View more on these topics

Emergency surgery for CI cover

Last year saw turmoil in the critical-illness market. The long-term future of guaranteed rates came under pressure as reassurers pulled out of the market and those supporting guaranteed rates pushed their prices ever higher. Some insurance companies were raising their prices on a monthly basis – some changing rates twice in one month.

IFAs feared that one of the most successful products of the last decade would be removed from the market or priced out of a client&#39s budget, with nothing to replace it.

In early 2004, the worst of the storm seems to have passed. There are still insurance companies and reassurers willing to offer guaranteed critical-illness products and recent price movements have made it more rather than less affordable. Nevertheless, we must not assume that there will be no more changes to the product this year or in the future.

For guaranteed rates to exist and remain affordable, we must continue to refine the product to ensure we do not pay out on “windfall” illnesses. The definition of the conditions covered remains critical. “Windfall” illnesses can be defined as illnesses that do not impact on the customer&#39s quality of life.

In January, term and age limits were reduced and the number of illnesses covered decreased with the removal of angioplasty.

Why was angioplasty removed? With advances in treatment, particularly the use of keyhole techniques, angioplasty is not foreseen to be a critical illness in the future. Already, improvements in diagnostic and treatment techniques are leading to a much shorter recovery time. Health Secretary John Reid recently announced £1m worth of funding to examine the feasibility of providing a national angioplasty service within 24 hours of hospital arrival.

Removing this potential future “windfall” illness from critical-illness cover helps maintain affordable guaranteed premiums today and reduces the need to increase reviewable premiums in future.

In 2002, the ABI produced new definitions for heart attack and cancer. The definitions used to define other critical illnesses are under review. We can expect more changes to ensure that diagnostic techniques are relevant and the conditions covered are critical and life changing.

Dr Roger Boyle, the Government&#39s “heart tsar”, predicts that premature death from heart disease in England could be unheard of within a decade because of earlier detection of future problems and improved treatments.

Patients can expect better drugs when admitted, such as thrombolysis drugs to improve recovery, drugs to prevent heart attacks and statin drugs to lower cholesterol. Therefore, the definition of heart attack will have to be reviewed so that payments are restricted to claims which genuinely impact on the customer&#39s quality of life.

Five-year survival rates for cancer continue to improve even though the number of instances is still rising. The Office of National Statistics says male survival rates in the 1990s increased in over 90 per cent of cancers while for women the figure was over 75 per cent.

Earlier detection of cancer is the key to survival and a good example is the recovery rate from breast cancer. Since screening was introduced in 1988, incidence rates have risen to 114 per 100,000 but mortality has fallen to 30 per 100,000. Therefore, we need to keep the cancer definition relevant to critical instances, especially as cancer is the biggest source of critical-illness claims.

We are also seeing improved diagnostic equipment for strokes. MRI scans are becoming more powerful and can highlight much smaller evidence of a stroke than previously. These strokes are the same as silent heart attacks – they may have no impact on quality of life and can be treated to avoid deterioration but could lead to a claim under current rules,.

For now, the darkest clouds over critical-illness insurance have passed and this popular product is still available. However, we should not be surprised to see tighter definitions of critical illnesses and specific conditions being removed.

This is not insurers and reassurers trying to withdraw the product or reduce claims. They are simply keeping the current products available and affordable.

Recommended

Forsyth Partners – Forsyth Alternative Strategies Series One &#45 Profit Protector Note

Type: Capital-protected fund of hedge funds Aim: Growth linked to the performance of a portfolio of hedge funds and cash Minimum investment: Lump sum $50,000 Place of registration: Dublin Term:10 years Guarantee: Original capital returned in full regardless of performance of underlying funds Return: Up to 100% growth in underlying funds plus 50% growth in […]

FSA may re-open endowments claims

Reynolds Porter Chamberlain has warned the FSA could attempt to re-open mortgage endowment misselling claims which are currently time barred on the back of the Treasury Select Committee&#39s report into the matter. The law firm predicts an increase in the volume of misselling claims would be “almost inevitable” as a result.

Product matters

You may groan at the thought of another New Star fund and wonder how this one can differentiate itself from some of the other funds in the stable. Well, for a start, its UK special situations offering is a tiny fund at only £2.5m and it is not being run by a fund manager you […]

MBNA poised to buy Egg – reports

MBNA is believed to be about to buy Egg from Prudential after reentering the bidding for the internet bank. The auction began in January but initial bidders Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB have since withdrawn their interest. Reports suggest that the offer from US credit card giant MBNA may be the last chance […]

Cricket - thumbnail

England vs Australia: pensions

Well, the cricket season is here, and England and Australia are stepping up to the wicket. Although we compete with each other in the sporting world, when it comes to pensions, Australia’s pension programme is held up as a model for our auto-enrolment initiative. Auto-enrolment was introduced because people weren’t saving enough into their pensions, and it is still early days but signs are positive. However, in Australia, saving into a pension is compulsory, and in fact employers are the ones who have to pay in. Employees in Australia can make additional contributions into their pensions, but they don’t have to. Should the onus be on the employer or employee to save? Well in the UK we think it’s both, but to get ‘adequate’ savings for retirement it’s the employee who has to pay more in.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

    Leave a comment