pet insurance and grumpy clients

Re: pet insurance and grumpy clients

Anthony Todd — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:56:13 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]We also give everyone the www.insureyourpet.co.uk website details!! [/quote]

So do we, have a good look at it and tell us what you all think. We think it gives all the good oil needed!

And we never never do direct claims; Try and get your Veyron back without the mender's getting the insurance clearance or the money up front.

Re: pet insurance and grumpy clients

Chris Aylott — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:44:01 GMT

[quote user="KMurphy"] We don't tell clients not to take policies with Animal Friends or E+L but we do tell them that we won't do direct claims[/quote]

No problem with that - you're just stating your policy not giving advice.

You might hope the client took some inference from your policy but you might be disappointed!

Re: pet insurance and grumpy clients

KMurphy — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:05:48 GMT

[quote user="Chris Aylott"]it's still advise and so you technically shouldn't be giving it[/quote]

It's such a minefield! We always tell clients we're not allowed to recommend any policies but do suggest that they take out a lifetime or sufficiently high maximum benefit cover. We don't tell clients not to take policies with Animal Friends or E+L but we do tell them that we won't do direct claims with these companies so they can decide for themselves if that's something they want to take a chance on.

I think this is allowed? Now waiting for someone to come along and correct me...

Re: pet insurance and grumpy clients

Chris Aylott — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:56:51 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Don't/can't recommend any companies but nudge, nudge, wink, wink recall my claim's experience[/quote]

It's worth remembering that the test as to whether you have "advised" a client if whether the client feels that you have advised them. "I shouldn't really say this but" is no defense.

If the client thinks they were advised, however unofficially, then they were advised.

If later the company disappoints them (doesn't pay out) they are in a position to sue for their "loses" that resulted from the "bad advise". If your not qualified to give financial advise and have no liability cover to act a financial adviser then you could be in trouble.

The only way to keep away from this risk is to be sure that nobody in the practice mentions insurance company names when recommending insurance. (unless you are a Petplan Appointed Representative or similar, we are not.)

That said I can't see what loss a client could suffer from you recommending against certain companies, it's still advise and so you technically shouldn't be giving it but i suspect this negative advise leaves you much less exposed.

Re: pet insurance and grumpy clients

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 19:41:01 GMT

I do charge for completing claim forms it is nominally a post-op check charge, I try not to make direct claims but will with only 3 companies: Pet Plan, Tesco and M&S. Never Direct Line, E&L, Animal Friends. Don't/can't recommend any companies but nudge, nudge, wink, wink recall my claim's experience. Getting worried now though I did an emergency splenectomy last Thursday night, final bill with all the OOH nursing care £1,700. I saw the policy and the client did pay excess and keeps promising to bring in a claim form but keeps making excuses as to why he can't. After a week I'm beginning to get twitchy. Turned out to be haemangiosarcoma so its stuffed anyway. No chemo until the first bill is settled.

Re: pet insurance and grumpy clients

KMurphy — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:03:22 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]E+L and Animal Friends are an absolute no,no[/quote]

For us too. We won't do anything directly with either of them, or with any of the other policies they underwrite - we do check! Animal Friends are possibly worse than E+L - I know they branched off from E+L but it's as though they've taken the worst of everything with them! Some examples of exclusions put on policies are "bone disorders" following a luxated patella (this would include traumatic fractures!), "ligament disorders" following a ruptured cruciate and "eye and sight disorders" following a traumatic cherry eye. They have confirmed in this last case that this would include the dog developing cataracts 10 years from now, despite the fact that it would be completely unrelated. Awful, awful company. I encourage as many people as possible to complain about them!

We will do direct claims for many things but the client always has to show their policy details and the excess is always paid up front. I won't do direct claims for any dental work, even with Petplan, or for any of the "never-heard-of-them-before" policies that people find as bargains on the internet, unless we can get pre-authorisation. I always get a full history from previous vets as well and I will ask when the insurance was taken out. I've maybe just been lucky in not being stung by doing things this way yet but it seems to be working so far.

I do encourage people to take insurance so want them to see the benefit of it by not being out of pocket for two months. I think I can probably afford it more than a lot of my clients. Also, it saves them phoning every day to see if I've filled in the claim form yet!!

Re: pet insurance and grumpy clients

Niall Taylor — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 16:33:22 GMT

[quote user="Tanya Fielding"]we seem to be having more problems with people getting irrate with us when insurance companies will not pay out for pre existing conditions when they have decided to cahnge company! [/quote]

As Clive says - it's their problem. Who would be stupid enough to think that an insurance company would pay out on a condition which was present before the insurance started? This is client, not insurance company unreasonableness.

There are many other unreasonable things insurance companies do but this ain't one of them. I have just this second received an email from a client insured with Animal Friends asking us (following a request from AF) to email the company to certify that her dog had not been registered with another vet during a period of about 16 months when he didn't attend the surgery - how unreasonable is that!?

We have recently tightened our policy and now every client, bar about half a dozen on a 'Golden List', have to pay at the time, regardless of claimed insurance status.

I got so fed up with the behaviour of some of the companies out there that I wrote a rather lengthy article for our blog - http://orchardvetgroup.com/2012/02/22/the-potential-pitfalls-of-pet-insurance/. Got to be careful though, it's long enough already, if I keep adding to it every time I hear the lastest example if ins. co. sharp practice I might break the internet!

Cheers,

Niall

Re: pet insurance and grumpy clients

Clive Ansell — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:54:55 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Bose"]

Why don't you put a poster display in reception telling clients to beware of the pre-existing condition catch?

[/quote]

It is not a catch. Of course insurance companies do not cover pre existing conditions. Insurance is to provide for the unexpected that may happen, it is not a payment plan to cover existing illnesses. If clients moan, they should discuss it with their insurer as the arrangement is between them and is not a veterinary practice issue.

It would be akin to smashing your car up, and then getting it insured to get it repaired.

Re: pet insurance and grumpy clients

Gareth Dowdeswell — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:20:16 GMT

a) No charge in current job, previous job charged nominal sum for paperwork if a direct claim

b) Direct claims only if over £300 and only certain companies, once all paperwork seen including proof premiums being paid. Previous job would do direct claims without checking any paperwork, resulted in a lot of bad debt!

c) In a JVP corporate so can only recommend insurance linked to the corporate - we had an hours training which is apparently sufficient.

I can see the logic of getting all claims pre-authorised before doing direct claims but in my experience it can take weeks to get authorisation from some companies and it's often not practical to wait.

Re: pet insurance and grumpy clients

Lorna McHardy — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:47:51 GMT

Urgh. Although I still think that on balance, the advantages of insurance outweigh the disadvantages.

In theory, we're not supposed to do direct claims - does anyone know what the "authorised to make direct claims" thing actually means, by the way? Authorised by whom? - but there are times when we have to do it because that, after all, is why people insure in the first place. They cannot afford sudden large bills. And so far, I'm not aware of problems we've had with any company regarding direct claims in particular, even though I'll tick "not authorised to make direct claim" on forms for a direct claim.

The main difficulty with direct claims is the excess, which frequently ends up as a bad debt. So now we're going to say we'll do direct claims for a deposit of £100.-, any excess overpayment to be repaid as soon as the claim is settled.... we'll see. We don't charge to fill in forms or sort out problems with companies apparently unable to read notes provided <growl>.

I thought we're no longer allowed to recommend specific companies? I do give general advice... don't just compare premiums and excesses... look at what they exclude and when... that kind of thing.

Regarding the change of company, I'm afraid that really isn't my problem. If asked about insurance in any context, I will always explain about the pre-existing condition thing, but if clients decide to go ahead and change companies without getting the relevant information first, I really cannot be held responsible for that.

Re: pet insurance and grumpy clients

Utlendigur — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:44:17 GMT

[quote user="Tanya Fielding"]We are a pet plan practice so recommend only pet plan[/quote]

I thought we weren't allowed to recommend individual insurers or policies as it comes under FSA legislation?

a. We don't charge to fill in forms

b. We very rarely do direct claims, and then generally only for ones where there is unlikely to be any uncertainty over previous history or exclusions eg injuries, RTAs, intestinal FBs, but sometimes it is unavoidable eg clients who've taken out insurance because they don't have the cash flow to pay a large bill in one go.

c. see above!

Re: pet insurance and grumpy clients

Bob Russell — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:43:31 GMT

Yes we charge but not much. We clearly warn people in advance of these charges. We will deal with whatever 'extra' information the insurance companies scream for!

Yes we will allow some direct claims in certain circumstances! Established clients with good insurance companies. We are reluctant to do this for Direct Line because of the delays in processing, E+L and Animal Friends are an absolute no,no, for obvious reasons.

Tesco and the AXA policies are OK but only once the insurance company has been informed.

Our clients get a gentle lecture when we discuss insurance not least that changing companies will automatically refuse pre-existing conditions and it is better to have an overlap to prevent a gap in cover!

Most companies play fair within the rules and small print but owners must learn a degree of savvy. Direct Line did try to get out of a couple of claims but to their credit reconsidered when I discussed the cases with them.

We also give everyone the www.insureyourpet.co.uk website details!!

Re: pet insurance and grumpy clients

Rob Loxley — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:39:16 GMT

Not sure how a,b or c have any bearing on the initial problem?

At least not doing direct claims avoids you having to chase the client down the line when the company refuses to pay out; how about doing pre-auths for direct claims in this case (though I bear Mike Martin's recent experience in mind...)?

We don't charge for filling out forms or sorting problems down the line, and do direct claims on occasions but are fussy about clients/pets/companies/conditions.

Re: pet insurance and grumpy clients

HMC — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:38:35 GMT

Why don't you put a poster display in reception telling clients to beware of the pre-existing condition catch?