Insurance Watch: The (underwriting) truth is out there 

By: ameer@trustedteam.com

I speak to lots of advisers and attend lots of forums where protection underwriting concerns are raised.

These include:

  • ‘Insurers need to be more transparent about the underwriting decisions they make.’
  • ‘Insurers need to explain to advisers why clients are declined.’
  • ‘Insurers need to explain their decision to the adviser or client, not the client’s GP.’

Do these grumbles sound familiar? The adviser is the hub. We are the customer’s main point of contact and the person they trust. So, when the adviser is cut out of the process or not given enough information to help their clients, it can make them look ill informed at best, and incompetent at worst.

Detailed knowledge enables the adviser to assist better

Advisers need to be kept informed, and they need to understand why an underwriting decision has been made. Not only does this enable advisers to inform their client why a policy is being loaded or declined, but it helps them decide what to do next.

Without this knowledge, advisers can be left aimlessly submitting new applications on a wing and a prayer, hoping that one may land a better decision, while delivering poor customer outcomes and creating inefficiencies within insurers and their own operations.

Why don’t insurers explain decisions to advisers?

The problem comes down to data protection and consent. When an insurer requests a GP report, it’s for their eyes. Any decision made, based on information the adviser doesn’t know, cannot be disclosed to them because the medical consent forms don’t cover this. Understandably, insurers are cautious over what they do and don’t tell advisers.

The adviser is the hub. We are the customer’s main point of contact and the person they trust

But what seems to have slipped past so many, both advisers and insurer staff, is that this issue has been addressed and a solution already exists.

In February 2021 the Access to Insurance Working Group released an agreement called ‘Explaining Underwriting Decisions’. This asks for signatories to increase their transparency when explaining their underwriting decisions to customers.

It also focuses on areas such as language/tone and signposting, and outlines how insurers can share decisions with advisers.

Extra knowledge on cases that are a definite decline enables the adviser to pick the appropriate company to approach next

Below are some of the key aspects of the agreement:

  • Underwriting decisions given to clients should be empathetic, respectful and free of stigmatising language.
  • As adverse decisions can trigger mental health reactions, care should be taken over how these are presented to customers. Vulnerable customers should also be signposted for support from charities or National Health Service sources.
  • Where cover isn’t offered, customers should be signposted back to the adviser (or, where no agent exists, to a specialist or specialist signposting service).
  • Advisers should never be notified of the underwriting outcome after the customer is notified, so they have time to discuss it with their client.

    There are still changes happening, and improvements to be made, but we are getting there

  • Explanation of a decision should not be sent to a customer’s GP unless there is a very good reason. GPs are not trained to explain decisions, and insurers (or advisers) need to explain in reasonable detail to the customer (not just say ‘due to your medical condition’).
  • Where ‘explicit customer consent’ is provided, insurers should discuss in detail the reason for an adverse decision. This applies even if the decision is based on information that the adviser was not originally aware of. It’s important to note that insurers can refuse this where they feel it could be damaging or misused.

The agreement applies to all signatories from 1 December 2021.

Why is this important?

Detailed knowledge enables the adviser to assist the customer far better.

I had a case recently where insurance was declined based on a cancer being stage 3c. The insurer told me this, I discussed it with my client, the client discussed it with the oncologist, and it was a mistake… the cancer was actually stage 3b. It went from a decline to acceptance overnight.

Advisers can be left aimlessly submitting new applications on a wing and a prayer, hoping that one may land a better decision

Similarly, extra knowledge on cases that are a definite decline enables the adviser to pick the appropriate company to approach next, without just submitting aimlessly.

There are still changes happening, and improvements to be made, but we are getting there.

Alan Knowles is managing director of Cura Financial Services and board member of the Protection Distributors Group 


This article featured in the April 2023 edition of MS.

If you would like to subscribe to the monthly print or digital magazine, please click here.

Related post