Travel insurance pre existing condition

teddysmum

Societies for certain conditions (eg diabetes) have contacts with insurers, who are willing to cover people with the condition (though probably not for anything directly caused by that condition), but won't necessarily be the cheapest option ; just being likely to actually offer some insurance.

katejo

In my case a reduction in medication is definitely a good sign. Any risk could be cancelled out by a reduction in side effects from the medication.
This reminds me of a discussion which I had with an insurer years ago. According to them, any patient who had a regular check up and an adjustment to medication as a result must be unstable whilst the patient who failed to attend the check up (and so had no change to medication) was stable just because the medication hadn't been changed!! I couldn't make them see the lack of logic.

rs65

katejo wrote: »

In my case a reduction in medication is definitely a good sign. Any risk could be cancelled out by a reduction in side effects from the medication.

Presumably there is a risk that your previous dosage was actually controlling the epilepsy therefore a reduction in dosage could bring back the symptoms?

koru

katejo wrote: »

According to them, any patient who had a regular check up and an adjustment to medication as a result must be unstable whilst the patient who failed to attend the check up (and so had no change to medication) was stable just because the medication hadn't been changed!! I couldn't make them see the lack of logic.

I'm sure they understand that not all changes in meds mean higher risk. But they want the test to be objective. Whether medication has changed is an objective fact. If the test was whether there has been a change in medication that increases the risk, that would be more subject to debate. What they meant was that they can't get into these kind of "what if?" arguments with individuals; they need an objective test which they stick to.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

teddysmum wrote: »

Societies for certain conditions (eg diabetes) have contacts with insurers, who are willing to cover people with the condition (though probably not for anything directly caused by that condition), but won't necessarily be the cheapest option ; just being likely to actually offer some insurance.

You are right most all of the major charities have tied up with an insurer.

I believe most times their selected insurer will screen your conditions and may offer cover including or in some cases excluding your condition. This is the usually solution.

What may be so attractive about Eurotunnel's offer for some with conditions is the fact you do not have to reveal your conditions - only confirm its stability and that it is not expected to worsen and it need treatment.

That may not work for all. But it may be useful for those who can declare that and the specifics Rhey require (do not rely on my paraphrasing - their words are the ones to check again. they would pay the same price as everyone else.

Likewise the other insurers listed above may be worth a check. Their slightly different approach around stable conditions may be better for a few too.

An interesting side-question is what if any commission the charity get for linking to the insurer. It would be nice if they secured a discount for those with their condition ...

ThinkingOutLoud_2

koru wrote: »

I'm sure they understand that not all changes in meds mean higher risk. But they want the test to be objective. Whether medication has changed is an objective fact. If the test was whether there has been a change in medication that increases the risk, that would be more subject to debate. What they meant was that they can't get into these kind of "what if?" arguments with individuals; they need an objective test which they stick to.

True but I sympathise. If your doctor thinks you are well enough and your condition has improved so your dose can be reduced - then in theory your risk reduces.

But I can see while you shift doses - it may be revealed that your reduction was too ambitious.

As we holiday usually for a short time - stability of condition and medication is seen to infer likelihood that you won't need treatment abroad.

Eurotunnel's approach would seem to overcome that improvement in condition. :j

katejo

The main treatment for my seizures was surgery for a benign brain tumour 38 years ago. Not just medication

koru

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

As we holiday usually for a short time - stability of condition and medication is seen to infer likelihood that you won't need treatment abroad.

Eurotunnel's approach would seem to overcome that improvement in condition. :j

Arguably, Eurotunnel's wording is a bit more flexible, because when we talk about a medical condition being stable, we mean "not getting worse". If I was considering buying Eurotunnel cover and my condition had improved in the last year, I would probably ask my doctor if they considered my condition to be stable. If they say yes, I'd ask them to note it on the file, in case I had to make a claim and the insurer wanted to check this.

If they say no, I'd try to persuade them, by asking if they think my condition is "unstable". If they agree it is not unstable, them surely it must follow that it is stable?