Here is the classic case through the eyes of a Practice Manager:
Just filled out the form for our Locum Insurance and as far as I am aware none of the individuals that are being insured have had any anything wrong with them in the period requested. Insurance now in place – On to the next job.
Some months later – One of the partners has been off sick with a stress related condition for the last 3 weeks and it looks as though he will be off for another 8 weeks at least. Contacted our insurance broker/company and requested a claim form. The claim form has been completed and has been sent to the insurance broker/company. I am now waiting to be paid as we are already employing a locum.
To my amazement I have received an email/letter from the insurance broker/company saying that they will not be paying the claim due to non-disclosure. I now find out that the partner who is off sick had suffered from a stress related condition in the preceding x months. Not a happy bunny at the moment to say the least!
The partners reason for not disclosing this to me – He/She did not think that the previous condition warranted a mention.
Make sure you stress the implications of not fully disclosing medical condition.
Have you ever noticed that when companies compare their product against a competitors theirs always appears miles better.
What is the comparions based on? INTERPRETATION is the word.
I recently saw a Locum Insurance comparison which stated that their comparison was “based upon their interpretation” – basically this is a “get out of jail” phrase that enables them to write more or less what they want to compare, as well as extracting selective wording from the Locum Insurance policy. A good example of this relates to claiming for a mental illness – according to the comparison the person claiming “will have to see a psychiatrist” whereas the policy wording actually says “will have to see a psychiatrist when requested by the insurer”. Two totally different meanings. This also doesn’t mention that the insurer has the general right within the policy to request the insured to provide all information required for the claim and co-operate with insurers request in order to administer the claim (i.e. attend a medical examination).
Beware of comparisons!!
Always ask the specific questions you want answered.
An interpretation of an interpretation made on Wednesday 21st May 2014!!!!
A practice claims £55,000 for an illness to an insured GP on the practice Locum Insurance policy and they have just returned to work. The practice then decides to place their Locum Insurance with another provider who offered a lower premium. Not only is the premium cheaper but the new insurer says that they will cover the GP without exclusions or conditions for the illness that was just claimed for. I just hope that the illness doesn’t return! The devil as always is in the detail and the level of transparency your insurance provider gives you. Seeing the policy wording does not necessarily mean you understand what it is saying and I would always recommend asking for an explanation to points you are concerned about.
Cost should not always be the main driver behind selecting your policy, as a history of having your claims paid is by far the best indicator of a good policy. After all that is the reason you took the policy out in the first place, not just to show that you have got a policy for less than last year!
How can you compare the merits of one policy over the other? The only way is if you have the most up to date information on both products.
Unfortunately there have been several very recent occasions when out of date information has been used to undermine the MIC Locum/Absence Insurance cover. Obviously this gives a very false picture of MIC but makes our competitor’s products seem that much better. Has this been done as a deliberate marketing tool or is just done in error? If it were just one or two points being incorrect then I would say that it was an error. In fact there were in excess of 15 points raised in one comparison that were inaccurate or bore no relation to the policy in question, which makes me think that it was a deliberate marketing tool. As the old phrase goes “A little knowledge is dangerous”
As MIC has been arranging insurance for some 16 years we take all of this in our stride but it does make you wonder how these companies “get away with it”. Practice Managers and GPs are being given inaccurate information to make their decision upon. This is very worrying when you consider the costs that could fall on the practice if their Locum Insurance failed to perform the way they thought it would. If any Practice Manager has had a comparison including MIC products I would be delighted to hear from them.
If you would like to see what our policies actually cover, visit our website www.m-i-c.co.uk or call us on 0800 163 870.
Over 80 golfers made the MIC sponsored Golf Day at the Salisbury and West Wilts Golf Club and helped to raise over £3000.
The money raised went to supporting the Weldmar Hospicecare Trust and Julia’s House Childrens Hospice.
Although the weather was terrible – wet, windy and cold all participants completed their round of golf and a good day was had by all!
If you are a client of MIC for Locum Insurance, Surgery Insurance or any of our Medical Liability products and would like to take part in next years event please get in touch and we can put your name down.
Medical Insurance Consultants recently contributed to an article written by Pulse outlining the increasing costs of obtaining a Locum GP. Pulse selected MIC, due to our specialism and long standing in the field of Locum Insurance cover, to understand how the fee’s charged have increased quite dramatically over recent years.
What do you think of the costs of Locums in your area and is there anything we can do to help make the process smoother when claiming?