Type 1 Income Protection Insurance

[CAMasUlik3]

As a first time buyer I have recently discovered difficulties with obtaining income protection insurance due to being Type 1 diabetic. I'm interested to learn if anyone else has struggled to obtain IP insurance and/or been successful?

 

[kitedoc]

Hi @CAMasUlik3, In the past but not recently. They tend to put a wacking great penalty on. Whether a letter from your endocrinologist might help I do not know. You could also challenge the estimate on the basis of 'modern developments' in diabetes management and perhaps a relatively benign family history (if that is so)!
I must admit spending time the first 5 years of employment working within the protection of Government employment with cumulative sick leave and compensation leave if needed.
This was followed by 3 years in private work with punitive fees to cover any income loss but this was only effective after 3 weeks of work. I went back to Government work.
Once more financially stable I ventured into private work without income insurance. ( but this was in the last 8 years before retirement)!!

 

[DCUKMod]

As a first time buyer I have recently discovered difficulties with obtaining income protection insurance due to being Type 1 diabetic. I'm interested to learn if anyone else has struggled to obtain IP insurance and/or been successful?

Hi there CAMasUlik3 (great name!) - The harsh reality of Income Protection for those diagnosed with diabetes is that securing anything useful is an almost impossible task. I say almost impossible, because you will always be able to find someone to insure against anything, the the price they offer you will always reflect their attitude to the risk you present, and T1 is a significant insurance risk.

Any insurer will look at your past medical history, your family history, then refer to the available stats on likely issues, then overlay any social history and arrive at a decision.

The harsh, harsh reality of diabetes per se is that there is a strong likelihood of some form of complications arising, and during your working life. The issue with Income Protection, without labouring the point, is it is to cover your income; not you dying, or even suffering a specific illness, like Critical Illness Insurance. So, the issue is not just the diabetes, but the diabetes on to of the usual risks any person would have.

All of that, then overlaying whether you would expect it to pay out it you can't do the job you do now, against being able to carry out any paid employment further adds to matters. (Any paid employment is not meaningfully useful to be honest.)

Sadly, the existing stats that an insurer (even going to a Lloyd's syndicate) aren't all that edifying for diabetes, despite all our more recent developments. The stats tend to lag behind reality a bit, by their very nature.

I'm not a financial advisor, and therefore can't offer you financial advice. I used to work in "the industry" and spent a chunk of time working in actuarial areas, and product pricing, so I've been all over this stuff like a rash.

I don't know how old you are CAMasUlik3, but if you're in the 30/40 age group, the potential lost income to be insured is likely to go into seven figures, when inflation is taken into account. Hopefully, that helps illustrate how big the risk is, and how nervous it makes insurers when underwriting these things.

Good luck with it all.

 

[CAMasUlik3]

Hi there CAMasUlik3 (great name!) - The harsh reality of Income Protection for those diagnosed with diabetes is that securing anything useful is an almost impossible task. I say almost impossible, because you will always be able to find someone to insure against anything, the the price they offer you will always reflect their attitude to the risk you present, and T1 is a significant insurance risk.

Any insurer will look at your past medical history, your family history, then refer to the available stats on likely issues, then overlay any social history and arrive at a decision.

The harsh, harsh reality of diabetes per se is that there is a strong likelihood of some form of complications arising, and during your working life. The issue with Income Protection, without labouring the point, is it is to cover your income; not you dying, or even suffering a specific illness, like Critical Illness Insurance. So, the issue is not just the diabetes, but the diabetes on to of the usual risks any person would have.

All of that, then overlaying whether you would expect it to pay out it you can't do the job you do now, against being able to carry out any paid employment further adds to matters. (Any paid employment is not meaningfully useful to be honest.)

Sadly, the existing stats that an insurer (even going to a Lloyd's syndicate) aren't all that edifying for diabetes, despite all our more recent developments. The stats tend to lag behind reality a bit, by their very nature.

I'm not a financial advisor, and therefore can't offer you financial advice. I used to work in "the industry" and spent a chunk of time working in actuarial areas, and product pricing, so I've been all over this stuff like a rash.

I don't know how old you are CAMasUlik3, but if you're in the 30/40 age group, the potential lost income to be insured is likely to go into seven figures, when inflation is taken into account. Hopefully, that helps illustrate how big the risk is, and how nervous it makes insurers when underwriting these things.

Good luck with it all.

Thanks for your post. Having researched a bit more it certainly does appear to be a futile exercise. I received info from my mortgage advisor about an insurance company offering IP but their criteria was to have an an HBA1c of 53. For the majority of T1's I expect this to be unrealistic. Although I'm fully aware of diabetes and the risks and complications I'm on a mission now to take this further as I feel we're being penalised. Thanks again.

 

[CAMasUlik3]

Hi @CAMasUlik3, In the past but not recently. They tend to put a wacking great penalty on. Whether a letter from your endocrinologist might help I do not know. You could also challenge the estimate on the basis of 'modern developments' in diabetes management and perhaps a relatively benign family history (if that is so)!
I must admit spending time the first 5 years of employment working within the protection of Government employment with cumulative sick leave and compensation leave if needed.
This was followed by 3 years in private work with punitive fees to cover any income loss but this was only effective after 3 weeks of work. I went back to Government work.
Once more financially stable I ventured into private work without income insurance. ( but this was in the last 8 years before retirement)!!

Thanks for your post. I hope you can read my threads and my response to this. Insurance criteria is definitely disappointing. I'm fortunate enough to work in the public sector however it's disheartening nonetheless that diabetes is regarded so harshly. Thanks again.

 

[ringi]

A lot of employers offer income protection insurance and employer-provided insurance tends to have fewer exclusions. The insurance companies are trying very hard to stop people who know they are at high risk from choosing to take out insurance when low risk people don't take out the insurance. Hence employer-provided insurance where all employees get the same cover removes this risk from the insurance companies.

 

[LooperCat]

Thanks for your post. Having researched a bit more it certainly does appear to be a futile exercise. I received info from my mortgage advisor about an insurance company offering IP but their criteria was to have an an HBA1c of 53. For the majority of T1's I expect this to be unrealistic. Although I'm fully aware of diabetes and the risks and complications I'm on a mission now to take this further as I feel we're being penalised. Thanks again.

53 isn’t that unrealistic, I don’t think. That’s an average of 8.3mmol on your home meter.