The Exeter Health Insurance
Discussion
Thanks for the reply Dale - it's their different approach to pre-existing conditions which is why they have been suggested to me (as you have probably guessed)
What's your general take on them as a provider? Anything to be aware of relative to the main players beyond the difference in the products themselves?
What's your general take on them as a provider? Anything to be aware of relative to the main players beyond the difference in the products themselves?
Yes the service isn’t bad tbh, but most of our clients still go with Bupa, Aviva, or Vitality.
The Exeter don’t exclude related conditions, so if you had diabetes for example this would be classed as a pre existing condition. Once insured you get diabetic retinopathy which is caused by diabetes. You would still be covered as long as you didn’t have any symptoms or treatment or advice in relation to your eyesight in the last 5 years.
The Exeter don’t exclude related conditions, so if you had diabetes for example this would be classed as a pre existing condition. Once insured you get diabetic retinopathy which is caused by diabetes. You would still be covered as long as you didn’t have any symptoms or treatment or advice in relation to your eyesight in the last 5 years.
dalenorth said:
Yes the service isn’t bad tbh, but most of our clients still go with Bupa, Aviva, or Vitality.
The Exeter don’t exclude related conditions, so if you had diabetes for example this would be classed as a pre existing condition. Once insured you get diabetic retinopathy which is caused by diabetes. You would still be covered as long as you didn’t have any symptoms or treatment or advice in relation to your eyesight in the last 5 years.
That's exactly it. I have high BP managed by meds (stable for a couple of years), but no indication as to why beyond weight/inactive lifestyle. Exeter seem to be the only provider that will cover me for any potential related cariology issues from policy inception and hence are an attractive option.The Exeter don’t exclude related conditions, so if you had diabetes for example this would be classed as a pre existing condition. Once insured you get diabetic retinopathy which is caused by diabetes. You would still be covered as long as you didn’t have any symptoms or treatment or advice in relation to your eyesight in the last 5 years.
I naively thought that in general moratorium policies would take into account the previous history of stability, rather than run from inception of policy... if I'd realised that I'd have been looking 18 months ago and almost be clear of the 2 year period now.
Sounds like there are no red flags with them from your end then? Why do people typically go for the big players, familiarity, price/product or something else?
They've been around a long time and the time we needed them they provided an excellent service, I was working for the Botswana Government via the Overseas Aid Scheme and was advised before we left UK to take out an Exeter Health Policy. We were with them 1972-1980 when we were working in Gaborone. In 1978, my wife got Rheumatic Fever and I came down with Hepatitis and we had two very young babies at the time and it was decided that we could not be treated locally and on advice from the British High Commission we were flown back to the UK, a private ambulance met the plane and my wife was put in isolation at Barnet General, I then had to cope whilst recovering with two babies for the two months my wife was isolated, luckily we had relatives near to Barnet General so I stayed with them.
egomeister said:
I took out the policy after starting this thread but can't report much as I haven't needed to claim for anything!
Thanks. I'm being guided towards them for the same reasons as you: a condition which has never made me ill, but if it does cause a problem further down the line and actually make me unwell, then I'll be covered, unlike with other providerscrystalmethod said:
Just resurfacing this thread as I'm in a similar situation. Looking for cover for me and my wife as my employment provided cover goes soon
re you referring to Death in Service cover. If so, it's not worth a light, and people should never factor it into their life insurance requirements. But many do. TwigtheWonderkid said:
crystalmethod said:
Just resurfacing this thread as I'm in a similar situation. Looking for cover for me and my wife as my employment provided cover goes soon
re you referring to Death in Service cover. If so, it's not worth a light, and people should never factor it into their life insurance requirements. But many do. crystalmethod said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
crystalmethod said:
Just resurfacing this thread as I'm in a similar situation. Looking for cover for me and my wife as my employment provided cover goes soon
re you referring to Death in Service cover. If so, it's not worth a light, and people should never factor it into their life insurance requirements. But many do. TwigtheWonderkid said:
re you referring to Death in Service cover. If so, it's not worth a light, and people should never factor it into their life insurance requirements. But many do.
Agree cover isn't necessarily flexible , tax efficient and indeed portable but better than not having it as is certainly worth something.Whether sufficient is another story and I imagine that it most cases it would only form 3 or 4/ 10ths of the actual sum assured usually needed ?
alscar said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
re you referring to Death in Service cover. If so, it's not worth a light, and people should never factor it into their life insurance requirements. But many do.
Agree cover isn't necessarily flexible , tax efficient and indeed portable but better than not having it as is certainly worth something.Whether sufficient is another story and I imagine that it most cases it would only form 3 or 4/ 10ths of the actual sum assured usually needed ?
If you die young of a heart attack, brain haemorrhage or in an accident, then it's a useful additional sum, but never factor it into your life insurance needs.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
alscar said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
re you referring to Death in Service cover. If so, it's not worth a light, and people should never factor it into their life insurance requirements. But many do.
Agree cover isn't necessarily flexible , tax efficient and indeed portable but better than not having it as is certainly worth something.Whether sufficient is another story and I imagine that it most cases it would only form 3 or 4/ 10ths of the actual sum assured usually needed ?
If you die young of a heart attack, brain haemorrhage or in an accident, then it's a useful additional sum, but never factor it into your life insurance needs.
alscar said:
Agree cover isn't necessarily flexible , tax efficient and indeed portable but better than not having it as is certainly worth something.
Whether sufficient is another story and I imagine that it most cases it would only form 3 or 4/ 10ths of the actual sum assured usually needed ?
Company provided death in service cover is something most companies provide for their employees, typically with a death lump sum of 2 - 4 X salary. Whether sufficient is another story and I imagine that it most cases it would only form 3 or 4/ 10ths of the actual sum assured usually needed ?
Invariably, it is set up to be paid under a discretionary trust, which means that the lump sum death in service benefit does not fall into the deceased's estate (so no IHT). It also means that it can be paid much quicker than via the deceased's estate. BTW, payment under the discretionary trust does not mean the actual payment is discretionary: the discretion applies to who, and in what shares, receive the lump sum benefit, hence the usual request that the employee completes a non binding Nomination Form setting out his/her wishes. This Form needs to be updated as and when the employee's circumstances change so as to reflect his/her latest wishes. It's the appointed trustee(s) of the discretionary trust who decide to whom and in what shares the lump sum will be paid. The trustees, and other provisions, will be described in a trust document, a copy of which any employee covered by the death lump sum can request.
Company provided lump sum death in service benefit ceases when the employee leaves the company, hence it should not really be taken into account for estate planning.
R.
alscar said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
alscar said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
re you referring to Death in Service cover. If so, it's not worth a light, and people should never factor it into their life insurance requirements. But many do.
Agree cover isn't necessarily flexible , tax efficient and indeed portable but better than not having it as is certainly worth something.Whether sufficient is another story and I imagine that it most cases it would only form 3 or 4/ 10ths of the actual sum assured usually needed ?
If you die young of a heart attack, brain haemorrhage or in an accident, then it's a useful additional sum, but never factor it into your life insurance needs.
The Leaper said:
Company provided lump sum death in service benefit ceases when the employee leaves the company, hence it should not really be taken into account for estate planning.
R.
Especially as you might be leaving the company because you have a serious illness which means you've been off work for months with no prospect of returning any time soon. R.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff