Travel insurance after medical tests

DullGreyGuy

revev52 said:

Thanks, everyone. That's all very helpful and given me some lines to follow up. Most of the insurers I have looked up so far have have a blanket policy of no cover at all if there are any undiagnosed conditions, so it is good to know that there are some exceptions. 
You hear advice that you should think carefully before opting to get a PSA test, but I must say this was one result I did not see coming!

Do you have a condition?

Would really need to know more of the background as to why the biopsy was done in the first place... were you suffering symptoms, blood test done that showed high prostate-specific antigen and then a biopsy gave the all clear or were you asymptomatic and it was just a routine PSA test based on age? If the former, what's happened with the symptoms?

Levels of PSA in men naturally vary, just like anything else. Whilst cancer can be the cause there are plenty of other things that can cause it to increase like a UTI or just irritation, vigorous exercise or even the doctors own digital examination. 


You always need to answer questions completely and honestly as failing to do so may invalidate your policy even if it's unrelated to a claim. However, particularly on the phone, how you frame an answer is also important. Anyone who's insulin dependant diabetic has 4-5 tests a day or more done but this is just routine monitoring and won't preclude them in isolation from getting travel insurance. 

revev52

silvercar said:

TELLIT01 said:

If an insurer refuses cover because somebody is having regular checks to confirm they don't have a  condition they could potentially refuse cover for those offered annual checkups by their GP surgery.

Which covers everyone in the country eligible for the national screening programmes for cervical, breast and bowel cancer.

I think the difference in my case is that there is a specific symptom (raised PSA) which is being monitored, while the cause has not been (cannot be?) diagnosed.

silvercar

This may be relevant, depending on why OP had the test:

https://www.abi.org.uk/data-and-resources/tools-and-resources/genetics/code-on-genetic-testing-and-insurance/

katejo

I don't think insurers should be allowed to block cover for anyone who is being sensible and having their routine scan (mammogram, bowel cancer etc.) if they have no symptoms to cause concern.

victor2

katejo said:

I don't think insurers should be allowed to block cover for anyone who is being sensible and having their routine scan (mammogram, bowel cancer etc.) if they have no symptoms to cause concern.

I haven't come across any that do. The problem arises if you have some symptoms and there is a record of you being referred for tests if for nothing else but to rule out certain illnesses. Even if those tests are negative, but further tests are being carried out to eliminate other possibilities you are still a "patient" with an undiagnosed condition, and that is what causes the issue being discussed here.

revev52

victor2 said:

katejo said:

I don't think insurers should be allowed to block cover for anyone who is being sensible and having their routine scan (mammogram, bowel cancer etc.) if they have no symptoms to cause concern.

I haven't come across any that do. The problem arises if you have some symptoms and there is a record of you being referred for tests if for nothing else but to rule out certain illnesses. Even if those tests are negative, but further tests are being carried out to eliminate other possibilities you are still a "patient" with an undiagnosed condition, and that is what causes the issue being discussed here.

Yes, that is exactly the point, even though the tests may be intended simply as a monitoring exercise -  it is perfectly possible for a biopsy to miss cancerous cells, so obviously they need to keep an eye on how things might change in the future. Another problem is the rigidity of the insurers' quoting process and the inability of the lovely people on the phones to understand the nuances of a situation - it's not their fault, they go and ask a supervisor and come back with an answer of sorts, but it never seems to be quite on target. 

katejo

victor2 said:

katejo said:

I don't think insurers should be allowed to block cover for anyone who is being sensible and having their routine scan (mammogram, bowel cancer etc.) if they have no symptoms to cause concern.

I haven't come across any that do. The problem arises if you have some symptoms and there is a record of you being referred for tests if for nothing else but to rule out certain illnesses. Even if those tests are negative, but further tests are being carried out to eliminate other possibilities you are still a "patient" with an undiagnosed condition, and that is what causes the issue being discussed here.

I read an anecdotal example of someone who was due to go for such a routine scan just before going on holiday. They told their insurers and was told that their health cover was suspended until they had a negative result..

DullGreyGuy

revev52 said:
Another problem is the rigidity of the insurers' quoting process and the inability of the lovely people on the phones to understand the nuances of a situation - it's not their fault, they go and ask a supervisor and come back with an answer of sorts, but it never seems to be quite on target. 

Rigidity is easy to programme and doesn't require much training both support being able to sell policies for a median price of £22 for a single trip for which £2.36 goes to the government as IPT and circa £7 goes to the seller meaning your £5m of medical expenses cover is covered by a premium of £12.50.

Also have to remember it's not just the insurer you have to consider but their reinsurance. By having fixed simple rules they have certainty and their reinsurance costs less. Having discretion not only requires checking with the manager but potentially also their reinsurer.

If you want full flexibility there is always open market risks with Lloyds of London but most syndicates have a minimum premium of c£10,000 + IPT but then your dealing with an actual underwriter who has access to lawyers for drafting your terms, medical professionals that can advise on nuances of conditions, look at your personal medical history, test results etc. 

Reinsurance is much more flexible too because they can buy a specific cover for your personal policy so dont have the issues of making sure it fits within their normal reinsurers terms plus those normal terms are much broader anyway because its the nature of what they do. As a consequence the cost is higher but that carried through the premiums. 

Problem is most people get the £22 quote and continue shopping around to see if they can get it cheaper