What travel insurance really means

https://medium.com/@ryanbadger/how-insure-and-go-left-me-with-a-20-000-bill-d353491c6386

by rsbadger • 8 years ago

274 176 8 years ago

This is horrifying. Glad you made it out okay.

Insurance companies always felt like a Govt sanctioned scam. These companies are the real scammers that thrive by finding grey areas and loop holes to shirk their responsibility. Making this mandatory is just the government whoring its citizens out to these companies.

I cant imagine how I'd have dealt with a $20000 hole in my pocket. Come to think of it, I should seriously work on saving up for a "personal insurance fund" that I can draw from in cases of emergencies like this and not trust the insurance companies at all. Your story was a wake up call.

Waterluvian• 8 years ago

I think it depends on where you live and what kind of insurance it is.

In Canada I've had zero problem making claims against health, dental, car, and home insurance. But pet insurance dragged their feet every step of the way on a very obviously valid claim. Definitely have no evidence but my first Avenue of thought is that pet insurance is probably less regulated.

astura6• 8 years ago

Canada

See this CBC Marketplace piece on travel health insurance.

https://youtu.be/G08phgECt3I

Basically, from what I recall, those medical forms are impossible to fill out correctly and they are used to deny claims.

zdragnar• 8 years ago

While you should certainly have a healthy savings account for emergencies, these stories are always the exception. Thousands upon thousands of claims are filed every day, and they aren't ending up with this level of pain.

Heck, when I had a tree fall on my house, the mortgage company was a bigger pain in the arse than the insurance company was to deal with. They came out, took some pictures, asked me to get a quote to fix it, and sent me a check in the mail.

Similar thing happened to me with car insurance. And, while I ended up paying more than I would have liked to get my gal bladder removed, that was largely because I bought a high deductible health insurance plan and knew that was a potential outcome.

FireBeyond2• 8 years ago

a Govt sanctioned scam

And in some cases, enabled. Like city ordinances that say you cannot have a trampoline without having homeowner's insurance (though the number of insurers who will 'allow' you to have insurance is dropping - I say 'allow' because some don't say "If you have a trampoline, we won't cover any claims around it", but "If you have a trampoline, we won't offer you coverage at all").

No, I'm not (at all) advocating things like "auto insurance is theft", it's not - I see as a firefighter/paramedic the amount of damage that can be done to innocent third parties (persons and property).

But some insurance requirements are rather more the result of lobbying.

dalore• 8 years ago

I always wonder when I buy insurance, if I need it will they actually pay out.

You should be able to get insurance for your insurance. So when you need insurance and it doesn't pay out. Then that insurance company can go after the first one without having to resort to twitter or medium to shame them.

fred_is_fred2• 8 years ago

For large businesses that's a huge market, it's called re-insurance. State Farm buys a policy that (for example) protects itself against hurricane claims in the state of South Carolina for 2018 against a Reinsurance company.

agrover• 8 years ago

Yeah but that's for the insurer. Getting "insurance insurance" would be for the customer, to protect getting screwed over by their original insurer, who has chosen the short-term option of rejecting a valid claim, but which results in long-term loss of trust in the entire industry. The only solution being...more insurance? Crazy.

paidleaf• 8 years ago

I always wonder when I buy insurance, if I need it will they actually pay out.

I think that's every insurance purchasers worry. The insurance companies have people who work for them to look for ways to deny your claim. But if the claim is straightforward, obvious and well documented, they will pay out unless you are dealing with unscrupulous insurers.

chrisbennet• 8 years ago

"But if the claim is straightforward, obvious and well documented, they will pay out unless you are dealing with unscrupulous insurers."

I think this a fallacy (unless most insurers are unscrupulous). It is very common for insurance companies to reject the claim initially and hope you'll go away.

legohead• 8 years ago

Every time my wife's parents travel to the US we get them insurance. Their most recent visit was the first time we actually needed to use it, and it was just minor.

After they arrived they both quickly got sick, not flu type symptoms but a weird spot on the neck, dizziness, and a couple other things I can't remember. It seemed like it could be serious so we took them in. Doctor examined them, said they were okay and we went home. Filed a claim with insurance.

Insurance asked for medical history. They literally don't have any, nor was it really relevant as they weren't diagnosed with anything. I think the insurance wanted to claim pre-existing conditions (which they don't cover). They still refused to pay anything. The bill wasn't even that much, maybe a few hundred dollars? It was less than what I paid the insurance!

Flimm2• 8 years ago

Name and shame, please.

gamblor956• 8 years ago

Report it to your state's insurance commissioner.

retzkek• 8 years ago

You should be able to get insurance for your insurance

If this doesn't exist it seems like an opportunity worth investigating. Your premiums would essentially be paying for consumer research on insurers (this should also include so-called "extended warranties," which is a huge market). The relative costs of premiums for different insurers should drive consumers to more trustworthy insurers, which should improve the insurance marketplace for everyone.

It's possible it just may not be economically viable though.

microtherion• 8 years ago

In Switzerland, it fairly common to have Legal Expenses Insurance, which might help you against your other insurance (e.g. homeowner's policies often include it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_expenses_insurance

Of course, whether THEY will pay out on a claim is a separate question.

al_chemist• 8 years ago

"Have you been a victim of an insurance fraud? You have believed insurer's promises and they betrayed your trust? We can insure you against that. You can trust us, we promise!"

76• 8 years ago

What happens when the "insurance for your insurance" (level 2 insurance?) refuses to pay? You get level 3 insurance for this case? What if they are all equally corrupt? Which they probably should be, since it's in their interest not to pay up?

rootsudo• 8 years ago

This is why I'm an expat in the philippines.

willio58• 8 years ago

Are insurance companies better in the Philippines?

seanmcdirmid• 8 years ago

I’m guessing, at least, out of pocket medical expenses are cheaper. Don’t they have a medical tourism thing going on?

julienmarie• 8 years ago

Expat here in the Phils too! Should create a community of HN Phils Expats

scarejunba• 8 years ago

I don't understand. Is the difference that surgeons are available on national holidays there?

ecolonsmak• 8 years ago

wow, that's brutal. I've been looking at something similar through this outfit - https://www.globalrescue.com/ and now I'm not so sure if it's worth it or not.

ghaff6• 8 years ago

They sound like they're probably the real deal: https://www.wired.com/2015/08/search-and-rescue-for-sale/

But, without looking at what they offer in detail, I'd be pretty sure they're quite a bit different from normal travel insurance and are priced accordingly. This is about potentially saving your life when things go sideways in some remote corner of the globe.

Not hopefully paying you out some money because your tour operator went belly-up or you need to take an emergency flight home because of an injury or other problem (which is what most travel insurance emphasizes).

true_religion• 8 years ago

Looks like they wanted him to use NHS, unless he was dying. Luckily, I live in America, where no travel insurrer will ever tell you to return to as costs will increase by 40x.

jochakovsky• 8 years ago

I think they would still tell you to return, since any costs in the US would be paid by your regular medical insurance, not your travel insurance.

gnode3• 8 years ago

In this case I presume you'd not be paying for US insurance, as you'd expect to be backpacking for many months more.

ghaff6• 8 years ago

Oh, I'm quite sure they would as, once you're back home, you're off their hands and in the hands of your regular medical insurance company which you hopefully have.

These travel policies may notionally cover some level of urgent medical care but they're mostly designed (and priced for) cancelations due to injury/sickness/emergency, lost property, and getting you back home even if that requires a helicopter from some remote hillside (hopefully).

I'm sure there are 12 month policies you can buy that legitimately cover international health care for a 12 month period in addition to other travel-related risks but they'll cost a lot more.

nrki• 8 years ago

Since moving to the UK I've found that insurers here have SO much more legalese in their contracts. It's really hard to figure out what they actually cover ("two-fifths of fuck all").

My top "Gold" level travel insurance doesn't even cover my phone getting stolen while overseas.

Bucephalus355• 8 years ago

Absolutely shameful. Has this insurer ever paid out an actual claim to anyone?

wjnc• 8 years ago

What a story. But it's not insurance that's bad, it's (local) insurers. In the Netherlands for international coverage there are two main support companies covering all insurers that provide help while abroad. That help is pretty extensive. If you deliver early abroad, they might send a nurse or doctor to help fly you back. They can book you flights and taxis if a relative dies or get you a new car pretty much anywhere worldwide. This all from personal experience, my professional experience gives me the same impression. In this case they would have probably guided him with a nurse or doctor to Singapore.

Which leads to my only gripe about this story. Why did he act though and not ask for help from the get go. Is there no international support in UK policies? Flying while sedated and bleeding...

Any insurer should see paying out as the prime deliverance of the customer promise. You don't skimp on paying out, but do try to be very careful about getting swindled. Getting called after 20k is spent would get the flags up in any insurer, good faith or bad.

My 2 cents would be that a good timeline and documented claim (like this blog post without the fluff) could still get him the 20k. It's an insured event, without the time for proper evaluation and without malice. That's a good basis for any claim.

emurray• 8 years ago

Warning for anyone who's squeamish: there are some fairly gruesome photos of an injury in the article.

trocadero15• 8 years ago

And a ridiculous amount of gifs of random crap

justinator5• 8 years ago

And a dire need for an editor!

cooervo• 8 years ago

damn lets upvote this. This horrible company needs the bad PR.

paulcole• 8 years ago

Might be a silly question, but how do you even know he bought insurance from Insure and Go?

You’re awful quick to want to shame “this horrible company.”

clavalle• 8 years ago

Let me ask you this: how much would you bet that he didn't?

Because I'd be willing to bet $100 that he did.

Am I sure? No. It is impossible to be sure. But I think it's highly likely considering the detail of the article and my difficulty in imagining why he'd put so much effort into a lie that could land him in hot water.

So, let's dump the idea that people can't take action no matter how small unless we are 100% sure of something. Almost nothing is 100%.

But things can be likely. Put your money where your mouth is.

If we get enough people in the pool, perhaps we can cut in the author of the article in return for documentation.

kinard• 8 years ago

Contact the financial ombudsman, they will be able to help, and in a lot of cases they side with the consumer. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk

bancrates• 8 years ago

I would like to second and strongly advise this advice to contact the ombudsman.

I got cheap UK travel insurance, got my jaw broken in Australia, racked up huge hospital bills, hotel bills, curtailment bills...

They tried every trick in the book to not pay.

Although it took over a year the ombudsman made them repay every penny.

It seems you documented everything well - the ombudsman attaches a huge weighting to the medical opinions of treating doctors, so you have a good shot.

throwaway9d0291• 8 years ago

This is why it's important to read the policy itself, not just the marketing materials. Usually they have the specific details of what you have to do and what you're entitled to receive.

The insurer definitely didn't handle it well but it would have gone much smoother if the expectations were properly set by reading the policy.

The travel insurance that comes for my credit card for example makes it quite clear that you have to contact the insurer as soon as possible after an accident and that in most cases, they'll opt to have you repatriated for care in your home country.

icebraining• 8 years ago

in most cases, they'll opt to have you repatriated for care in your home country.

Yes; and that's a shitty thing to require when the person has a broken rib and a detached fingertip and is 20h+ away from the home country.

The problem wasn't that he didn't know the policy, it was the policy itself.

TwoBit• 8 years ago

Certainly it was partly his fault for not reading the policy.

gnode3• 8 years ago

He got a medical opinion that he was not fit for travel before his operation. This wasn't a case of not reading the small print, it was a case of the insurer valuing their own medical opinion over that of their customer's doctor.

ghaff6• 8 years ago

It's probably particularly important with travel insurance because travel insurance exists for reasons in addition to a standard health insurance policy (which may, in fact, be your primary health coverage for out-of-country travel in any case).

I think of travel insurance as serving two main purposes.

- Insuring against not being able to take or having to cut short an expensive pre-paid trip or

- Evacuating you (e.g. a helicopter rescue) if you injure yourself in a remote place (especially if you're doing activities like mountain climbing).

Of course, it depends on the quality of your main medical insurance.

nwsm• 8 years ago

I'm shocked at how much expense you weren't looking for them to cover.

timwaagh• 8 years ago

yeah thats why i try to avoid buying insurance. i only buy it if my parents insist or it is mandated by law.

212• 8 years ago

Question for those who might know about this:

If I find myself in a similar situation as in this article, is there some sort of "insurance professional handler" laywer kind of guy you can hire so that he does what is necessary and who knows all the traps, so that you have good chances of being covered?

astura6• 8 years ago

This person is in the UK, I can't speak for the UK but in the US you can contact the Department of Insurance for your state if you have issues with insurance companies. They are responsible for regulating insurance companies and making sure their actions are within the bounds of the law.

212• 8 years ago

I meant during the thing. Like you don't talk to the police without a lawyer present, maybe you shouldn't talk to the insurer without a professional present.

refurb2• 8 years ago

This approach by the company is not surprising at all.

I have family in Canada who come and visit the US. They buy the insurance. One of them had a heart attach while in the US. Insurance paid something like $50,000 to put them on a private medical jet back to Canada. Far cheaper than having the care in the US.

justinator5• 8 years ago

I think what surprises me is that they wanted to fly the guy half way around the world. Canada and the US border each other.

I DO think that the gentleman made a bad decision saying that he was intent on staying in-country for 6 months afterwards. That's probably all the insurance company needed to think, "Yeah, this guy is using travel insurance as regular insurance"

Still, I do think the gentleman get the wrong end of the stick. I know I won't use this company, but now I really don't know who to use.

rsbadger17• 8 years ago

my insurance was for 18 months of travel though, so i intended to travel for 18 months. I think that's reasonable. Maybe my wording came out wrong in the post, I wasn't telling them, "no i wont come home" I was telling them I didn't have a return flight pre booked because I was planning on travelling for 6 more months yet.

trocadero15• 8 years ago

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the insurance company here. Travel insurance is there to take care of emergency medical care. It's not for long term care. The guy clearly didn't want to travel because he preferred to be cared in Singapore. From his e-mail:

I intend to stay in Asia for some time yet. I did consider travelling home to have surgery in the UK, but the medical Service here is excellent and I'm already scheduled in for the procedure on Monday. I was concerned about the long haul flight and travel time with a broken hand and fractured rib, as well as potential waiting times on the NHS.

So he's pretty clearly trying to game the situation. He wanted to keep traveling and avoid the NHS. The letter from the doctor saying he was not fit to fly simply states:

The patient Badger Ryan Sean was admitted from 11/6 to 12/6 for an operation for a right index finger proximal phalanx avulsion fracture on 31/5 and was not fit for flying before his operation for his fracture.

It's reasonable for the insurance company to ask for more details and a specific reason why he wasn't fit to fly.

mamurphy• 8 years ago

Yeah, it's unclear to me why he didn't ask for/demand coverage for the emergency finger-attaching procedure. In the article, he skipped the details on that in terms of supposedly having to inform them beforehand for an emergency procedure.

That emergency procedure, not the follow-up, seems more in line with what the plan is designed to cover.

trocadero15• 8 years ago

Yeah, it's unclear to me why he didn't ask for/demand coverage for the emergency finger-attaching procedure.

That's bizarre to me as well. Why does he think not claiming reimbursement for covered expenses is being reasonable?

3pt14159• 8 years ago

Warning bells starting chiming as soon as I read how much the insurance cost. He might not have known better, but £273.70 for 18 months of insurance is at least 10x too low.

My trick is simple: Get an Amex Platinum if you need insurance for under 2 weeks [1] and buy insurance from your bank for anything longer. Banks compete on trust, so they don't randomly fuck you over. I actually used my bank's health insurance when I needed it and they were nothing but professional. It was RBC Canada, if it matters.

[1] Reach out to me if you do this and we'll both get enough points for a free transatlantic flight.

lozenge• 8 years ago

That's a perfectly normal price for travel insurance in the UK. Because it doesn't include healthcare when you aren't travelling.

mendez• 8 years ago

I thought it sounded really expensive. My annual AMEX travel insurance is £31 a year, however it does have a max trip length of 90 days so wouldn't be suitable for "Digital Nomading".

J-dawg8• 8 years ago

I’d always assumed that “Travel Insurance” means you’re covered for whatever treatment you need in the country you happen to be in. (EDIT: providing the accident happens on your trip).

Flying you home and palming you off onto the state seems kinda shady to me. That’s not really “medical cover”, it’s just a flight home. And to make matters worse they made out as if flying him home was doing him a favour.

EDIT: Reading some of the other comments makes me think I’m just another mug who doesn’t read his insurance policies. But I still think that offering “£5,000,000 in medical cover” without qualifying that it really means "£5,000,000 in medical cover, only if we absolutely can't get you home and get the NHS to do it for free", borders on deliberately misleading.

trocadero15• 8 years ago

Nah, travel insurance is to cover emergency medical expenses abroad. Long term care is taken care of by your local insurance or government system.

astura6• 8 years ago

Travel insurance is only for emergency coverage while traveling. You absolutely can't purchase travel insurance for $100 and use it to fly abroad to get non-emergency surgery.

patmcc2• 8 years ago

>“£5,000,000 in medical cover”

With travel insurance generally, I think there's a distinction between emergency medical care you need RIGHT NOW and medical care that you need at some point.

If I get hit by a train and need to be pieced back together, am in the ICU, etc. I'd expect travel insurance to pay for that, up to the total coverage. If I get diagnosed with a slow moving cancer that needs treatment (but not today), I wouldn't expect travel insurance to cover it. I'd expect this to be laid out in the longer agreements I'm sure he had to sign to get this insurance. That's the difference between travel insurance and health insurance. I (Canadian) can get travel insurance for a trip to the US for damn cheap; that doesn't mean I can go live in the US and use that insurance for my day-to-day stuff.

Whether this particular incident is closer to the train or the cancer might be an open question. I think the key point, and maybe where he loses the argument, is that he already flew to Singapore. He took a ~3 hour flight in a worse state then when the insurance company advised him to fly home. Don't think he's going to win this one.

jstarfish• 8 years ago

Reading some of the other comments makes me think I’m just another mug who doesn’t read his insurance policies. But I still think that offering “£5,000,000 in medical cover” without qualifying that it really means "£5,000,000 in medical cover, only if we absolutely can't get you home and get the NHS to do it for free", borders on deliberately misleading.

I agree with your sentiment and believe this is just a shitty fly-by-night fake "insurance" company that collects premiums and dispenses plane tickets, but insurers aren't obligated to pay top dollar for whatever course of treatment you deem necessary without any opportunity for negotiation. If they're footing your bill, they get to have a say in the matter of when and how the job gets done.

He paid pennies for the "coverage." With that being the case and his being a British citizen, their treatment plan for everything is likely to fly patients back to the UK whenever possible. You don't become a billion-pound company charging 200 pounds at a time while also reimbursing first-world medical claims for travelers who aren't paralyzed in an ICU. I doubt they offer similar coverage to non-Brits for the same price, if at all.

We have similar plans wrt auto insurance in the US. You can either get proper insurance and pay a fair amount or the legal bare minimum for pennies, and when you get in your first at-fault accident you quickly learn what it is you have (or haven't) been paying for.

cptskippy2• 8 years ago

So he's pretty clearly trying to game the situation. I think you've misinterpreted some ambiguity in his statement because he neglected to use the proper tense when justifying his reason for not having a return flight booked.

They inquired if he had a pre booked flight home:

> Our medical team believe this injury may require long term care, so we would see if beneficial that you return to the UK for treatment, if you have a pre booked flight home please advise us on the date?

His response to that line was:

> The medical team here have suggested that I will require physiotherapy once a week for 4 to 6 weeks. I have no return flight booked at present, as I intend to stay in Asia for some time yet. I did consider travelling home to have surgery in the UK, but the medical Service is excellent and I'm already scheduled in for the procedure on Monday.

The partial quote you took, "I intend to stay in Asia for some time yet", was his justification for not having a pre booked flight home, not an expression of his refusal to comply with their recommendations.

He wanted to keep traveling and avoid the NHS.

You've also mistaken his desire to finish receiving treatment in Singapore as a desire to avoid the NHS. His desire was to receive the most immediate care possible and the surgery was intended to install a plate to stabilize his hand and ensure that it heals properly.

They were asking him to fly for 20+ hours in a coach seat, considering his hand was unstable that seams unreasonable. It also increases the likelihood of additional injury as he travels.

The were asking him to transition his medical care from one hospital to another in another country on the other side of the globe. That by itself would introduce considerable delay in treatment as the new medical team would need to fully access his treatment up to that point and establish a new treatment plan. The surgery he was prescribed was to stabilize his injury to ensure it healed properly, delaying that treatment could potentially lead to improper healing.

As someone who popped a pulled tendon and had to wait 6 months (MURICA!) for an appointment with an orthopedist at which point my injury was healed (thankfully correctly), I can fully understand his desire to stay put and finish his treatment.

rsbadger17• 8 years ago

Yes to all of this.

trocadero15• 8 years ago

You've also mistaken his desire to finish receiving treatment in Singapore as a desire to avoid the NHS

It's right there in his e-mail. He was concerned:

"About potential waiting times on the NHS".

They were asking him to fly for 20+ hours in a coach seat, considering his hand was unstable that seams unreasonable. It also increases the likelihood of additional injury as he travels.

IMHO if his hand is well enough to be discharged then the presumption is it's well enough to travel. Of course, he can provide evidence from his doctor to rebut that presumption. The insurance co asked for that but it's not clear he ever provided it.

The were asking him to transition his medical care from one hospital to another in another country on the other side of the globe.

Which is the service he paid for. Travel insurance is to pay for emergency care until you are able to fly home. If he wants an "any hospital, for any treatment, in any country" policy those are sold too, but, naturally, are much more expensive than Bronze level travelers insurance.

dwild• 8 years ago

His desire was to receive the most immediate care possible and the surgery was intended to install a plate to stabilize his hand and ensure that it heals properly.

That has a cost. I'm Canadian and if I wanted to get a scan, it could takes months. If it's actually an emergency, it will be much faster, if I paid for it at a private clinic, it would be much faster too. Non urgent immediate care has a price.

The surgery he was prescribed was to stabilize his injury to ensure it healed properly, delaying that treatment could potentially lead to improper healing.

They aren't there to give him "proper healing", they are there to support emergency situation.

If you go to your hospital and it takes 6 months, it's because they believe that 6 months is still "proper healing". If it takes him longer in UK, it means that it's still "proper healing".

His first hospital stay was an emergency, he didn't want to make the claims, but that was what was claimable.

If his doctor in Singapore though that he couldn't take the plane, then that's what he should have gotten as proof.

gaius2• 8 years ago

He wanted to keep traveling and avoid the NHS

Private health insurance is by definition avoiding the NHS, which was 10,000 miles away anyway, so I’m not sure what point you’re making here? If the terms of the policy were we’ll fly you home in cattle class and dump you on the taxpayer then that should be made clear

luispedrocoelho6• 8 years ago

But he did not purchase health insurance, he purchased travel insurance.

It seems to me that the whole thing is "I bought travel insurance and I thought I would be getting global health insurance, but it turns out it's really travel insurance."

I guess because the NHS is paid through your taxes it may not have been so blindingly obvious to someone in the UK that anything similar to what he is asking for would have cost at least "300£ per month" (and that is assuming he is young and healthy) instead of "300£ for 18 months".

trocadero15• 8 years ago

Here's the handbook for the policy he bought:

https://www.insureandgo.com/media/1228/iag_mf_pw_adv_0518.pd...

Page 20 says:

What you are covered for

We will pay up to the amount shown in the table of benefits on pages 4 and 5 for any costs for the following that are reasonable and necessary (see definition on page 14) as a result of you being unexpectedly injured or ill during your trip.

1. Emergency medical, surgical and hospital treatment and ambulance costs.

It also says:

Special exclusions which apply to section B

We will not cover the following:

2. Any treatment or surgery which we think you do not need immediately and can wait until you return home. Our decision is final.

12. Any medical treatment that you receive after you have refused the offer of returning to your home area, when, in the opinion of our medical advisors, you are fit to travel.

DoreenMichele4• 8 years ago

I worked in insurance for a company with a reputation for being unusually ethical, etc. While working in insurance, I heard that it was quite common for other insurance companies to train their claims processors to look for a reason to deny, not a reason to pay. I was trained to look for a reason to pay, not a reason to deny and still sometimes found the bureaucratic process stomach-turning.

I generally am sympathetic to the conclusion of the author that the intent was to screw him out of his money. Having working in insurance, I have heard from reliable sources that this is a common tactic and attitude at most insurance companies and I believe that to be true.

Then, on top of that, issues for the insured are compounded by bureaucratic snafus etc. which I find abhorrent given that the industry generally runs on claims of being there for you when they are needed.

I have said previously that it boggles my mind that insurance is legal, especially health insurance. I think car insurance and house insurance and such make more sense, but health insurance strikes me as being like an ugly Running Man style game show called "You Bet Your Life" and I go through life shaking my head at the idea that the world is apparently okay with this state of things.

Flenser• 8 years ago

Do you think making insurance companies publish their payout:deny ratios would change their behaviour?

zaarn• 8 years ago

The problem there is profit orientation and it's true for all insurances.

Even car insurances do this even if you think they don't. They'll look for a reason to not pay you a dime even if it's on legally uneven feet.

When an insurance is profit motivated, then maximizing profits is the first instincts. Maximizing profits happens by maximizing the deny:payout ratio. My car insurance did this by denying me reimbursement on a covered repair because I didn't go the the repair shop the insurance would have preferred (of which I was informed later and per law this doesn't matter anyway).

On the other hand, my statutory insurance has covered any of my eye-care costs with zero questions asked or simple policies usually simply copied from the relevant laws (1 free pair of glasses per calendar year, up to 200€ IIRC, 10€/day for hospital stay beyond medical emergency, etc).

The difference? Statutory insurance here is non-profit. Most insurances, even the private ones are non-profit. Very few insurances operate for profit at all.

Other than the management overhead, the fees collected go straight into covering medical costs or are invested into fonds as a reserve.

moltar5• 8 years ago

Which insurance company was that?

moltar5• 8 years ago

I think it is completely unreasonable to expect anyone to indur a long international flight. The fact that they expect him to fly with broken bones is inhumane.

otterley• 8 years ago

Expecting insurers to be magnanimous will always lead to disappointment and anger.

Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that insurers will nearly always err on the side of denying a claim if they can find an excuse to. That's why it's important to (a) read the fine print in the policies you purchase and (b) hire an attorney if you believe that you have been unfairly denied a claim.

Even if a claim is valid, insurers will also do whatever it takes to minimize their payouts. In this case, paying for transport to the UK for additional treatment would have been far cheaper than paying a Singaporean hospital for it, and so it's unsurprising that they pressured the claimant to hop on a flight instead of stay in Singapore since the injury did not contraindicate air travel (or at least there was significant disagreement as to that question).

markbnj• 8 years ago

When our daughter visited Bali with a friend last year she was also in a motorbike crash. I guess a lot of people think it will be fun to ride a motorbike in Bali. Her hand was badly cut and needed stitches. We had to transfer the cash to her friend's debit account so it could be paid out on the spot, but once that was done the ER docs did a great job sewing her up, and $700 seemed like a hell of a bargain compared to what a visit to the ER and some stitches probably would have cost in the U.S.

forgot-my-pw4• 8 years ago

I'm very suspicious that the article mentions $22,000 hospital bed cost for 5 nights stay (excluding surgery).

FireBeyond2• 8 years ago

That hospital stay was in Singapore, not Indonesia (where he got told to take a taxi to the hospital, rather than 'wait' for an ambulance, and that the surgeons felt that he needed urgent surgery, but there was no-one around that night, and there was a holiday tomorrow, so 'day after tomorrow... maybe').

caymanjim2• 8 years ago

In Singapore, with first-rate hospitals, and the highest cost of living in the world? That's not even a little surprising.

latchkey2• 8 years ago

"I guess a lot of people think it will be fun to ride a motorbike in Bali." --

I am from California, but I live in Vietnam now for nearly two years. Riding a motorbike here is almost a necessary part of the culture. I've also been to Bali, which has a similar, but not as extreme culture.

Unless you have prior expert experience on two wheels (I raced bicycles for 8 years and have ridden motorcycles on all terrains, for 10), or you are just really talented, the last thing you should do is get on two wheels in countries like these. You'll get injured or killed at some point.

I have World Nomads insurance and I really hope to not have to use it, ever.

yks• 8 years ago

I’ve been motorcycling both in SE Asia and the US, always feel much safer in Asia because the speeds are low, bikes are low-powered and abundant so the drivers expect them.

And majority of expats get by fine without motorcycle racing experience, the biggest issue is as always driving while drunk.

luispedrocoelho6• 8 years ago

From his telling, the company was not very communicative when he contacted them, but, fundamentally, saying he should fly back to the UK for treatment and they'll cover the flight does not seem unreasonable.

He complains that "unless you are injured so horrifically that you cannot survive another moment without life saving surgery, odds are they’ll just tell you to fly home and have the surgery for free." But, to me, this is exactly what travel insurance is (which is why it's so cheap). Expecting fancy Singaporean hospitals unless it is strictly necessary seems totally unreasonable.

If they were not so communicative, he also basically decided to not get back to them on the vital "is he fit to fly?" issue for a few days (he had been OK to fly to Singapore after all), until after the surgery. There were a few days to go until the surgery, so that was enough time to get him back to the UK. Also, why hadn't he gotten in touch before? He texts pictures to friends, books flights, &c, and does not call the insurer or even ask somebody else to call on his behalf?

For what it's worth, I think he made the right decision in getting treatment in Singapore at his own expense, but that was still his decision.

astura6• 8 years ago

this is exactly what travel insurance is (which is why it's so cheap)

And that's one of the huge issues!! Very often people don't read their policies so they have misunderstandings about their coverage!! This is a big problem!

I always read all of my policies, I suggest everyone else does the same. I want to be very clear what losses are covered and what my deductible will be before any losses occur. In fact, for legal documents, insurance policies are pretty easy to understand.

I really wish he included the text of his policy.

While I have sympathy for him, I think he got himself into a pickle when he flew to Singapore than claimed he was unable to fly. Yes, Singapore is a million times closer to Indonesia than the UK, but he should have known if he left Indonesia the insurance company would have expected him to return to the UK.

luispedrocoelho6• 8 years ago

To be sure, travel insurance is very often a very good idea.

But it's travel insurance not "whole-world, any hospital, health insurance" (which I am sure you can buy, but not at the same price).

dblohm7• 8 years ago

His doctor said that he was not fit to fly back to the UK!

luispedrocoelho6• 8 years ago

The incentive to say so is pretty clear: if he flies away, not only does the doctor lose a 15,000 costumer, he can also be liable if anything does go wrong.

Maybe he was indeed in no shape to fly, but he should have argued it properly in those days. Even now, it seems more like "it would have been awful to fly economy" and not "it would have been dangerous".

greedo• 8 years ago

His flying from Bali to Singapore is totally understandable. He was in pain/shock and not advised by doctors to avoid flight.

forgot-my-pw4• 8 years ago

There's no way a 5 day hospital stay in Bali (excluding surgery) costs $22,000. That sounds way too crazy. No way the locals can pay for something like that.

dragonwriter• 8 years ago

The locals in the US can't afford the full-charge rate for hospital care, either. That doesn't stop it from being the rate actually billed before any discounts the particular patient may be qualified for, and, as such, the rate charged to someone who has the misfortune of not being qualified for any discounts.

mertd• 8 years ago

Singapore, not Bali.

forgot-my-pw4• 8 years ago

That makes more sense. Thought it was in Bali.

BLanen• 8 years ago

Locals are insured.

thiscatis• 8 years ago

Did you read the article? It's Singapore, not Bali where he was quoted that price.

opwieurposiu• 8 years ago

Insurers should be required to list the statics for the number of accepted and rejected claims on the policy website. Currently there is no way to tell which insurance is more or less likely to screw you.

codemati• 8 years ago

Or, which insurer has customers who do not read their policies.

Accepted vs. rejected claims is meaningless on its own.

moltar5• 8 years ago

It is not meaningless. If the insurance policy is 1000 pages of legalese it’s a dark pattern designed to dissuade you from reading it. Ultimately, the accepted to denied ratio is the measure to watch for as a consumer.

weeksie2• 8 years ago

He paid £275 for 18 months of travel insurance? Well yeah, of course they are going to want to fly him back to the NHS. As a US traveller my insurance was $2600 for 12 months. When you enter into a legal agreement (insurance) read the fine print, it'll save you a lot of disappointment.

gnode3• 8 years ago

read the fine print

People should be able to expect that insurance is as advertised, and there's no "not really" in the fine print. UK courts are much less accepting of such things than the US. The infamous case is PPI misselling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_protection_insurance

rsbadger17• 8 years ago

Also worth noting my cover was Worldwide (except USA) insurance is substantially cheaper outside of the states

weeksie2• 8 years ago

Insurance policies are not the same as an iTunes TOS. The policy is an agreement with a company outlining very specific circumstances in which they pay you. I'm sure the company was garbage (they sure sound that way) but when I've had travel insurance it has always outlines the circumstances where I could make a claim.

In the case of an insurance policy the fine print is what you're buying.

Again, to be fair, the insurance company could have had a misleading policy and if that's the case they should be raked over the coals.

ChuckMcM2• 8 years ago

I really feel for the guy, he has gone through a lot of pain and suffering.

That said, as someone who has gone through life and used my share of insurance, I think the guys attitude is exactly backwards. There are huge numbers of people out there working insurance fraud schemes. I nearly ran into a couple that was trying to 'brake unexpectedly and get insurance payments.' Since I leave enough following distance I didn't hit them and they were quite irritated. It would have been funny if it were not sad.

So the insurance folks try to set up a lot of processes that minimize that fraud or make it harder on perpetrators.

This guy seems to have set out with the idea that insurance was trying to rip him off, and by operating under that assumption, taking actions (or not taking actions) that make himself look suspicious.

An alternative course of action might have been to familiarize himself with the policy before hand, and the processes and requirements he needs to meet when he needs to use it. And then set up things like putting into his wallet, "If I am being treated at a hospital or clinic please call this number and inform this insurance company xx xx xx xxxx" My sister in law is a nurse and we know a guy who works as a volunteer medic around the world, and when you come into the hospital they will always look through your wallet for identification and insurance information, help them out there.

Life is so much harder if you assume other people are "out to rip you off" or "get you" as your going in position. It can ruin possible relationships and it certainly damages business relationships.

rsbadger17• 8 years ago

This is true, but the reality is I doubted my insurance would pay from the start. I was expecting to pay for everything myself. It was only once I got the quotes in Singapore that I realised I might not actually be able to afford it that I resorted to the insurance. And their response was even worse than I expected it to be. I appreciate there are countless fraud attempts and they need to protect themselves, but I was lucky, it could have been a lot worse, I'm sure for other people it is. And I guarantee you when you're facing emergency surgery the LAST thing on your mind is "I best call my insurer and start the form filling process". It's fuck, FUCK. This fucking sucks.

ChuckMcM2• 8 years ago

This part it sooo true: And I guarantee you when you're facing emergency surgery the LAST thing on your mind is "I best call my insurer and start the form filling process".

Something that I carry on me when I'm travelling in my wallet is a piece of paper. It is written in both English and the predominant language of where I'm travelling. This paper is titled "Instructions and information for emergency personnel." It has my name, home address, blood type, allergies, short medical history, insurance numbers and international numbers to call for authorization. It also includes numbers of people who can be called for more information (like my primary care physician)

It is easy to make, write it up before the trip, run it through Google translate for the destination language, and fold it up into my wallet.

I got this idea from a friend of my father's who was a diplomat and so travelling a lot. He had stories about how it had saved his life in when he crashed his bike in the Alps. He too said that the last thing on your mind is explaining all of this stuff to people when he was injured. But once he realized that he didn't have to explain it, he only needed to let them know who to ask to get the information.

robjan• 8 years ago

The insurance company is likely not in the wrong here. I think part of the problem is that, as Brits, we are used to not worrying about this kind of thing. If we get hurt in the UK we get unlimited "free" healthcare (paid through taxes) and there are reciprocal agreements throughout Europe whereby healthcare is either free or has a nominal charge to reduce Moral Hazard. We don't have to think about communicating with an insurance company.

Since moving abroad I have gotten used to carrying my insurance card and calling their number before any elective insurable event takes place. I feel that the OP was unfortunate in finding this out the hard way.

aembleton• 8 years ago

You really should have health insurance when travelling around Europe. A friend of mine broke her arm and had a one night stay in a hospital in Germany. It came to €1000.

Her insurance were excellent and paid the hospital, in full, directly. The insurance company is STA - http://www.statravel.com/travel-insurance.htm

DanBC• 8 years ago

You need your EHIC as a minimum to take advantage of the arrangements.

pawelwentpawel• 8 years ago

Given the context of this thread - what would be a travel insurer for a UK resident that digital nomads of HN would actually recommend? Not necessarily the cheapest, just the most reliable one.

vertex-four• 8 years ago

I believe the thing to do is to get global medical insurance, not travel insurance. Yes, it’s going to be pricier, yes, if you don’t plan on flying back to your home country as soon as you’re out of an emergency situation it’s necessary.

J-dawg8• 8 years ago

I wonder whether the author has contacted any of the consumer rights TV programmes such as "Watchdog" [0], which are quite popular in the UK. Martin Lewis [1] might also be interested.

This story seems tailor-made for them. It's an emotive story, connected to a wider issue ("Can YOU trust your travel insurer?"), and just in time for summer holidays!

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mg74 [1] https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/

ordinaryperson• 8 years ago

Once I filed for travel insurance after my travel plans to Patagonia were delayed by a blizzard.

Getting there required 3 separate flights and 2-hr cab ride in the middle of nowhere Chile, which cost like $200.

After Kafkaesque paperwork my claim was initially denied. They said I didn't have my boarding pass from the 3rd flight (first 2 legs were Air Canada, easy to reproduce, but the third was some small, domestic Chilean airline with a barely-there website and a Spanish-only hotline).

Who saves a boarding pass at the start of a 2-week hiking trip through the Patagonian wilderness? Why is that third flight stub necessary, since I'm asking to be reimbursed for the cab ride when I got there (which I have documented proof for)?

I had to arrange for a conference call with a Spanish translator and the insurer (srsly), and eventually they paid up. But how many people go that far? It felt like the plot of "The Rainmaker".

The only other time I had to use travel insurance was when I lost my brand new iPod while changing planes in Seoul, South Korea. Even though the insurance covered "lost or stolen" they claimed they couldn't reimburse me because I hadn't filed a police report with the South Korean airport police (it was the middle of the night, I don't speak Korean and I didn't realize it was gone until later). And why do I need to have a police report if it was lost?

So I can definitely sympathize with how unscrupulous these travel insurance rackets are. That being said, I don't think asking him to fly home was that unreasonable. How are they supposed to validate the care he's getting there? He just going to dictate his care and hand over a massive bill from Singapore?

But usually this involves taking them to court and getting a settlement.

ghaff6• 8 years ago

This whole thread has me curious. If you're in a country with national health insurance (and no private supplementary insurance), are you pretty much always advised to buy travel insurance when out of the country?

In the US, decent private medical plans typically cover emergency medical treatment when traveling. Pretty much the only time I buy travel insurance is when I either have large non-refundable payments because you never know when you'll have an accident or a family emergency or I'm doing some specific activity like a Nepal trek where an evacuation could be very costly.

I'd never buy travel insurance because of potentially lost luggage or extra flights/taxi rides.

sunstone• 8 years ago

There's no point in even buying travel insurance if your upfront assumption is that you're not likely to need it so you're going to buy on price.

On the other hand insurance is tricky at the best of times. (shill warning) In situations like this I put my trust in Costco because they have a track record of consistently providing a good deal the price.

I once knew a guy who ran a roofing business. He said that it was easy for him to insure his workers if they fell off the roof, but difficult to get coverage for when they hit the ground.

kioleanu• 8 years ago

What I was astonished to find out is that insurers actually have people or departments whose sole job is to find reasons not to pay and how they cling to absolutely every detail, true or not.

More or less the same thing happened to me with a 6 months travel insurance. I had an unfortunate series of light medical problems that racked up about 1500 EUR. I was somehow lucky that I over-informed the insurer anytime anything concerned them and they pre-approved each doctor's visit. When it was time to get my money back, they denied the claim saying that I flew back home one month into the trip (and then left again) and that legally concluded my trip. That was, of course, non sense.

I wrote them a letter saying that if they don't return my money in 30 days, I will fill in a complaint with the insurance oversight authority in my country. They didn't so I did. The nice part is that this authority shoots first and asks questions later so in a few days I got a really passive aggressive letter saying they will be paying in full, that they already decided that a week before so there was no need for me to file the complaint (I was, of course, not informed) and they asked me to withdraw my complaint.

rsbadger17• 8 years ago

I'm assuming Insure and Go will be in touch at some point requesting me to take down my post as it's amassed 30k views in 24 hours. But I won't. Even if they don't pay out because of it, I'd prefer that people have access to this information. Paying me the $22k would be a drop in the ocean for them, but hopefully, the post will live on for years.

humanhair• 8 years ago

Well done Banger u did a good job friend

What travel insurance really means

Related Stories