Serious mental illness and travel insurance

andycov30

I have bipolar and PTSD and am medicated and have been most of my life. I have looked online, extensively, for quotes for travel insurance for a one-month trip to Colombia. There are significant price variations. Making sure to disclose my conditions and answer all the questions truthfully the highest quote I found was over £700.00 the lowest £190.00. Each policy seems to give similar cover. However, when I exclude any mental health conditions the quotes are £100's of lower. Interestingly, the companies that push themselves as being specialist providers for people with mental illnesses seem to be the ones whose quotes were highest. I was interested to find out what the extra cost for travel insurance would be for various physical illnesses, such as high blood pressure, diabetes etc. It is clear from the quotes that discrimination is prevalent and mental illness attracts a higher premium compared to not only those with no mental illness but also when compared to those with physical illnesses. The sad fact is that travel insurance is essential on many levels and non-disclosure is more likely than not to void any policy taken out should you need to claim and so those of us that have mental illnesses, especially if you are currently being medicated for it, have no alternative but to pay more. Holidays are  beneficial for our  mental health , even more so  for those that have pre-existing mental illness that are  life-long .Many people that have such diagnosis like bipolar schizophrenia, GAD,  depression PTSD and others are usually people that are less financially well off .despite the latter conditions being serious ones , perhaps some kind of documentation from GP’s/consultants indicating that an individual is compliant with their medications and in a stable phase could alleviate the concerns of insurers and make way to lower premiums ?

Sandtree

Try getting travel insurance with cancer, heart failure etc and you will see a serious physical condition is just as difficult as a mental one... 47% of adults in the US (couldn't find a UK equivalent stat) have high blood pressure so not really comparable. 

One of the major issues with mental health conditions, unlike physical, is that when you start having a relapse/episode it can impact your ability to stick to your medicine regime, its a vicious circle. When a diabetic starts feeling the impact of hypoglycaemia then 99% of the time they know to take action. 

andycov30

“

Sandtree said:

Try getting travel insurance with cancer, heart failure etc and you will see a serious physical condition is just as difficult as a mental one... 47% of adults in the US (couldn't find a UK equivalent stat) have high blood pressure so not really comparable. 

One of the major issues with mental health conditions, unlike physical, is that when you start having a relapse/episode it can impact your ability to stick to your medicine regime, its a vicious circle. When a diabetic starts feeling the impact of hypoglycaemia then 99% of the time they know to take action. 

You are correct to a point when you say :
"One of the major issues with mental health conditions, unlike physical, is that when you start having a relapse/episode it can impact your ability to stick to your medicine regime, its a vicious circle. When a diabetic starts feeling the impact of hypoglycaemia then 99% of the time they know to take action”

The issue is one of parity and cost. There are infinite physical illnesses and the same is true of mental illnesses. Also, like physical illness/disability there are different levels and associated impacts on the person, some are medicated some are not. For instance, heart disease, high blood pressure diabetes etc, the seriousness of those few conditions is not equal amongst those that have them. Depression, GAD, BPD, PTSD and many more mental health conditions are not always medicated and those that have such conditions and many more are likely treated with talking therapies and no medications. What would be the cost to the insurer if a person had a heart attack, required emergency treatment, admitted as an inpatient for X amount of days? A person with bipolar, compliant with medication, stable for a year or more stops taking their medication during their holiday (less likely to occur during a month holiday but as you say it happens), what would the cost to the insurer be? Less than the person that has a heart attack? Medication for high blood pressure is not perfect, life styles choices can maximise their effectiveness but statically I’d say someone with high blood pressure and medicated is more likely to cost an insurer more than someone with a serious mental illness that stops taking their medication and becomes unstable. Most with serious mental health diagnosis will travel with someone, be it their partner or a friend; or several friends. Should that person with bipolar, schizophrenia have a relapse, it is likely that their travel companions would be able to deal with the issue, consequently there would be no cost to the insurer.

 

It is not a given that people with an unstable mental health diagnosis are dangerous, a threat to others or require the same type of interventions/costs that might be needed for a physical illness when they become unstable.

 

Insurers should apply common sense when attaching higher premiums to someone that has a mental illness. When it comes to people with mental illness and travel, the cost to the insurer is more likely than not to be less than someone with a physical illness and therefore the premiums for mental illness should reflect this.

elsien

Hospitalisation can be expensive, whether for a mental or physical health condition. You talk about insurers applying common sense, but they go on the statistics and the assessed risks. 

What evidence other than supposition do you have for saying the costs for mental health are “more likely than not” to be less than those for physical health? 

Sandtree

andycov30 said:
It is not a given that people with an unstable mental health diagnosis are dangerous, a threat to others or require the same type of interventions/costs that might be needed for a physical illness when they become unstable.

 

Insurers should apply common sense when attaching higher premiums to someone that has a mental illness. When it comes to people with mental illness and travel, the cost to the insurer is more likely than not to be less than someone with a physical illness and therefore the premiums for mental illness should reflect this.

In my limited experience I would argue they are more commonly a threat to themselves... that isn't to say they all reckless or self harm just that its more likely than being a threat to others.

Insurers don't apply common sense but instead statistics, it isn't a bunch of people sitting around a table debating how they feel about someone who's had psychotic episodes but a trawl through their database showing they claim 4 times as often and typically require a 3 week stay in hospital at an nightly cost of £1,500 and so the premium load needs to be X

andycov30

Sandtree said:

andycov30 said:
It is not a given that people with an unstable mental health diagnosis are dangerous, a threat to others or require the same type of interventions/costs that might be needed for a physical illness when they become unstable.

 

Insurers should apply common sense when attaching higher premiums to someone that has a mental illness. When it comes to people with mental illness and travel, the cost to the insurer is more likely than not to be less than someone with a physical illness and therefore the premiums for mental illness should reflect this.

In my limited experience I would argue they are more commonly a threat to themselves... that isn't to say they all reckless or self harm just that its more likely than being a threat to others.

Insurers don't apply common sense but instead statistics, it isn't a bunch of people sitting around a table debating how they feel about someone who's had psychotic episodes but a trawl through their database showing they claim 4 times as often and typically require a 3 week stay in hospital at an nightly cost of £1,500 and so the premium load needs to be X

Most of what you say is 100% correct.However it is a matter where and how they are treated.Not being prevented physically from travelling people mentally unstable in other countries can be returned home if necessary, escorted if need be.The best and most effective treatment will be given by their own carers and medical teams from their own country with whom they will be familiar with and have their full medical history .A three week stay in an unfamiliar country is likely to exacerbate their situation.The way that people will mental illness are treated is quite different to the way people with physical injuries are treated.Hospitalisation is always a last resort.Here in the UK home treatment is the  preferred option as people with mental illness recover better in their homes supervised by mental health nurses and carers.If the latter is not common practice it needs to be and would be easy to implement and would be more beneficial not to mention far less costly.The cost  of claims by mentally unstable persons  would be significantly lower if this was the standard procedure.I wonder if the comparable costs of the claims are being considered when using the available statistics?Perhaps a code of practice needs to be compiled and issued to the relevant bodies benefitting both the insurers and the mentally unstable making claims .

elsien

You are presuming that people will be going on holiday with family or carer who know them well. That isn’t necessarily the case. And the returning home with an escort if necessary has a cost, particularly if there are any queries around fitness to fly. Someone having a psychotic episode may find air travel difficult, as potentially would the other passengers and airline staff and may be refused boarding. Someone who self harms will need physical treatment as well. 

If you are taken ill abroad, whether mentally or physically, you are reliant on the healthcare systems of wherever you happen to be at the time, not on what is considered best practice in your home country.
I’m not disagreeing about the costs - last time I travelled with someone who had occasional episodes of psychosis, the costs were high. The cost of getting him home again if he did become unwell (despite fit to fly letter before booking the holiday) would have been an awful lot higher. 

To return to your first post, stability doesn’t mean something won’t happen. I travelled with a relative prone to DVTs who had a check up and the ok to fly from a hospital consultant. She still got a DVT on the flight out and was in hospital for 3 weeks before she could return home. Insurance is there to cover where things go pear-shaped despite your best efforts. 

Thrugelmir

andycov30 said:

Sandtree said:

andycov30 said:
It is not a given that people with an unstable mental health diagnosis are dangerous, a threat to others or require the same type of interventions/costs that might be needed for a physical illness when they become unstable.

 

Insurers should apply common sense when attaching higher premiums to someone that has a mental illness. When it comes to people with mental illness and travel, the cost to the insurer is more likely than not to be less than someone with a physical illness and therefore the premiums for mental illness should reflect this.

In my limited experience I would argue they are more commonly a threat to themselves... that isn't to say they all reckless or self harm just that its more likely than being a threat to others.

Insurers don't apply common sense but instead statistics, it isn't a bunch of people sitting around a table debating how they feel about someone who's had psychotic episodes but a trawl through their database showing they claim 4 times as often and typically require a 3 week stay in hospital at an nightly cost of £1,500 and so the premium load needs to be X

Most of what you say is 100% correct.However it is a matter where and how they are treated.Not being prevented physically from travelling people mentally unstable in other countries can be returned home if necessary, escorted if need be.The best and most effective treatment will be given by their own carers and medical teams from their own country with whom they will be familiar with and have their full medical history .A three week stay in an unfamiliar country is likely to exacerbate their situation.The way that people will mental illness are treated is quite different to the way people with physical injuries are treated.Hospitalisation is always a last resort.Here in the UK home treatment is the  preferred option as people with mental illness recover better in their homes supervised by mental health nurses and carers.If the latter is not common practice it needs to be and would be easy to implement and would be more beneficial not to mention far less costly.The cost  of claims by mentally unstable persons  would be significantly lower if this was the standard procedure.I wonder if the comparable costs of the claims are being considered when using the available statistics?Perhaps a code of practice needs to be compiled and issued to the relevant bodies benefitting both the insurers and the mentally unstable making claims .

Insurers are free to decide the risks and markets that they cover. Personal opinion doesn't overide or influence what is ultimately a commercial decision. Complexity simply adds a further cost burden. People are expensive to employ and their total cost to the business needs to be recouped.