Pre-existing Travel Insurance Guide Discussion

bashful

Thank you for the quick responses - most appreciated.
The £56 is for their Budget policy (no excesses) which says under declaration of medical conditions "Cover for pre-existing medical conditions is unavailable on the product you have selected." 
However, the cover includes baggage, cancellation, £5m medical expenses (for new problem(s), £5m repatriation, and several other benefits. Policy wording here . Maybe it's worth taking out after all!
Brian

Doc_N

bashful said:

Thank you for the quick responses - most appreciated.
The £56 is for their Budget policy (no excesses) which says under declaration of medical conditions "Cover for pre-existing medical conditions is unavailable on the product you have selected." 
However, the cover includes baggage, cancellation, £5m medical expenses (for new problem(s), £5m repatriation, and several other benefits. Policy wording here . Maybe it's worth taking out after all!
Brian

Personal choice, of course, but there are substantial risks involved in taking out a policy excluding pre-existing medical conditions, particularly when it relates to something like the heart. Insurers being insurers, they'll try very hard to attach any 'new' condition to the existing condition, and it's fairly easy with the heart.  If it were something isolated, such as a an ingrown toenail it would be different.

We still have EHIC arrangements with France of course while we're still in transition from the EU, but that doesn't by any means cover everything, and the biggest risk is the need for an air ambulance - probably well over £10,000.

All the advice is not to travel without medical cover, but, as I say, personal choice.

bashful

Good points well made!  I have taken your advice and have tried again with a few more insurers. I have managed to get a deal with the Post Office at £64 (with £12 cashback) having declared my pre-existing conditions and this includes waiving all excesses which, for only £1.98 for that option, seemed to make good sense! 

Simon7685

I am currently trying to get a reasonably priced policy for travelling to USA in May this year with pre existing health conditions.  We went in 2016 and 2017 and cover was around £140 for 4 of us.  this time it is for 2 and although the health issues are the same I am getting silly quotes starting at £450!  Last October we went to Rhodes and the cover was £31.66 now the same company wants nearly £500...
The main issue that is causing the price hike is I suffer from Prinzmetal Angina.  The stupid thing is that, for those who do not know this condition will not kill me or cause a heart attack or anything else, it is the coronary artery going into spasm which mimics angina type pain but does not affect the blood supply to the heart so causes no cardiac issues just discomfort.  I take medication and it stops it happening 99.9% of the time yet all the companies I have tried want £300 and more just for this condition, which essentially is an artery suffering from cramp!.  I also suffer with kidney stones on a regular basis and currently have stones in both kidneys,  I declare this along with high blood pressure and Asthma and without the Prinzmetal angina I can get cover for under £130.
I have tried comparison sites and dozens of individual companies and no reasonably priced cover to be had unless I do not disclose the Prinzmetal Angina.  Ideally I want to disclose it for peace of mind but not at a cost of £300 upover.  If anyone has any sites that cover heart issues at a decent price I would appreciate it if you could let me know.

koru

Simon7685 said:

I am currently trying to get a reasonably priced policy for travelling to USA in May this year with pre existing health conditions. 

Perhaps try www.americanvisitorinsurance.com. This gives you a list of policies and some seem to have reasonable cover for PMCs in the US.

ScareyLogon

I bought an annual worldwide policy with Staysure last year to cover a holiday in September this year. I declared several medical conditions (which they said they would cover). I rang up today to declare an additional health condition which has just surfaced, for which I don’t yet have a diagnosis. I was told that from this point onwards they would no longer cover the declared medical conditions until I have a diagnosis even though the new medical condition has nothing to do with any of the existing conditions. (They are giving me a very small refund to cover this.)  I’m confused – what’s the point of having an annual policy or buying the insurance well in advance of the holiday if a new health condition nullifies any cover for existing conditions? Luckily none of my existing conditions are serious and likely to affect me travelling but if they had been, I would have had no cover for a very expensive holiday I’ve got booked in Sept. I used this insurer which was expensive as I was led to believe it offered good cover (particularly for people with existing health conditions), and that is what you are paying for. I’ve never experienced this before with any other insurers and certainly wouldn’t use them again. It doesn’t make sense. Is this usual practice now? (It seems that you are paying and taking all the risk.)

Doc_N

ScareyLogon said:

I bought an annual worldwide policy with Staysure last year to cover a holiday in September this year. I declared several medical conditions (which they said they would cover). I rang up today to declare an additional health condition which has just surfaced, for which I don’t yet have a diagnosis. I was told that from this point onwards they would no longer cover the declared medical conditions until I have a diagnosis even though the new medical condition has nothing to do with any of the existing conditions. (They are giving me a very small refund to cover this.)  I’m confused – what’s the point of having an annual policy or buying the insurance well in advance of the holiday if a new health condition nullifies any cover for existing conditions? Luckily none of my existing conditions are serious and likely to affect me travelling but if they had been, I would have had no cover for a very expensive holiday I’ve got booked in Sept. I used this insurer which was expensive as I was led to believe it offered good cover (particularly for people with existing health conditions), and that is what you are paying for. I’ve never experienced this before with any other insurers and certainly wouldn’t use them again. It doesn’t make sense. Is this usual practice now? (It seems that you are paying and taking all the risk.)

It used not to be this way, but for some years now most, if not all, insurers operate this way. There is still some point to the policy, though, because it would cover the cancellation costs if you had to cancel because of the 'lost' cover.

Basically - and I don't defend this - insurers are saying that if there's a new condition after the purchase of the insurance they have the choice either to cover you for it, or pay the cancellation charges.

What bothers me about this is the number of people who assume, not unreasonably, that there's no need to inform the insurer - but then find when they make a claim that the insurer won't pay up.

luci

ScareyLogon said:

I bought an annual worldwide policy with Staysure last year to cover a holiday in September this year. I declared several medical conditions (which they said they would cover). I rang up today to declare an additional health condition which has just surfaced, for which I don’t yet have a diagnosis. I was told that from this point onwards they would no longer cover the declared medical conditions until I have a diagnosis even though the new medical condition has nothing to do with any of the existing conditions. (They are giving me a very small refund to cover this.)  I’m confused – what’s the point of having an annual policy or buying the insurance well in advance of the holiday if a new health condition nullifies any cover for existing conditions? Luckily none of my existing conditions are serious and likely to affect me travelling but if they had been, I would have had no cover for a very expensive holiday I’ve got booked in Sept. I used this insurer which was expensive as I was led to believe it offered good cover (particularly for people with existing health conditions), and that is what you are paying for. I’ve never experienced this before with any other insurers and certainly wouldn’t use them again. It doesn’t make sense. Is this usual practice now? (It seems that you are paying and taking all the risk.)

It's a pity you didn't wait until you had a firm diagnosis before contacting your insurer. No insurer covers undiagnosed conditions. The insurer can indeed refuse cover, as the risk has changed. Even with a firn diagnosis, the insurer may decline to continue cover. I feel that's unfair, but the ombudsman agrees with the insurer.

Are Staysure continuing to cover you for everything apart from your medical conditions, or have they cancelled the policy? If it's the former, you should check whether you would be expected to pay the additional premium to cover your current medical conditions again once you have had your diagnosis.

twopenny

It's more the unresolved diagnosis.

They can't calculate a policy to cover what no one knows. As soon as you have a name to put to the problem you should be good to go again.

sheramber

Doc_N said:

ScareyLogon said:

I bought an annual worldwide policy with Staysure last year to cover a holiday in September this year. I declared several medical conditions (which they said they would cover). I rang up today to declare an additional health condition which has just surfaced, for which I don’t yet have a diagnosis. I was told that from this point onwards they would no longer cover the declared medical conditions until I have a diagnosis even though the new medical condition has nothing to do with any of the existing conditions. (They are giving me a very small refund to cover this.)  I’m confused – what’s the point of having an annual policy or buying the insurance well in advance of the holiday if a new health condition nullifies any cover for existing conditions? Luckily none of my existing conditions are serious and likely to affect me travelling but if they had been, I would have had no cover for a very expensive holiday I’ve got booked in Sept. I used this insurer which was expensive as I was led to believe it offered good cover (particularly for people with existing health conditions), and that is what you are paying for. I’ve never experienced this before with any other insurers and certainly wouldn’t use them again. It doesn’t make sense. Is this usual practice now? (It seems that you are paying and taking all the risk.)

It used not to be this way, but for some years now most, if not all, insurers operate this way. There is still some point to the policy, though, because it would cover the cancellation costs if you had to cancel because of the 'lost' cover.

Basically - and I don't defend this - insurers are saying that if there's a new condition after the purchase of the insurance they have the choice either to cover you for it, or pay the cancellation charges.

What bothers me about this is the number of people who assume, not unreasonably, that there's no need to inform the insurer - but then find when they make a claim that the insurer won't pay up.

The problem for the insurance company is without a diagnosis they cannot assess the risk or whether anything arising was due to a pre exsitng condition or the undiagnosed one.

They are not medical experts so must work on probabliities.

It is not new  When we travelled in 2028 we experienced the same problem when the appointment for a test that my husband was to have was given  for after our return. Axa  declined any medical cover except accidental injury. On a trip to Canada that was not acceptable to us.

After consulting our GP he advised the travel insurance of the test he was having and they accepted that  with a £50 increase in the premium for full medical cover.