Travel insurance pre existing condition

ThinkingOutLoud_2

katejo wrote: »

I do wonder how many people have been caught out in the way and denied insurance pay outs for conditions which the medical practitioners didn't tell them about. If they have no symptoms, they might have no reason to ask.

So good news and well done for seeing it through.

I guess this is an awkward area. Whenever there is a possible indication a new diagnosis, the insurer is interested in hearing about anything that is diagnosed or is waiting the same - so they catch both sides of this coin.

They may cover the diagnosed condition or not.

BUT, typically they won't offer cover AT ALL if you are waiting for diagnosis. Tough, but how can they price fairly or give you full cover if they don't know the extent of the total risk.

So if ever you have a possible condition - you need to get diagnosis sorted to buy cover.

As to the process you had to go through to get that clarity - I suspect that is not untypical. Only your presence of mind and tenacity are not shared by all.

It is all to easy to miss this in the many declarations you have to read and acknowledge.

katejo

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

So good news and well done for seeing it through.

I guess this is an awkward area. Whenever there is a possible indication a new diagnosis, the insurer is interested in hearing about anything that is diagnosed or is waiting the same - so they catch both sides of this coin.

They may cover the diagnosed condition or not.

BUT, typically they won't offer cover AT ALL if you are waiting for diagnosis. Tough, but how can they price fairly or give you full cover if they don't know the extent of the total risk.

So if ever you have a possible condition - you need to get diagnosis sorted to buy cover.

As to the process you had to go through to get that clarity - I suspect that is not untypical. Only your presence of mind and tenacity are not shared by all.

It is all to easy to miss this in the many declarations you have to read and acknowledge.

Your reference to waiting for diagnosis reminds me of something which happened in early September 2016. I had just got a quote for a single trip policy for 4 days in Berlin but not yet purchased. I then had a minor accident and went to A & E. Doctors couldn't be sure whether I had a minor fracture or not until the swelling had reduced so they put it in a brace as a precaution and were happy for me to go on holiday. I would have to wait 3 weeks to know whether i had a fracture.
I wanted to buy my single trip insurance so I contacted the company and told them of a possible minor fracture and was willing to pay a bit more as a precaution. Not only did they refuse to cover the possible unconfirmed fracture but they refused point blank to cover me for anything at all. i was happy to exclude the fracture as I had an EHIC card.
Their refusal seemed crazy to me. Either I had a minor simple fracture or I didn't. It wasn't like a set of symptoms with various possible causes.
I contacted another insurer who allowed me to buy a policy but just excluded the possible fracture.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

katejo wrote: »

... I would have to wait 3 weeks to know whether i had a fracture.
I wanted to buy my single trip insurance so I contacted the company and told them of a possible minor fracture and was willing to pay a bit more as a precaution. Not only did they refuse to cover the possible unconfirmed fracture but they refused point blank to cover me for anything at all. i was happy to exclude the fracture as I had an EHIC card.
Their refusal seemed crazy to me. Either I had a minor simple fracture or I didn't. It wasn't like a set of symptoms with various possible causes.
I contacted another insurer who allowed me to buy a policy but just excluded the possible fracture.

This is tricky for the insurer.

They need facts to provide a quote and obviously no fracture or definitive fracture changes the risk / possible costs of treatment during your trip.

You are right that on holiday in Berlin, an EHIC will provide you with the same cover for hospital expenses as a local from Berlin (not same as NHS). That part of is kind of ok.

BUT
- if your fracture was worse and needed a plaster above the knee and that meant you had needed two seats legroom to be able to fly back - the EHIC does not cover your repatriation / those kind of costs. A risk you might accept, but a risk.
- imagine you fell getting down the steps to the Reichstag building - it is hard to say if hobbling due to your injured leg caused or contributed the fall or not and so you and your insurer are into a dispute over cause and so costs.

So some insurers prefer to avoid those disputes. So as you saw decline to cover you at all.

A more tricky example is someone with high blood pressure who suffers a heart attack. How do your determine what % was down to the pre-existing condition and what was unrelated ...

This can make life buying travel insurance and booking trips really difficult for anyone whose condition is being diagnosed or unstable or where treatment is still being tried to find the best outcome.

As you did it is worth trying several insurers - but even with the EHIC there are issue as above.

PS Going to the USA without full cover has cost some people their homes. And worse cost their children their homes when they pay for care and the air ambulance home.

>>> Think it through as you did. And know what risk you are taking ... but going beyond close at hand Europe is much riskier usually.

koru

Many of those who have posted on this thread could probably benefit from checking out Eurotunnel travel insurance (which is available whether you use the tunnel or not). https://www.eurotunnel.com/uk/traveller-info/insurance/travel-insurance/

They cover almost all pre-existings at no extra charge and with no need to disclose. The main exclusions are that you are not covered if, in the view of your doctor, you are not fit to travel (in which case you would be crazy to go, anyway) or your condition is not stable. They aren't the cheapest, but I prefer to be certain that I'm covered.

katejo

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

This is tricky for the insurer.

They need facts to provide a quote and obviously no fracture or definitive fracture changes the risk / possible costs of treatment during your trip.

You are right that on holiday in Berlin, an EHIC will provide you with the same cover for hospital expenses as a local from Berlin (not same as NHS). That part of is kind of ok.

BUT
- if your fracture was worse and needed a plaster above the knee and that meant you had needed two seats legroom to be able to fly back - the EHIC does not cover your repatriation / those kind of costs. A risk you might accept, but a risk.
- imagine you fell getting down the steps to the Reichstag building - it is hard to say if hobbling due to your injured leg caused or contributed the fall or not and so you and your insurer are into a dispute over cause and so costs.

So some insurers prefer to avoid those disputes. So as you saw decline to cover you at all.

A more tricky example is someone with high blood pressure who suffers a heart attack. How do your determine what % was down to the pre-existing condition and what was unrelated ...

This can make life buying travel insurance and booking trips really difficult for anyone whose condition is being diagnosed or unstable or where treatment is still being tried to find the best outcome.

As you did it is worth trying several insurers - but even with the EHIC there are issue as above.

PS Going to the USA without full cover has cost some people their homes. And worse cost their children their homes when they pay for care and the air ambulance home.

>>> Think it through as you did. And know what risk you are taking ... but going beyond close at hand Europe is much riskier usually.

My possible fracture was a minor hairline wrist fracture not a leg. I wouldn't have tried to go with a leg fracture.
The awful stories I have heard about US medical care/insurance have put me off ever going there. However honest I might be, the insurer might wriggle out of payment on a technicality...

ThinkingOutLoud_2

koru wrote: »

Many of those who have posted on this thread could probably benefit from checking out Eurotunnel travel insurance (which is available whether you use the tunnel or not). https://www.eurotunnel.com/uk/traveller-info/insurance/travel-insurance/

They cover almost all pre-existings at no extra charge and with no need to disclose. The main exclusions are that you are not covered if, in the view of your doctor, you are not fit to travel (in which case you would be crazy to go, anyway) or your condition is not stable. They aren't the cheapest, but I prefer to be certain that I'm covered.

koru - this may be a really useful find for quite a few people and their approach to pre-existing medical conditions certainly stands out from the norm. Good find!

One extra good news item is that their single trip policy does NOT have any age limit.

The key feature is, as koru says, is the lack of screening-process for every condition; this is replaced with an explicit requirement around how your doctor views your health to travel and not need any treatment for your conditions.

Unfortunately, but understandably, if you have any condition which may get worse or need treatment while travelling - then that is excluded. So that is not in my view "almost all" as koru says - many conditions don't get better.

This is the direct link to their declaration words.
https://www.eurotunnel.com/uploadedfiles/content/_pdf/insurance-declaration-and-summary-4th-april-2016.pdf

As ever - take care to read this carefully - if it suits, this may be very useful for many.

katejo

I read Koru's suggestion earlier and I am sure that 2 other companies were suggested as well as Eurotunnel? I looked at 1 of them (Ethical insurance) and at the conditions regarding stability. It mentions that the applicant must not have had any change of medication dosage in the past year. What happens if the dosage has been reduced (not increased)? Is he she still excluded? As an example I take medication for epilepsy but have been seizure free for over 30 years so the consultant is slowly reducing my medication. I see him again this week and he may reduce it again. Does that count as unstable even though I have no seizures? I haven't looked at Eurotunnel yet.

rs65

katejo wrote: »

I read Koru's suggestion earlier and I am sure that 2 other companies were suggested as well as Eurotunnel? I looked at 1 of them (Ethical insurance) and at the conditions regarding stability. It mentions that the applicant must not have had any change of medication dosage in the past year. What happens if the dosage has been reduced (not increased)? Is he she still excluded? As an example I take medication for epilepsy but have been seizure free for over 30 years so the consultant is slowly reducing my medication. I see him again this week and he may reduce it again. Does that count as unstable even though I have no seizures? I haven't looked at Eurotunnel yet.

I wouldn't say it counts as unstable but it is a change of dosage - which may or may not cause problems. Sounds like a risk insurers wouldn't want to take.

koru

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

koru - this may be a really useful find for quite a few people and their approach to pre-existing medical conditions certainly stands out from the norm. Good find!

One extra good news item is that their single trip policy does NOT have any age limit.

The key feature is, as koru says, is the lack of screening-process for every condition; this is replaced with an explicit requirement around how your doctor views your health to travel and not need any treatment for your conditions.

Unfortunately, but understandably, if you have any condition which may get worse or need treatment while travelling - then that is excluded. So that is not in my view "almost all" as koru says - many conditions don't get better.

Thanks. To be fair, it wasn't my find. It is mentioned on other threads, but as this thread had a number of posters who seemed unaware, I thought I'd add it here.

Just to be precise, the test is not whether your condition "may" get worse. It is whether there are signs that it "will" get worse. To my mind, that's a big difference. "May" means something is possible; "will" implies a high degree of certainty that it will get worse.

It isn't necessary that the condition will get better or has got better, or indeed that it stands any chance of getting better. It just has to be stable at the time of buying the insurance or booking the trip. Many (but not all) people with serious conditions (heart attack, stroke, cancer, diabetes) will pass this test.

Similarly, the test about treatment is whether you "know" you will need treatment during the trip. That implies a high degree of certainty, not just the possibility. If you know you will need treatment on your trip, you probably should not be travelling (though I'm sure there are exceptions) and you can't expect an insurer to cover something you know will happen, so I think it is a pretty narrow exclusion.

One big limitation is they only cover Europe.

koru

katejo wrote: »

I read Koru's suggestion earlier and I am sure that 2 other companies were suggested as well as Eurotunnel? I looked at 1 of them (Ethical insurance) and at the conditions regarding stability. It mentions that the applicant must not have had any change of medication dosage in the past year. What happens if the dosage has been reduced (not increased)? Is he she still excluded? As an example I take medication for epilepsy but have been seizure free for over 30 years so the consultant is slowly reducing my medication. I see him again this week and he may reduce it again. Does that count as unstable even though I have no seizures? I haven't looked at Eurotunnel yet.

That was on another thread. ETA does not refer to being stable, but it has a similar test, which is whether your meds have changed in the last 12 months. They make clear that this is any change, including a reduction in dose or even coming off the meds. I don't follow their logic, but perhaps sometimes a lower dosage does not indicate improvement? ETA look good, but only for anyone who no longer needs treatment or whose meds are unchanged for a year.