by Tania Young on
2nd July 2010
I read with interest a recent announcement about a 'cancer only'
cover that has recently been launched into the insurance market.
It's a policy that covers cancer only "...around 80% of all trauma
claims are for cancer" was quoted in a recent media
release (click here to read more).
It got me thinking - this could be good. That said, I
delved into some of the claims statistics that we have and the
numbers were quite different.
The statistics that had the most impact were Sovereign's
2008-2009 year statistics (currently New Zealand's largest life
insurer) 60% of the trauma claims that were paid were for
cancer. That leaves 40% paid out for other conditions ranging
from heart attack, stroke and other ailments. A 60 /40 claims
ratio for cancer is quite different from 80 / 20.
Personally, I would be absolutely devastated to suffer from a
traumatic health event that had a massive impact on my quality of
life, financial stability and ability to work and not have it
covered by my insurance. My thoughts on insurance are that it
is there to help me at claim time - not to frustrate me because my
condition isn't covered because I went for the cheapest policy.
Cheap is not always good, especially at claim time!
It also got me thinking about people I know who have gotten
sick, some are friends and some are clients - several are clients
who have become friends. A lot of them had a major health
problem in their early thirties that has been totally life
changing, ranging from breast cancer to stroke - there is no
warning and age isn't always on your side.
Is it worthwhile taking the risk of having a benefit that only
covers one condition when you can be covered for up to 48?
Sure it costs more but it's providing a lot more cover, which means
more options. Wouldn't it be better to have a smaller amount
of cover that gives maximum protection?
Let us know what you think...
LEAVE A COMMENT