Injection SIte Sarcomas - anyone else had insurance issues?

Re: Injection SIte Sarcomas - anyone else had insurance issues?

Stephen Courtney — Sat, 10 May 2014 17:32:34 GMT

It's an injection site sarcoma, not that specific to vaccines anyway. Hold your clients' hand and lead them to the ombudsman.

That usually provokes a sharp rethink.

Re: Injection SIte Sarcomas - anyone else had insurance issues?

james herriot lied — Sat, 10 May 2014 09:27:42 GMT

Or tweet it. This was on Breakfast News this morning:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/24149289

Apparently, companies respond faster (or at all) to complaints made over the tw*tosphere.

Re: Injection SIte Sarcomas - anyone else had insurance issues?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 10 May 2014 09:21:00 GMT

I'd second Bob It's a waste of time bothering with their cpmplaints dept. Drag out the heavy artillary, and go straight to the insurence ombudsman

Wynne

Re: Injection SIte Sarcomas - anyone else had insurance issues?

james herriot lied — Sat, 10 May 2014 09:18:44 GMT

[quote user="Rob Reid"]

[quote user="Tim Charlesworth"] the company is "Animal Friends" (prob not a huge surprise)[/quote]

No surprise at all. Animal Friends is fast becoming the new E&L!

[/quote]

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jul/20/insurance

We used to point out to clients that E&L actually underwrote Animal Friends, which made the companies broadly similar in ethos; of course, this was done in a neutral, unbiased and entirely uninfluential manner....

Re: Injection SIte Sarcomas - anyone else had insurance issues?

Thomas Johnson — Sat, 10 May 2014 08:55:19 GMT

[quote user="karen jones"]We've taken two lumps off a dog and sent them for histo , one is a lipoma the other a mast cell tumour and sainsburys think this is two separate claims as the lumps are different. Maybe we shouldn't have sent them off the no one would know what they were!

[/quote]

I thought this was normal for insurance companies, and I have to say I agree with them. The masses are not part of the same condition, you just happened to treat them both at the same time. We will generally explain this to the client when we book them in for surgery, and in your case would have put a claim in for the mast cell tumour removal, as that is the one that might require further treatment and further claims. With our pricing structure that would mean claiming the GA, all drugs, the removal of the mast cell tumour, and the lab fee. Leaving the client to pay the cost of the lipoma removal. Our lab charges a flat rate for histopathology on up to 3 pieces of tissue, so I would be happy to claim for all of the lab fee.

Re: Injection SIte Sarcomas - anyone else had insurance issues?

Matt Hilary — Sat, 10 May 2014 05:25:51 GMT

[/quote]

I had the same (Tesco) with removal of 4x masses under single anaesthetic. Happy to consider the 2x MCTs as the same condition but otherwise wanted it split - thought did occur re histo!

Re: Injection SIte Sarcomas - anyone else had insurance issues?

karen jones — Fri, 09 May 2014 20:45:33 GMT

We've taken two lumps off a dog and sent them for histo , one is a lipoma the other a mast cell tumour and sainsburys think this is two separate claims as the lumps are different. Maybe we shouldn't have sent them off the no one would know what they were!

Re: Injection SIte Sarcomas - anyone else had insurance issues?

Bob Russell — Fri, 09 May 2014 17:31:05 GMT

I gather they aim to deal with all complaints within six months so should be resolved as efficiently as the UK Border Agency!!

I would suggest to the clients that they take Animal Friends to the Insurance Ombudsman as this is totally crazy!

Strangely enough all of our recent claims with AF have been uneventful! I thought they were starting to get their acts together!

Re: Injection SIte Sarcomas - anyone else had insurance issues?

Rob Reid — Fri, 09 May 2014 17:28:42 GMT

[quote user="Tim Charlesworth"] the company is "Animal Friends" (prob not a huge surprise)[/quote]

No surprise at all. Animal Friends is fast becoming the new E&L!

Last one of these I had was a reaction to depo-medrone - cat wasn't vaccinated, was one of these where the owners are proud that 'He'd never been to the vets in his life.'

Definitely complain.

Re: Injection SIte Sarcomas - anyone else had insurance issues?

Rob Davis — Fri, 09 May 2014 17:22:33 GMT

[quote user="Tim Charlesworth"]the company is "Animal Friends" (prob not a huge surprise)[/quote]

Indeed, no surprise! Please let us know what happens as this is totally ridiculous...

Re: Injection SIte Sarcomas - anyone else had insurance issues?

Tim Charlesworth — Fri, 09 May 2014 16:35:11 GMT

Thanks both for your replies, the company is "Animal Friends" (prob not a huge surprise). I have tried reasoning, their policy doesn't cover anything "related to vaccination". I have tried reasoning but they will exclude it as it "might" be due to vaccination which I think is unfair. I can't and won't argue that it's nothing to do with vaccination but they cannot prove that this was the sole cause of the mass which was histologically diagnosed as "either" fibrosarcoma/chondrosarcoma or ISS..

Have sent them to the complaints dept.

Re: Injection SIte Sarcomas - anyone else had insurance issues?

Bob Russell — Fri, 09 May 2014 15:01:53 GMT

My last 'injection site sarcoma type' tumour was on the cats chest. Only factor I could think of was a previous fight wound in that area. Most pets have injections at some time or other. A number of companies reject claims for illnesses such as parvo if the pet is not vaccinated and to some extent this is understandable.

They are trying it on! Which company out of interest?

Copy, paste and send them Gerry Polton s comments above - once this arrives on the veterinary advisors desk I bet they change their tune!

Re: Injection SIte Sarcomas - anyone else had insurance issues?

Gerry Polton — Fri, 09 May 2014 14:33:31 GMT

Whatever next?!? This has never occurred to one of my cases, as far as I know.

I know that some insurers decline cover if the patients don't have regular vaccinations. Wouldn't it be elegantly embarrassing for this particular insurer if they found themselves in the high court for demanding vaccination, an advisable but arguably unnecessary medical intervention, only to refuse to cover the consequences of receiving said vaccination.

This owner must make an official complaint in my opinion. There are sound policy rules and there are utterly unreasonable ones. I wouldn't waste any more time trying to explain that this was not vaccine-associated either. That's not an argument that you could realistically expect to win.

Gerry