Broker or IFA

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81907688#Comment_81907688

Ive never seen one that changes overtime, it would be next to impossible to police. Take the former example, keyhole surgery is massively less invasive than having your sternum split and so maybe it is "right" that it shouldn't be covered any more? Who gets to decide?

You can imagine the complaints if someone would have been covered under the original terms but a claim is declined because last month they changed the terms because condition X can now be treated better with meds in most cases than it was 10 years ago. At a minimum there would be challenge if the improvement was sufficient to warrant its removal

He-man_2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81907698#Comment_81907698

thanks

dunstonh

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81907646#Comment_81907646

With insurance, IFAs can operate on fee or commission or a combination (i.e. agree a fee and only take commission equal to the amount of the fee).

Weighty1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81907698#Comment_81907698

When Guardian update their conditions definitions they put all existing policyholders onto the new definition IF the definition improves the likelihood of a claiming arising.

OP, in regards to your work Group Income Protection cover, just make sure it covers you indefinitely since there's a lot of schemes that only cover employees for a maximum of 2 or 5-years. If it is a limited payout scheme then you could always arrange personal income protection to cover you after the work scheme ends. It wouldn't align perfectly but it could be done as closely as possible.

There are industry tools, such as CI Expert, which enable you to compare critical illness plans from different insurers and compare the likelihood of claims arising based on the age, gender and smoker status of the policyholder. I've found it excellent in making sure those clients who want the best cover, can get the best cover.

Personally, I think critical illness is a very worthwhile addition to have aside from income protection. Whilst protecting your income should be the bigger priority, having a lump sum paid out if you suffer a critical illness can help cover a lot of the associated costs which could arise, such as needing to adapt the home, buy a new wardrobe of clothes or a wig following a cancer diagnosis, buying specialist equipment that make life easier or even needing to pay a cleaner or gardener to do the jobs you aren't up to whilst having treatment. Also, the fact that most critical illness plans either automatically include children's cover or it can be included at a small additional cost can be massively important. I know I wouldn't want to be needing to work every day if one of my children was diagnosed with something like leukaemia. Being able to take time off and be with them would be far more important, but how do you do that without losing your income…

kingstreet

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81908958#Comment_81908958

I was just about to mention Guardian.

caprikid1

"When Guardian update their conditions definitions they put all existing policyholders onto the new definition IF the definition improves the likelihood of a claiming arising."

I was under the impression that often older life policies are better as a great range of conditions is often included. Would you policy get worse over time with guardian ?

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81914931#Comment_81914931

Presumably you mean CI policies?

It can go either way, per the example above, older policies can be very prescriptive of requiring a specific cardiac enzyme levels above a certain measure but modern medicine has moved on an a different enzyme is typically tested for instead. The levels return to normal after 48 hours so if its not done when you are in A&E then the boats been missed

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5300764.pdf

The above is one such case, tests weren't done as they would have been in prior years and so he didnt meet the definition. Had he a newer policy then the tests wouldnt have been required as the definitions changed

Weighty1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81914931#Comment_81914931

For the last 20-years or so it would've been unusual for policies to get worse with updated definitions and there are numerous examples of them improving, such as paralysis/loss of limbs going from a required of 2 limbs to 1 limb with most insurers, heart attacks no longer needing an increased level of troponins in the bloodstream and certain conditions like MS and stroke not necessarily needing persisting symptoms on new policies whereas they normally did on old policies. The rarer examples of a policy getting worse is that on old policies angioplasty is often covered as a condition paying out the full amount, rather than a smaller payment and things like prostate cancer can also sometimes result in a full payout rather than a partial payment, however, this is likely to be on policies which are 20+ years old.

As per my original statement, Guardian only switch policyholders to new definitions IF the definitions improve, otherwise they stay on the older definition.