peace of mind

In this instance the chances of my total premiums ever being less than the my losses would be remote. Added to that the loss of £50 is not an amount where I need peace of mind. I would say for most people, that insurance would be a rip off.

Buildings insurance however is a different kettle of fish - I don't happen to have a couple of hundred thousand pounds not doing much and so even though the risk of damage to my house is low and I'm likely to pay out more than I get back - I can't afford to be among the unlucky few, so buildings is in.

I view the insurance industry with a healthy scepticism, their job is to make money out of me and my job is to try and get the cover I want for less than they really want me to pay and not be conned into believing that all insurance is value for money/peace of mind or whatever sales gimmick is thrown at me.

Sou

Nicko67

I think a healthy scepticism is exactly right. As you say, not all insurance is worth the money - I wouldn't touch credit card cover, mobile phone protection, MPPI even, with a barge pole.

But I believe it's vital that everyone considers CIC. Anyone who lumps it in with the above examples shows a lack of understanding of protection policies.

pedro123456

Stary

Thanks for your comments, in some ways I agree with you (don’t get too excited Nicko67)

1- All insurance is a gamble, however they aint marketed as such, they are marketed as “must have, cant do without, peace of mind products”, the gamble element to insurance rears its head when the need for a claim is made, its then you know if your lucks in or out.
2- I also agree that the IC’s are about making money, no problem there, they shouldn’t be trading at a loss obviously, do they make too much money , if so from who?, well that’s down to opinions I suppose, healthy profits one thing etc.
3- As for the pot, you, me, my friends , your friends understand and except the principle, I aint convinced the pot holder does though.

To finish on a lighter note, I consider the BHA to have the FOS role.


Nicko67

I wasn’t aware that I was “conveniently overlooking” thousands of millions in pay outs (although that does seem a lot of cash) I was merely asking what was the claims rate that’s all, and obviously you don’t know, so that’s the end of that !!

Please let me also assure you I have no hatred for anyone or any industry, I only like to put my point of view and opinions over, sorry they aint the same as your but, you know, its all about ideas and opinions aint it?, and as opposed to sarcasm, it was a little tongue in cheek humour, I dint mean to upset you. :kisses3:

Sou

Good principles, I know what you mean…….don’t let um fool ya? :beer:

Oh have a look at this Nicko67, although it aint to detailed it may help with the claims to premiums thing, you have a look too Oshay.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6914820.ece

Clever fella that Antonia Senior……………………..or is it a bird….O>

I wonder if his/her story was the inspiration behind the Coronation Street story line, remind me not to take up fishing off a boat!!!

http://journalisted.com/article?id=1593293&sim_showall=yes


“Come into my web” said the spider to the fly

OshayAway

pedro123456 wrote: »

Lets say there is a claim rate of 10%, that's 10 people out of 100, correct Nicko and Oshay?

Err... no, I've already said I don't know where you have got that from. Personally, I have never seen a statistic like that published anywhere. If you are able to quote a source, please do. You have asked me to quote sources for stats in other threads and I have obliged. You can't just make a statement of ‘fact’ and then put the onus on me to disprove it when you haven’t proved it in the first place!

Even if the statistic does exist, it would not have much value as, being a long term product, critical illness plans have not been around as long as the terms of cover. Critical illness cover was introduced less than 20 years ago. Terms can be as long as 40 years. Not to mention that CIC has become vastly more popular in recent years. So your 10% is irrelevant. Where would you get a stat like that anyway?

However, even if it is true, it still means that only 1 in over 150 plans are declined at claim 0.07%) and dropping year on year.

As for your notion that CIC has no value to the policy holder because it makes money for the insurance company, you've been saying this for how long now? over a year? Do you genuinely really believe this? If you do I, or someone else on here can explain to you the concept of insurance but I can't believe you are that naive.

Nicko67

pedro123456 wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6914820.ece

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Typical journo.

pedro123456

Good morning Oshay, where you been hiding?