12 month insurance... What do you do when your pet has a very "minor" problem?

Tunstallstoven

Hi all

One of my dogs recently had a lump removed from here back leg. We first noticed this well over a year ago (maybe more than 2) and whilst the dog was having her annual vaccinations we mentioned it to the vet. She said keep an eye on it but that it was nothing to worry about. Fast forward two years and it very slowly started getting bigger and the vet said to have it removed. Because it was first noticed over a year ago, we're not covered for it.

What worries me is how nervous it has made me feel about discussing things with the vet in the future. I'm a cautious person by nature. But let's say for example that my dog develops a small innocuous looking problem elsewhere... On the one hand I'll want to get it checked out to be on the safe side. But now I'll be far less likely to do so because I know as soon as I see the vet the 12 month clock will be ticking. It might be nothing at the time, but it might be a problem (or a different but similar problem) later down the line, but by then I won't be covered.

I'm sure I'm not the first to be :mad: about the way this works, but I wondered how others feel, any experiences others have had, what you do about it, etc.

Many thanks

Max

KxMx

Those policies are cheap for a reason I'm afraid.

As you are not covered for the lump on current insurer, it may be worth looking into "lifetime" insurance, and speaking to the companies to see what exclusions they would impose around the lump.

If you're not covered now it might be a viable idea to change to a better policy to aliveate those worries in the future.

sheramber

That is the drawback of a 12 month policy. Much better to have a policy with a sum of money available for each condition until the sum is used up.

Or a policy that reinstates an amount for vet fees each policy year and your dog is covered for that amount each year for the life as long as you renew the policy.

These polices cost more than a 12 month one but for a reason. They provide much better cover.

krlyr

Yes, this is the compromise with taking a cheaper, 12-month policy.

To not declare any health issues (even if you hadn't seen a vet) would be insurance fraud - not to mention you could ignore something minor that could end up being something more serious.

elsien

krlyr wrote: »

not to mention you could ignore something minor that could end up being something more serious.

This is the bit that would worry me, having had a dog with an inocuous looking wart that turned out to be cancerous. Lifetime cover for me every time.

Olivia_M_Kane

Yes, this is the compromise with taking a cheaper, 12-month policy.

Tunstallstoven

Thanks for the replies and advice. I do see where you are all coming from and of course I understood and accepted the risk involved in this kind of policy when I took it out.

But in spite of that, another part of me feels differently and that the 12 month clock should only start ticking when the "problem" is actually a problem. Not when it is dismissed by the vet as nothing. These are my first two dogs, and so I have learnt a lot about dogs in general these last few years. I therefore might have at times asked the vet about something that was totally normal. You may laugh, but an example that springs to mind is those funny eyelids dogs have that come in from the side. When I first saw these on my dog I thought they were an unnatural problem. I asked my vet and they re-assured me they were perfectly normal and natural, and are just more prominent on some dogs than others.

That question never got written in the notes. But if it did, would I then not be covered for a problem that arose from the eyelid years down the line?

I know the lump is a different matter. But I personally have a lot of lumps under the skin over my body and thought that what my dog had was likely the same. The vet felt this to be so as well, and therefore did not consider it a problem and said to leave it alone. Should the same happen again, I'd have that strange dilemma of thinking even if it is not a problem now maybe it should be addressed before it does come a problem in the future.

That being said, I do think it is time to re-consider how I insure them. When these current policies come to the year end, I think I'll be getting quotes from elsewhere... Perhaps with a stiff drink first so that the premiums don't knock me over!

krlyr

But the lump was a pre-existing condition 2 years ago. It may have not been a problematic one, but it was there. If you had declared it when you took out the policy (which they usually ask on the 'any pre-existing conditons bit), they would have likely informed you at the time that it wouldn't be covered.

Same applies for 'for life' policies - anything that existed before the policy is pre-existing. Otherwise, no one would take out pet insurance until they knew there was an issue, they'd avoid going to the vet until they'd taken out a policy, and would then try to claim it. Insurance companies would be paying out more in claims than was paid in through premiums, and they'd go bust.

Another option is to look at the few companies that offer cover for pre-existing conditions. They usually have rules, e.g. the pet must be treatment-free for 24 months, but it's one option when there's something pre-existing you want to try to get cover for in the future.

Insurance companies will often make blanket exclusions, e.g. one pre-existing skin lump voiding any future lump claims - because they can be related. I've heard of some people asking their vet to make a statement that, to the best of their professional knowledge, they would deem the two unrelated..but it's a risk you take if you don't take out a lifetime policy when a dog is young & symptom-free.

Tunstallstoven

But when the lump was first noticed and checked out by the vet we already had the policy running... It was not prior to the policy being taken out...

krlyr

Seagull27 wrote: »

But when the lump was first noticed and checked out by the vet we already had the policy running... It was not prior to the policy being taken out...

12-month policies do not run on though, it's as if you've taken out a new policy each year and anything prior to your current policy is deemed pre-existing. Sorry, worded my last reply a bit badly - you probably should have declared it at the time or at "renewal" of your policy, but they don't renew in the same way as a lifetime policy where conditions discovered are included as long as you pay your premium each year.

Tunstallstoven

No need to apologise, I appreciate the time and help

We were told that we don't have to inform them of any changes to their health, etc. when it comes to renewal time. Also, certain things about the policy - such as no claims for the first 14 days, etc - only apply when the policy is first taken out, not at renewal. Furthermore, if an injury/illness occurs in month six of the policy, it is still covered for 12 months so long as you renew. So there are quite a few aspects of the policy that roll over...

If I see my vet tomorrow and tell her the dog's ear looks a little pinker than usual, she might reply that this is a normal sign of ageing, or it's down to time of the year (arbitrary example; not based on anything in the real dog world!). So I would not tell my insurer about it. They'd be nothing to tell. But by all accounts if the ear developed a problem over a year later I might not be covered. And all because I checked it with the vet.

I dunno, just seems wrong to me... Makes me feel that it would be best to go to decent dog forums in the first instance and at least get a preliminary "it's absolutely nothing" or "go to the vet". At least in the first case a nothing would not be on their record then, potentially voiding any future real problems that occurred in the same area , or of similar nature.