Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Pet Insurance for dogs... breedist...

  1. Default

    The survey does not include which companies as it is more a questionaire of what owners consider important from ANY company they may chose to use

    The Petplan review is on the General Forum fourth one down the list. Changes to Petplan
    http://www.caninecancer.org.au
    Dedicated To Canine Cancer Awareness

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    I think it would be interesting to have a survey that allowed you to link customer satisfaction to the plans... and then rank them accordingly - and have two rankings - for customers that have had a claim in the past two years and those who haven't.

  3. Default

    Hyacinth it is a great idea you have for the rating scale. Not sure how to set it up though but if anyone knows I would be happy to have it on my site.

    I think the big thing with pet insurance is to get it when your dog is young before any claims. To much potential for pre existing conditions then. Always choose wisely as once you have a claim you are likely stuck with that company forever because of pre existing if you change over. What Petplan has done to their long terms customers SUCKS and I hope that those that can pull out change over. Sadly I am stuck with them with one dog due to his age.
    http://www.caninecancer.org.au
    Dedicated To Canine Cancer Awareness

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    So I guess what I'd want to rate is

    value for money ie cover vs cost
    ease of use / renewal / getting quote / price match with competitor

    For those who have made a claim (or tried to)
    % of total cost that was paid out over a year (just to make multi year conditions a bit easier to compare)
    eg vet fees might have been 4000 and as most of the hollards companies only pay 80% - then you'd ideally get back $3200

    but is that what people really get eg my brother made a claim for lumpectomy on his dog - when he phoned they said 80% but when he put the claim in - they were only willing to pay about 20% and then after refering them back to the pre-op phone call - they upped that to 50% but it was a long way short of the 80% promised.

    ease of making a claim eg
    did the company refuse initially or need ongoing reminder calls to pay?
    or did the company make it really easy and paid up promptly.

    This is my current fav site for surveys - not that I've actually set any up but the hardest part is writing good questions
    https://www.surveymonkey.com/

    They suggest questions where you can have a range of answers like strongly agree through to strongly disagree (or the other way about - I tend to think agree is on the right and disagree on the left - which is a bit sinister of me even tho I'm ambidextrous).

    And you could have some basic free format like
    company
    premium type (type of policy or brand of policy)
    premium amount (annual/monthly/weekly/fortnightly - but annual would make it easy to compare)
    co-payment (eg you have to pay at least the first 20%)
    excess (similar to a copayment - you can nominate to pay the first $500 or something like that.
    and max payout on most conditions
    bilateral limitations Y/N (eg if a dog has an eye problem and then has the same eye problem on the other side the max payout is for both eyes not for each eye. and some companies refuse to pay out if the condition recurs in the second eye (or leg or lung or whatever the dog has two of).

  5. Default

    Well you have some good ideas. If you want to throw something together I am happy to run with it. Have you seen my petplan comparison on my forum? They were not happy with me as I made my intentions clear I was going to go public. There is often the bi laterall wording to in policies which means exclusions where there is more than one. ie if one eye has had some sort of eye problem they will exclude that condition from both eyes.
    http://www.caninecancer.org.au
    Dedicated To Canine Cancer Awareness

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    There is often the bi laterall wording to in policies which means exclusions where there is more than one. ie if one eye has had some sort of eye problem they will exclude that condition from both eyes.
    yes - from the stories I've read - I've come across two ways the claim gets dealt with if a problem eg cataract shows up in the second eye.

    In some cases - they apply the max to both eyes, ie as long as you don't go over the max for that year or that condition - they will keep paying (80%). So if the max payout is $10,000 and the cost to fix up both eyes is less than that (or $8000 - not quite sure if they only pay 80% of the max - the product disclosures (PDS) are very confusing) they will pay.

    But some will pay up to 10,000 for the first eye and nothing for the second.

    In my brother's case - after saying they'd pay 80% when he rung up to check with 6 lumps to be removed... they ended up trying to pay 80% of the cost of anaesthetic plus the first lump pro rata'd ie 1/6th (minus 20%) of the total bill. It was bizarre. Ie after the first lump - the rest were suddenly "pre-existing" even tho they were planned all for the same op and not pre-existing before the insurance policy. Crap. He got them to cough up more by referring to the phone call but they didn't ever cough up the full amount they originally agreed to - so I guess it pays to make your own recording of that call where you check up on what would be paid. Given that they tell you that they will be recording - you can record too without seeking permission first tho it's probably polite to say.

    The two situations I've described above were both from Hollards backed companies. So obviously one was cutting corners on the interpretation.

    The company that I refuse to do business with - has paid some claims without giving the customer any grief and refused to pay at all on other claims to the puzzlement of both vet and customer. Ie a legit claim and they just refuse.

    Sometimes it just helps to ring over and over until you get a more experienced operator. The turn over is high and they often don't bother reading what the previous person put on your file.

  7. Default

    I am astounded to hear that the other lumps were pre exising when they werent there at the time of the policy agreement. To me yes get them all done at once with one anesthetic. I guess they could say each lump is a new claim. That would mean they pay for the once anesthetic, then for 80% of the vets cost for the surgery to each lump plus costs for pathology to each. With the Petsure brand I dont think they charge an excess so that part would be irrelevant. I am thinking that I might approach Petsure and see if they might be interested in responding on my forum if I put up a specific forum for Pet Insurance. That way dog owners could get a taste of any issues that people post and see how the claims are dealt with. I have spoken to those at the top of all their brands as well as the top person for the company overall. They seem approachable in my experience so one could only ask and see what they say.
    http://www.caninecancer.org.au
    Dedicated To Canine Cancer Awareness

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    Pretty sure Petsure is backed by Alli an z whom I will never take my business again.

    Insurance policies are only worth something if they pay when you need them to as per the policy and that's one company that failed to do that for me.

  9. Default

    Petsure is not backed by Allianz. Petsure brand does all of them other than Petplan which is backed by Allianz. Check out the review I did on Petplan on my General Forum
    http://www.caninecancer.org.au
    Dedicated To Canine Cancer Awareness

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    Ah - Petsecure is an entity between Hollards and the retail brands.

    That makes sense.

    As far as I can tell all the Hollards products have a "20% co payment" instead of an excess. They used to have an excess when I first took out a policy with them but now they don't.

    So they never pay out more than 80% - that's what I was talking about. Pet Secure is mentioned as administrator and Hollards as "underwriter" on my Insurance certificate.

    But from reading other threads - sometimes people with the Hollards backed product - have a good experience and some - like my brother have a bad one. I haven't ever claimed. I don't have a "no claim bonus" but if I try to get an online quote or price match - nobody else can get near what I currently pay. Tho after the first year of policy - it went up by over 60%. Nasty.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •