winchester49
Expert
- 38
Thanks you guys"....looks like you saved me from future headaches.....I'll be asking for meds from now on.
Asking to See Medications.
- Thread starter Bcrane0305
- Start date
I always ask about meds. You really need a clear picture of the health history as this will steer you in the right direction. I can't remember how many times I have been initially told "I'm in great health" and then out comes the shoebox.
This is what gets me about FE underwriter over fully underwritten apps. Correct me if I depart from the facts but all the underwriter here did was see the meds as listed and ask if the insured has CHF. Did they not get records or do any further questions?
If that's the case then (to me at last) that's going a little too far from an underwriting perspective. Say someone tells me they take Depakote, I can't just assume off the cuff they're bipolar and rate it as such. It could be for seizures/epilepsy, headaches... I'll spare you the other off-label uses as I think you can get the gist. If I did that without records or some very good evidence to back me up I'd have at least two levels of management saving me the trouble of getting a colonoscopy later in life and a rep ready to skin me alive. Now granted, you went to bat for your client and got it straighten out and all ended well but where was the documentation that took underwriting from the meds to CHF?
I don't think you understand how Fe underwriting works. Most Fe prices have a built in rating of table 4 or so thus the underwriting is very lenient. For instance a trans takes blood thinners,heart attack,stents over 2 yrs as preferred. The Fe companies also know most people will drop there policies within 5 yrs and the company will never pay a claim.
Which is fine to drop tables based on the assumed substandard group and risk you're taking but to go all the way to calling something CHF based just on meds just feels like you're running rough-shod. As a carrier you still have to uphold your ratings if an insured takes you to court; where no carrier EVER wants to be. That's why we usually document the living crap out of files and order all those sets of records that keep you all from getting paid on your fully underwritten cases. Granted, these people are mostly old and not well off, so maybe they're betting they won't do anything about it but that's still dicey.
And yeah, it's a different world than the regular life guys. We have reps whine and moan that they don't like the phrasing of rating letters of even benign issues. Those are the days when it gets to be long, hard days of calling people fat and hypertensive.
In this case that is now what happened, Big Stick called UW before he submitted app or did a POS. This was to give the uw a heads up that it was for swelling and not for CHF. Sometimes things dont pop on the MIB and it will pop on a rx check so its best to call uw first and check if its ok. But you are correct that fe uw does take a short cut on underwriting. I have had multiple cases where a pi insisted they never had chf but the carrier would say the "recently prescribed medications are in line with use for chf or blah blah blah...name your poison"
i haven't found that the majority of people drop the policy within 5 years and I would say that is the case with the majority of the FE producers.
- 16,884
I'm definitely not one of those. If you sell a competitive product from the beginning, the majority will stay on the books until death. Over 50% for sure.
- 3,247
Similar threads
