Critical illness insurance

[sidhuk]

Hi
I wonder if there are any particular insurance companies who can cover keratoconus? I have tried a couple and they are not willing to include stable keratoconus.
Has anyone had a different experience?
Thanks

[Andrew MacLean]

sidhuk

Welcome to the forum. I do know that some members have been successful in finding private health insurers who will cover keratoconus as a previously diagnosed condition, but don't have any details. I am sure that there will be someone along in a moment who does!

Andrew

[dalbeath]

Hello,
I am an independent financial adviser as well as having KC.

Your best bet is to find a good IFA (I'm happy to help and ask them to submit an application for underwriting purposes only. That way we can send it to a few companies and chat to the underwriters and then make the final application to the company that offers the best deal. Some with exclude your whole eyes, some will exclude claims for blindness and others may not exclude your eyes but load the premium to account for the higher risk of blindness. A few will offer you cover at standard terms depending on your medical history and level of cover required

For example I know that Legal and General automatically exclude claims for blindness but do not rate the premium as KC does not increase morbidity. However, I know of another company that will give full cover on standard terms as long as there is no 'significant visual impairment' which means that if you can not see even with contacts in they would not cover you. But it would be subject to full underwriting and medical disclosure.

If you want any more help , feel free to PM me or email me
Details on my web site
www.wendycochran.com

[GarethB]

I beg to differ regarding Legal and General as the policies I have exclude anything to do with the eyes because I have KC that resulted in two grafts. KC came back in 2008 after I had the L&G policies in 1995 at which time my grafts had been stable since 1989. Grafts have been stable since 2004 and L&G still won't have anything to do with my eyes.

[dalbeath]

I beg to differ regarding Legal and General as the policies I have exclude anything to do with the eyes because I have KC that resulted in two grafts. KC came back in 2008 after I had the L&G policies in 1995 at which time my grafts had been stable since 1989. Grafts have been stable since 2004 and L&G still won't have anything to do with my eyes.

I can't comment on your policies without seeing them, but I can say, that underwriting of policies evolve over time. A policy taken out in 1995 (17 years ago ) will have very different underwriting to a policy taken out today. Their current stance on KC is that it does not affect morbidity (you are no more likely to die than someone without KC) so for Life only they will accept at standard terms - assuming you don't have any other medical or lifestyle issues. For Critical Illness they will exclude claims for blindness ...as I said above.

When you say "L&G still won't have anything to do with my eyes" what exactly do you mean and what have you tried to claim for. Critical Illness policies pay out a lump sum if you die or suffer an earlier critical illness eg heart attack, cancer, stroke and also normally blindness. But in the case of KC, Legal and General exclude claims for blindness but some companies will offer cover. Is it definitely a critical illness policy you have? If so these are underwritten at the point of sale, so what is important is what your state of health was and what you disclosed when you bought the policy in 1995 - what subsequently happened after that date is not relevant to a critical illness policy.

[GarethB]

Fortunatly I have never had a need to claim, but on a regular basis I looked at updating existing policies or taking new ones to ensure I have the best cover I can afford because as you say policies evolve over time.

It is just a shame you can have a stable condition but excluded wholesale from some aspects of the policy e.g. cataracts, macular degeneration and such wouldn't be covered just because you have an existing unrelated eye condition.

[dalbeath]

Fortunatly I have never had a need to claim, but on a regular basis I looked at updating existing policies or taking new ones to ensure I have the best cover I can afford because as you say policies evolve over time.

It is just a shame you can have a stable condition but excluded wholesale from some aspects of the policy e.g. cataracts, macular degeneration and such wouldn't be covered just because you have an existing unrelated eye condition.

So look to move to a company that will offer better cover...there are lots of alternatives out there. Talk to an IFA

[GarethB]

Religeously every 12 months and to be honest if you have existing medical conditions, the alternatives are few and far between

[longhoc]

Hi Gareth

As Wendy says, it really is worth shopping around. There's a big difference between "off the shelf" packaged products which are typically marketed either by the policy providers themselves (or brand-slapped by seemingly independent companies but in reality usually just trading titles used by the big operators in disguise) and a more bespoke policy which can be found by a genuinely independent advisor.

With the former, underwriting referrals (a costly and time consuming exercise) is minimal if they exist at all. The policy has a vanilla set of T's and C's which typically have catch-all exclusions for pre-existing conditions. They're fine if you've not got a complex condition and they're obviously cheaper if you don't present anything too tricky but they're pretty hopeless if you do. The way this sort of policy is designed and administered simply doesn't cater for non-standard (known in the industry as "wide of scheme") customers.

With the latter, you get access to a proper insurance underwriter who can accurately determine the risk for the pre-existing condition and calculate a premium accordingly. Obviously the policy will be more expensive to cover the additional risk and you may have to pay a fee, but it'll be a better solution than either a policy which doesn't cover you at all or else has ridiculously wide blanket exclusions.

Good luck !

Chris

[dalbeath]

Totally agree, I met a client in June who had an eye condition called Punctate Inner Choroidopathy. It took 3 months to get the policy in place but in the end we managed it. She had phone interviews with the doctor from the underwriting department and a full GP history was sought (at the insurance companies expense) including consultants reports etc. But by giving them all this info they were able to asses the risk and we got her covered.

Not all IFA's will do this as the commission for all this work was the same as a squeaky clean case that takes a fraction of the time but I find it rather satisfying to work on more complex cases....perhaps I should get out more