Cheaper life insurance policy - anyone recommend broker/insurer?

Strummer22

Hi,

My mum is 69 and is looking to purchase a life insurance policy. Lifesearch has been obtaining quotes for her. Originally we were quoted a premium of around £100/m, via LV or Royal London (both were similar) but after full medical history was taken, the quotes are around £170/m.

Apparently the main reason for the increase is that, when she recovered from breast cancer 15 years ago, she had to have radiotherapy (no chemo). The history of breast cancer was disclosed for the first quote. It seems that no radiotherapy = £100 premium, with radiotherapy = £170 premium, despite the same outcome, i.e., she's been cancer-free for 15 years.

She can't afford this increase so will have to reduce the cover or look elsewhere. Can anyone advise:

1) Is Lifesearch whole-of-market? If so there's probably not much point looking elsewhere; and

2) If not, does anyone know any insurers who might take a more nuanced view of her risk?

Thanks in advance!

csgohan4

The more older you get the more expensive

The more medical problems the more expensive

as you tick both you will have to accept it will be expensive

Always best to have these policies when younger. 

Lifesearch are whole of market I understand, I've used them before and no issues and generally competitive. 

They question is why do you need life assurance at this stage?. People generally cover only until retirement to cover the outstanding mortgage plus some living costs

if to cover funeral costs, saving up the premiums maybe reasonable path to consider as well

SaverRate

Cura Insurance Brokers 

dunstonh

My mum is 69

The average person does not have a need for life assurance beyond retirement.  So, does she have a financial need for it?

2) If not, does anyone know any insurers who might take a more nuanced view of her risk?

What nuances are you referring to?

The history of breast cancer was disclosed for the first quote. It seems that no radiotherapy = £100 premium, with radiotherapy = £170 premium, despite the same outcome, i.e., she's been cancer-free for 15 years.

From what you have said, the £100 figure is the clean health quote (i.e. no medical conditions whatsoever).    The jump to £170 won't be just because of radiotherapy/no radiotherapy.  It will be because of her medical history in full.   

Strummer22

dunstonh said:

My mum is 69

The average person does not have a need for life assurance beyond retirement.  So, does she have a financial need for it?

2) If not, does anyone know any insurers who might take a more nuanced view of her risk?

What nuances are you referring to?

The history of breast cancer was disclosed for the first quote. It seems that no radiotherapy = £100 premium, with radiotherapy = £170 premium, despite the same outcome, i.e., she's been cancer-free for 15 years.

From what you have said, the £100 figure is the clean health quote (i.e. no medical conditions whatsoever).    The jump to £170 won't be just because of radiotherapy/no radiotherapy.  It will be because of her medical history in full.   

1) My mum and I are buying a property together as tenants in common. Her share will be split between the beneficiaries in her will. I will get somewhat less than half. Therefore, I need sufficient funds to pay her beneficiaries without having to sell the property. Really, the financial need is mine. I'll be helping to pay the premiums.

2) The broker explicitly said the premium is much higher because of the level of cancer treatment required. I can't see that it would actually increase the risk so substantially in someone who has been cancer-free for 15 years (although no, I'm not a doctor). What I mean is, which insurers will actually get someone to think about the risk, rather than use the 'computer says no' approach.

3) I'm sure the £100 included that she had previously had cancer. But it was obtained a while ago, so my memory may not be correct.

dunstonh

2) The broker explicitly said the premium is much higher because of the level of cancer treatment required. I can't see that it would actually increase the risk so substantially in someone who has been cancer-free for 15 years (although no, I'm not a doctor). What I mean is, which insurers will actually get someone to think about the risk, rather than use the 'computer says no' approach.

Insurers have doctors and actuaries on their books.  For more complex cases, they manually look at them and do not rely on computer decisions (and the computer decision cases are based on statistical data - so its not a computer saying no but the insurer saying no).      

Normally on a case like this, you wouldn't necessarily submit the application to a provider without speaking with the underwriters first to get an indication of how they are likely to treat it.   e.g. rate it by 80% vs another says rate it by 60% vs another that excludes certain things.  Then you would submit it to the one that is best knowing what is the most likely outcome.

3) I'm sure the £100 included that she had previously had cancer. But it was obtained a while ago, so my memory may not be correct.

No. The initial quote assumes clean health.  Any rating due to health comes after underwriting.     She was never going to get £100pm.   I would have expected you to be told that right at the start.   

Weighty1

Strummer22 said:

dunstonh said:

My mum is 69

The average person does not have a need for life assurance beyond retirement.  So, does she have a financial need for it?

2) If not, does anyone know any insurers who might take a more nuanced view of her risk?

What nuances are you referring to?

The history of breast cancer was disclosed for the first quote. It seems that no radiotherapy = £100 premium, with radiotherapy = £170 premium, despite the same outcome, i.e., she's been cancer-free for 15 years.

From what you have said, the £100 figure is the clean health quote (i.e. no medical conditions whatsoever).    The jump to £170 won't be just because of radiotherapy/no radiotherapy.  It will be because of her medical history in full.   

1) My mum and I are buying a property together as tenants in common. Her share will be split between the beneficiaries in her will. I will get somewhat less than half. Therefore, I need sufficient funds to pay her beneficiaries without having to sell the property. Really, the financial need is mine. I'll be helping to pay the premiums.

2) The broker explicitly said the premium is much higher because of the level of cancer treatment required. I can't see that it would actually increase the risk so substantially in someone who has been cancer-free for 15 years (although no, I'm not a doctor). What I mean is, which insurers will actually get someone to think about the risk, rather than use the 'computer says no' approach.

3) I'm sure the £100 included that she had previously had cancer. But it was obtained a while ago, so my memory may not be correct.

In respect of 2) I think the broker was dumbing it down.  When it comes to clients with a past history of cancer it is not so much the treatment they had which is the issue (although it can be) it is more than grade and staging of the cancer.  For example, a very early breast cancer may just need a lumpectomy with no radiotherapy, then comes along the radiotherapy with more advanced cancers and chemo AND radiotherapy with more advanced still.

Each insurer has a different stance when it comes to how they assess past cancer diagnoses and the question is whether this was done by LifeSearch prior to the application being submitted? (they are whole of market btw). 

With a big firm like LifeSearch their advice is only as good as the adviser assigned to you so their recommendation could be better or worse than anothers.