Health insurer for those with pre-existing health conditions?

torncurtain

I've read through this: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/insurance/cheap-health-insurance/#whatis, multiple times and have used the comparison sites and all that comes up is Benenden. This is fine and all for many but it's not ideal for my situation. Basically you'd be paying into something that hasn't presented as an issue: Haven't had to wait longer than a reasonable few weeks to get appointment/tests conducted. Part of this is because of where I live. 

This said, I'd like the health insurance because there's currently tests, medicines, procedures that private clinics will do that the NHS is unwilling to (I understand why, I'm not putting the NHS down). I don't want to go into my specific health issues but for me it seems better to get PMI taken care of asap. 


TLDR: Are there no other private health insurers for those with pre-existing health conditions, other than Benenden? And, one that doesn't break the bank (might be asking for too much here!). I don't have PMI through work and it's not an option. 

Sandtree

It depends on the pre-existing condition some insurers can consider some things but for many its a fairly tight list. Its worth, for the avoidance of doubt, that PMI that does cover pre-existing conditions only cover acute episodes and not day to day management of a chronic condition.

In the world of corporate PMI much more is possible and some do cover all pre-existing conditions (not much help unless your employer offers this I appreciate) and its possible, as did it myself, to argue a continuation of cover when moving from a corporate to a personal policy. 

lisyloo

Vitality are reasonable.
you can get it on a “moratorium” basis.
Pre existing I would think is very difficult unless you want to change jobs specifically for that (which is drastic).

have you considered paying for tests privately to queue jump and then go back to NHS?
i know many people that do this as tests are (relatively) cheap

torncurtain

lisyloo said:

Vitality are reasonable.
you can get it on a “moratorium” basis.
Pre existing I would think is very difficult unless you want to change jobs specifically for that (which is drastic).

have you considered paying for tests privately to queue jump and then go back to NHS?
i know many people that do this as tests are (relatively) cheap

I'll amend my post as this is unrelated to work. I'm not sure what a moratorium basis is, what is this? 
I've checked out vitality and they don't cover for pre-existing conditions unfortunately, but thanks for sharing this all the same. 

I'm less concerned with blood tests for example and more concerned with something like an endoscopy for example (just a random test, unrelated to me and my condition). And, no, I'm not interested in queue jumping. I'd just like private medical insurance. Good point though re generic tests and pricing, hope it helps others. 

torncurtain

Sandtree said:

It depends on the pre-existing condition some insurers can consider some things but for many its a fairly tight list. Its worth, for the avoidance of doubt, that PMI that does cover pre-existing conditions only cover acute episodes and not day to day management of a chronic condition.

In the world of corporate PMI much more is possible and some do cover all pre-existing conditions (not much help unless your employer offers this I appreciate) and its possible, as did it myself, to argue a continuation of cover when moving from a corporate to a personal policy. 

This is a very valid and good point. I've yet to find a PMI that does cover pre-existing conditions but those that would I'd be happy for them to cover the acute and don't expect the day-to-day management cover. Very good point. 

Yes, I don't have corporate health coverage otherwise this suggestion is also a good point. 

Thanks for your feedback. 

Weighty1

Unfortunately it's just not realistic for an insurer to cover pre-existing conditions.  If they did people would just apply for the cover at the point of needing investigations and treatment which would then go on to cost them thousands.  It'd be a direct road to insolvency for them.

In regards to moratorium underwriting, this is when you don't answer the range of health questions about your past history and therefore don't incur any automatic exclusion from what is covered BUT it is offered on the basis that any pre-existing conditions typically aren't covered for at least 2-years since your last symptoms, treatment or referrals for medical consultations.  For an ongoing and current medical condition it would offer no benefit.

Ultimately, PMI is mainly for the purpose of queue jumping and improving the setting for the treatment (single en-suite rooms rather than a bed on a ward).  A lot of things covered are likely to still only have the same tests and treatment available as that available on the NHS, it just happens a lot more quickly.

torncurtain

Weighty1 said:

Unfortunately it's just not realistic for an insurer to cover pre-existing conditions.  If they did people would just apply for the cover at the point of needing investigations and treatment which would then go on to cost them thousands.  It'd be a direct road to insolvency for them.

In regards to moratorium underwriting, this is when you don't answer the range of health questions about your past history and therefore don't incur any automatic exclusion from what is covered BUT it is offered on the basis that any pre-existing conditions typically aren't covered for at least 2-years since your last symptoms, treatment or referrals for medical consultations.  For an ongoing and current medical condition it would offer no benefit.

Ultimately, PMI is mainly for the purpose of queue jumping and improving the setting for the treatment (single en-suite rooms rather than a bed on a ward).  A lot of things covered are likely to still only have the same tests and treatment available as that available on the NHS, it just happens a lot more quickly.

As another user mentioned it may be possible to have non-day-to-day treatment, specifically acute treatment related to a pre-existing condition covered by PMI. This would be partly what I'd be looking for. But, also I'm looking for a PMI that would cover me for future illness, conditions that aren't current. Both, either, or.

And, to my mind, if you have for example a congenital condition you should still be able to have PMI. As we age, we all develop conditions/illness, acute or chronic. It seems like the deck is stacked in favour of those that are born without issue (this isn't me taking it personally, it's not). 

re the moratorium. How would one go about doing this? I'm quite certain that when you apply for PMI they ask you detailed health questions. I seem to recall they state that if you omit anything you could be in a sticky situation. 

I'm not going to get into if things would or wouldn't be offered through the NHS because it's likely to turn into something that's not relevant to why I'm here. Although it may seem relevant, I understand. 

Thanks for your input, it's very helpful! I apprecaite it. 

lisyloo

On the moratorium basis I think they would check when you claim rather than in advance.

Have you thought about talking to a broker about this?

yes of course the deck is stacked against people likely to claim.
home insurers charge people more if they live in flood areas.
car insurers charge more (or refuse) people who live in high claims areas or keep crashing their cars.
why would this not be the case? 

Its bad luck if you don’t have great health. We just don’t all get dealt the same cards.

the point about employers was not entirely facetious.
my last 2 employers had “medical history disregarded” schemes.
it would quite seriously be a factor for me. Secondary to the job and location, but all, other things being equal I consider these schemes to be “gold plated”.
i still left my last employer because the job was crap but the health insurance was definitely a loss.

torncurtain

lisyloo said:

On the moratorium basis I think they would check when you claim rather than in advance.

Have you thought about talking to a broker about this?

yes of course the deck is stacked against people likely to claim.
home insurers charge people more if they live in flood areas.
car insurers charge more (or refuse) people who live in high claims areas or keep crashing their cars.
why would this not be the case? 

Its bad luck if you don’t have great health. We just don’t all get dealt the same cards.

the point about employers was not entirely facetious.
my last 2 employers had “medical history disregarded” schemes.
it would quite seriously be a factor for me. Secondary to the job and location, but all, other things being equal I consider these schemes to be “gold plated”.
i still left my last employer because the job was crap but the health insurance was definitely a loss.

A broker is a good idea! Thanks. I actually hadn't thought about this. 

Oh, I didn't think you were being facetious at all. I'm sorry I came across in a way that made you think I did assume that. Nope, I thought you were trying to be helpful but I failed to include the necessary details in my original post. Crap jobs can be a strain. I hope you're somewhere now that's better suited and you're able to find some good insurance again. 

Re why insurers wouldn't insure someone who is born or acquires a condition still doesn't quite hold water for me. I think we can get into the thick of it but it would take us away from my main question, which I'm reluctant to do. The gist of it: We may not have much choice in terms of where we can afford to live, unless of course we increase our income and decrease our outgoings (both possible choices) but we do choose and if an area is high crime it makes sense that the rates are higher. But, you can still get insurance. If you're born with a congenital condition, you don't choose, you can only live with it and it appears more than a little difficult to get insurance. 

If you have no health conditions, you will eventually have them. That's what old age affords us. Until such time, our genes, environment, choices are ticking. Two of these in my opinion are mostly beyond our control. 

Sandtree

torncurtain said:
Re why insurers wouldn't insure someone who is born or acquires a condition still doesn't quite hold water for me. I think we can get into the thick of it but it would take us away from my main question, which I'm reluctant to do. The gist of it: We may not have much choice in terms of where we can afford to live, unless of course we increase our income and decrease our outgoings (both possible choices) but we do choose and if an area is high crime it makes sense that the rates are higher. But, you can still get insurance. If you're born with a congenital condition, you don't choose, you can only live with it and it appears more than a little difficult to get insurance. 

If you have no health conditions, you will eventually have them. That's what old age affords us. Until such time, our genes, environment, choices are ticking. Two of these in my opinion are mostly beyond our control. 

For the avoidance of doubt, they will insure you (in most cases) just not for the pre-inception condition. My condition is congenital too and I can get cover from regular providers however it will include a statement that it excludes my condition and related conditions. My problem is that too much could fall under the "related" banner however if you've a more mundane condition then it may be something you're comfortable with. 

If you've had a heart attack for example, you'd be fully covered for cancer treatment

lisyloo

torncurtain said:

lisyloo said:

On the moratorium basis I think they would check when you claim rather than in advance.

Have you thought about talking to a broker about this?

yes of course the deck is stacked against people likely to claim.
home insurers charge people more if they live in flood areas.
car insurers charge more (or refuse) people who live in high claims areas or keep crashing their cars.
why would this not be the case? 

Its bad luck if you don’t have great health. We just don’t all get dealt the same cards.

the point about employers was not entirely facetious.
my last 2 employers had “medical history disregarded” schemes.
it would quite seriously be a factor for me. Secondary to the job and location, but all, other things being equal I consider these schemes to be “gold plated”.
i still left my last employer because the job was crap but the health insurance was definitely a loss.

A broker is a good idea! Thanks. I actually hadn't thought about this. 

Oh, I didn't think you were being facetious at all. I'm sorry I came across in a way that made you think I did assume that. Nope, I thought you were trying to be helpful but I failed to include the necessary details in my original post. Crap jobs can be a strain. I hope you're somewhere now that's better suited and you're able to find some good insurance again. 

Re why insurers wouldn't insure someone who is born or acquires a condition still doesn't quite hold water for me. I think we can get into the thick of it but it would take us away from my main question, which I'm reluctant to do. The gist of it: We may not have much choice in terms of where we can afford to live, unless of course we increase our income and decrease our outgoings (both possible choices) but we do choose and if an area is high crime it makes sense that the rates are higher. But, you can still get insurance. If you're born with a congenital condition, you don't choose, you can only live with it and it appears more than a little difficult to get insurance. 

If you have no health conditions, you will eventually have them. That's what old age affords us. Until such time, our genes, environment, choices are ticking. Two of these in my opinion are mostly beyond our control. 

You appear to be taking the view that private health cover is a right (apologies if I’ve misunderstood).
its not a right and insurers generally don’t take on pre-existing conditions whether that’s subsidence on a house, an already stolen car, existing leaking pipe work etc.
if someone was unlucky enough to have serious health problems then they’d find it very difficult to get travel insurance (for example) - it simply isn’t a right,

As for old age, private health insurance does become prohibitively expensive.
my broker told me that was around age 73.

i don’t understand the comment of not being able to choose where to live.
yes there are family, financial and job constraints, but people can live where they like within those constraints and some can choose to improve their situation (I personally don’t believe everyone can improve their prospects).