Nowadays, insurance is not the be all and end all. It is no longer the all-singing, all-dancing green light to work up a case to “gold standard” without financial restraints.
So many companies are out there with so many variations in policies that it’s seemingly impossible to keep up.
The question “is he insured?” is simply not enough. In order to grasp any sort of idea of the worth of a policy, you also have to ask:
- “How much is he insured up to?”
- “Is it a lifetime policy?”
- “Are there any exclusions or restrictions?”
Unbelievably, some small animal insurance policies will only cover up to £500 in veterinary treatment per condition, which, depending on the condition, isn’t likely to get you very far.
Horsing around
It’s also absolutely infuriating that (to my knowledge) all equine insurance policies are annual, and the majority of these only cover up to £5,000 per condition.
For one year…
That’s it.
With the average colic surgery now costing significantly more than that, the benefit is questionable. Complicated lameness work-ups add up very quickly. It just seems incredulous that you can insure a dog for up to £12,000 worth of veterinary fees, but not a horse.
The cost of an equine policy has undoubtedly increased year on year, yet the benefits have not changed for a long time – how is that justifiable.
A necessary evil
And yet, as a vet, I would still recommend owners insure their pets. That is unless they have the spare cash to be able to pay a few grand out of the blue should the new puppy run out in front of a car, or the geriatric cat develop a manageable, but costly, condition, such as hyperthyroidism.
And while we can’t really advise on specific insurance companies, we can educate clients about the difference between a lifetime and annual policy, and ensure they scour the small print for ridiculous terms and conditions.
From a practice point of view, insurance forms can be a time-consuming pain in the backside. Depending on the set up, some practices will have dedicated members of staff employed to sort through and complete insurance forms – sometimes it’s the receptionist who does this, or a nurse, but some practices will enlist them to a vet. That said, while a vet’s signature will be required to verify the history submitted, I would think the bulk of insurance queries are dealt with by other members of the team in most practices.
Money for old rope
Since it does take a significant amount of time, should we charge for this?
While time is money, there is something that feels inherently wrong about charging an admin fee to fill out a form that will ultimately allow us to provide more comprehensive care than the animal might otherwise receive – especially as we advise and advocate pet insurance. Yes, it takes time, but it is also likely to lead to more money being put into the practice.
I have colleagues in practices that do charge for completing insurance forms, and the cost can be anywhere between £5 and £45. Now, a nominal fee to prove the point that it does take up practice time is understandable, but the higher end of that scale is quite shocking – these fees cannot be claimed via the insurance, so would need to be paid by client in addition to the excess on the insurance policy.
(in)Direct consequences
There is also variation as to whether practices just charge a one-off fee per condition, or every time a form is submitted – likely intended to prevent owners from claiming for every recheck separately and “save up” the claims to do at once instead. Either way, I don’t think these costs to the client are insignificant.
Some practices will charge different amounts depending on whether the form is for a direct claim or for the owner to pay the veterinary practice and then claim their own money back – but where is the logic in that? There might be slightly more paperwork involved in setting up a direct claim, but, ultimately, it gives the vet more freedom to carry out diagnostics or treatment without having to wait for an owner to save up, or the owner having to worry about waiting for the insurance money to come back.
Pick your battles
In an emergency scenario, despite being insured, the absence of a direct claim facility could dramatically change the options available if an owner does not have the money today. Surely, we should be encouraging direct claims, not penalising owners that request them?
I know we have to charge appropriately for our services, and realise many vets find this difficult due to the emotive nature of our work, but I also think we need to pick our battles.
I don’t think it’s fair to penalise insured clients for trying to do the responsible thing and have a contingency plan for when their pet is ill.
Leave a Reply