Multiple private health insurance policies

Andelko

Is it possible/allowed/legal to have more than one private health insurance policy?

Dr_Crypto

Why would you want to? 

Sandtree

You could but as above, why would you want to? Its not going to be the case that if you have three policies that you’d have a gall bladder removal done three times... the insurances settle directly with the hospitals so you won’t get one to pay for the treatment and the other two to give you a cash settlement.

Andelko

It's not about settling the claim multiple times but coordinating benefits. If Insurance 1 doesn't cover gall bladder removal, I would claim via Insurance 2 that does. I can think of cases where it's not about "wanting" to have multiple health insurance policies but it happens like in case of married couples who each have access to a health insurance plan through their employer. Can you think of any downsides to having multiple health insurance policies? Can it make claims more complicated if multiple insurers have to talk to each other if there is any reason why they should? 

Weighty1

The downside is first and foremost the cost.  It's a cost effective benefit from an employees perspective as you only pay the benefit in kind for it, however, PMI cover is relatively expensive so as you aged it would become a pretty expensive way to ensure total coverage.  You'd probably be better just having one totally top of the range plan than 3 moderately comprehensive ones.

dunstonh

Why not have a more comprehensive plan, that gives you the coverage you want, than 2 or 3 budget ones?

Sandtree

Andelko said:
I can think of cases where it's not about "wanting" to have multiple health insurance policies but it happens like in case of married couples who each have access to a health insurance plan through their employer. Can you think of any downsides to having multiple health insurance policies? Can it make claims more complicated if multiple insurers have to talk to each other if there is any reason why they should? 

I think it is sufficiently rare that people do it given the cost of PMI that there probably arent many downsides. You would need to read the terms fo the policies to see if there are any clauses about “if covered by another policy”, if all have it then the costs are potentially shared across the insurances and so certain pain of each having to liase with each other but I’d guess most dont and so you’d just chose which one to claim from.

Almost certainly you’d be better off trying to get a fully comprehensive policy via one of your respective employers than pay for two different policies even if you are only paying the BIK.

Andelko

dunstonh said:

Why not have a more comprehensive plan, that gives you the coverage you want, than 2 or 3 budget ones?

It might be less expensive paying BIK for two insurance plans than one comprehensive. Also, corporate health plans offered via employers have a set value you pay BIK for and this value doesn't change regardless of your age or previous claims. Furthermore, they make no exceptions for pre-existing conditions and there is no need to disclose previous conditions. 

Sandtree

Andelko said:

dunstonh said:

Why not have a more comprehensive plan, that gives you the coverage you want, than 2 or 3 budget ones?

It might be less expensive paying BIK for two insurance plans than one comprehensive. Also, corporate health plans offered via employers have a set value you pay BIK for and this value doesn't change regardless of your age or previous claims. Furthermore, they make no exceptions for pre-existing conditions and there is no need to disclose previous conditions. 

Corporate PMI plans vary even more than personal ones do. There are corporate policies that cover all pre-existing conditions and your personal contribution doesnt change based on claims or age (the group policy cost will vary by this but the price is split evenly across employees) but this tends to be the bells and whistles variety... there even used to be the other extreme where the PMI would only trigger if the NHS waiting time was over X weeks and they cover no pre-existing conditions with no moratorium. 

On the surface of the matter your employers are at least from one angle provider the higher quality solution so what is it that Policy 1 covers that Policy 2 doesnt AND what does Policy 2 cover that Policy 1 doesnt? I’d be surprised if the difference is sufficient to justify the cost especially if either of you are higher rate tax payers.

Andelko

Sandtree said:

Andelko said:

dunstonh said:

Why not have a more comprehensive plan, that gives you the coverage you want, than 2 or 3 budget ones?

It might be less expensive paying BIK for two insurance plans than one comprehensive. Also, corporate health plans offered via employers have a set value you pay BIK for and this value doesn't change regardless of your age or previous claims. Furthermore, they make no exceptions for pre-existing conditions and there is no need to disclose previous conditions. 

Corporate PMI plans vary even more than personal ones do. There are corporate policies that cover all pre-existing conditions and your personal contribution doesnt change based on claims or age (the group policy cost will vary by this but the price is split evenly across employees) but this tends to be the bells and whistles variety... there even used to be the other extreme where the PMI would only trigger if the NHS waiting time was over X weeks and they cover no pre-existing conditions with no moratorium. 

On the surface of the matter your employers are at least from one angle provider the higher quality solution so what is it that Policy 1 covers that Policy 2 doesnt AND what does Policy 2 cover that Policy 1 doesnt? I’d be surprised if the difference is sufficient to justify the cost especially if either of you are higher rate tax payers.

I wrote a reply and then accidentally deleted it so I'll keep it short this time. I haven't done the detailed analysis yet but I can give you a couple of examples. Policy 1 doesn't provide cover for long term or repeating treatments except for cancer. There is no cover for complementary and alternative treatments like chiropractor and there are no extras like cover for prescriptions glasses some dental work etc. Policy 2 makes no exclusions for long term treatments, comes with extras like alternative and complementary therapies and provides some basic dental cover and covers prescription glasses. Of course, the decision will depend on my needs but I'm yet to do the detailed analysis to see whether the benefits would outweigh the cost. At this point, I was just wondering if it's allowed to have two health insurance policies and are there any downsides to this except for the most obvious one. 

TELLIT01

The OP does refer to policies through employers and these generally have fewer exclusions than those taken out privately.  There are the tax implications of benefit in kind to be taken into account and the question the cost of adding a spouse to one policy rather than having a policy just in the name of the employee of each company.  The OP does need to investigate the detail of what is being provided by each policy in order to come to a reasoned decision.