Insurance and vet fees - will it go full circle?

[junglefairy]

I’ve just received my insurance renewal, a £900 premium for a year for a 6 year old!

My renewal letter justifies the premium with the following facts:
- their underwriters make a loss on vet fees;
- 1 in 4 competition horses and 1 in 5 leisure horses have made a claim in the past year;
- the average claim exceeds £2,000;
- the bulk of cost comes from diagnosis not treatment;
- most claims present with multiple issues; and
- gastric ulcers are a significant issue.

I understand the insurance companies are running a business not a charity and actually I can understand why premiums are so high. However, it hit me thinking, clearly people are currently making the most of diagnostics and the full suite of vet services on their insurance (and why wouldn’t they, we all want the best for our horses), but surely this isn’t sustainable? I will probably cancel or amend my insurance cover this year as it doesn’t make economic sense.

Will this go full circle with no one being prepared to pay huge premiums and less people being insured? Without insurance will people be less prepared to use all the latest diagnostic technologies, and so vets wil re-adjust to a new market?

I can’t decide if this would be to the detriment or benefit of horses. Part of me thinks it’s great that we can get to the bottom of problems and make an educated decision about treatment, but part of me also thinks, because we can, we sometimes carry out treatment with long recovery times and rehab that is not really in the horse’s best interests.

 

[ycbm]

They could cut their vet costs overnight if they didn't close a claim at twelve months. I'm sure lots of vets/owners would say 'turn them away for six months and see what you've got then' if they weren't going to run out of time.

I completely agree with you on horses kept going which would be better off put to sleep. I also see owners bankrupting themselves because of all the diagnostics now available.

Did your quote include loss of use, it's very high?

I do think unless they change things insuring is dying out. Other countries, I understand don't have it as a mass market thing like we do.

 

[Hack4fun]

It is a tricky one, isn't it. A bit of maths. Average claim = £2,000 after deducting the excess. 20% chance of a claim each year for a leisure horse, so expected payout per horse is £2000x0.2 = £400. Premium is £900. Hmmm.

This is a bit simplistic of course, and there are other costs like claims management and marketing, and some horses will have more than one claim.

I think that the real benefit of insurance is not an economic decision but that it enables owners to pursue lines of treatment that cannot otherwise be rationally justified such as treatment that exceeds the value of the horse. Such situations can't be uncommon if averages claims exceed £2,000.

 

[junglefairy]

Did your quote include loss of use, it's very high?

I do think unless they change things insuring is dying out. Other countries, I understand don't have it as a mass market thing like we do.

No doesn’t include LOU, but does include £5k vet fees and a low excess. The horse has had nearly £2k of claims for accidental injury over past year so probably seen as high risk.

 

[Theocat]

I think it would be fascinating to know what proportion of the diagnostics actually has a positive bearing on the outcome. In my own experience, my (very good) vet has predicted the cause of the problem with 100% accuracy - the expensive diagnostics have only confirmed it. Equally, for an £1800 claim for a tendon, other than a bit of bute and acp, all the costs were scanning - and I would have treated and rehabbed no differently without it.

I do think fewer people will choose to insure as costs increase, but it would be very interesting to see the comparison of overall outcomes for insured vs not insured.

 

[zaminda]

I think this is where the catastrophe insurance will come to the fore that one company seems to be offering. It won't cover things like ulcers or kissing spine, and I can't remember if it covers colic, but it would cover any accidental damage, like the horrible injury my mare suffered in the field last year, which cost me 3k. That said, if she had been insured, it would have been closer to 5k, as they would have operated automatically!!

 

[Bernster]

It's an interesting discussion. I've made decisions that are kind of both ways - done full diagnostics because it was covered and wanted to get as much done as possible in that year of cover, but then I turned away and did the field rest thing rather than persue treatments that had a limited chance of success.

I do know vets will sometimes advise different treatments depending on whether there is insurance or not. For as long as you have cover, people will accept those treatments. So yes it's a vicious circle.

 

[teddypops]

That is a very high quote, have you tried other companies? My 7yo costs £420 a year, low excess, £5000 vets fees and I have made 3 large claims. That’s with Petplan.

 

[ycbm]

I think it would be fascinating to know what proportion of the diagnostics actually has a positive bearing on the outcome. In my own experience, my (very good) vet has predicted the cause of the problem with 100% accuracy - the expensive diagnostics have only confirmed it. Equally, for an £1800 claim for a tendon, other than a bit of bute and acp, all the costs were scanning - and I would have treated and rehabbed no differently without it.

I do think fewer people will choose to insure as costs increase, but it would be very interesting to see the comparison of overall outcomes for insured vs not insured.

This is exactly my experience and seeing friends' experiences. That all the diagnostics are doing is confirming what an experienced vet/owner already suspects. And that if those diagnostics are absolutely necessary to identify the issue, there's very little chance of the horse coming right at the end of it anyway.

Like you, I would like to see the analysis of outcomes.

 

[ihatework]

OP I do think it’s an interesting way things might go.
I too have been quoted high premiums and have taken the decision to cut all my animal insurance policies and self-insure, and that would mean being far more conservative with jumping straight in with fancy diagnostics

 

[asmp]

When I lived in Germany you couldn't insure for vets bills and because of this, treatment was much cheaper.

I've noticed here that if your horse isn't insured or excluded for something the vet will often suggest cheaper alternatives rather than going down the expensive route straight off.

 

[JanetGeorge]

I think it would be fascinating to know what proportion of the diagnostics actually has a positive bearing on the outcome. In my own experience, my (very good) vet has predicted the cause of the problem with 100% accuracy - the expensive diagnostics have only confirmed it.

You're lucky then. One of my boys was 2/10ths lame - off hind - no apparent cause. We did a bit of box rest and bute - no improvement. So he went to the vet specialists for x-rays/scans etc. Came back - "He's 2/10ths lame - we couldn't find where or why." - that's £1,000!! So I chucked him in the field for 6 months - now sound. I've learned my lesson (and too many horses for insurance to be feasible) - get the farrier to check for stone bruise/abcess - if nothing found, chuck in field for 6 months.

 

[Michen]

Seems high to me. I’m with shearwater. Have had 5k of claims in one year and my premium has only gone up by 70 quid. 570 a year.

 

[Theocat]

You're lucky then. One of my boys was 2/10ths lame - off hind - no apparent cause. We did a bit of box rest and bute - no improvement. So he went to the vet specialists for x-rays/scans etc. Came back - "He's 2/10ths lame - we couldn't find where or why." - that's £1,000!! So I chucked him in the field for 6 months - now sound. I've learned my lesson (and too many horses for insurance to be feasible) - get the farrier to check for stone bruise/abcess - if nothing found, chuck in field for 6 months.

Not that lucky: despite insurance and diagnostics and treatment, I still don't have a sound horse. Mine is turned away in a field right now, and I'm cancelling my insurance at renewal and following the same "six months" plan from now on. Expensive pictures cure nothing!

The prevalence of the diagnostics has completely changed the focus, and not always for the better. My insurance ran out last autumn; the next step was an MRI at a thousand quid. I've paid much more than that already in addition to the insurance, and the vet freely admitted it might be inconclusive and wouldn't change the treatment options. It would be a complete waste of time, but if the insurance had been there, the chances are that we'd have done it anyway, because insurance means we've all fallen into this ghastly trap of focusing on the next option instead of the end goal.

 

[gingerfan]

Even after going through all the expensive investigations it seems that the old-fashioned treatment of turning the horse away for 6 months or a year is what is needed and a large number of horses come sound after this. Unfortunately people are now too impatient to just wait and let nature heal, they want a quick fix. Plus, of course many think as the insurance will pay for it they might as well do all these investigations.

 

[AShetlandBitMeOnce]

You're lucky then. One of my boys was 2/10ths lame - off hind - no apparent cause. We did a bit of box rest and bute - no improvement. So he went to the vet specialists for x-rays/scans etc. Came back - "He's 2/10ths lame - we couldn't find where or why." - that's £1,000!! So I chucked him in the field for 6 months - now sound. I've learned my lesson (and too many horses for insurance to be feasible) - get the farrier to check for stone bruise/abcess - if nothing found, chuck in field for 6 months.

I don't disagree with you, however on the flip side, my boy was only ever 3/10ths lame maximum and it was very intermittent. I tried to bute/cold hose/rest/poultice and nothing. Took to vets who nerve blocked it to hoof, then x-rayed and say some changes to the Navicular Bone but nothing significant that would cause lameness, but could see nothing else. I then opted for an MRI which showed catastrophic damage to the Navicular and surrounding structures that just couldn't be properly ascertained through xray - and was completely disproportional to the degree of lameness. So I would have had a stoic horse out in the field, in pain for 6 months before having to do diagnostics anyway.

I too am interested in the way insurance is going, I do think that the less popular insurance becomes, the more that the market will have to change in response.

 

[YorksG]

We haven't insured for years and our vets know this, so do not suggest expensive diagnostics. Friends do insure and have had no better outcomes than we have, but have put their animals through more proceedures and being away from their homes and herds.

 

[Red-1]

Even after going through all the expensive investigations it seems that the old-fashioned treatment of turning the horse away for 6 months or a year is what is needed and a large number of horses come sound after this. Unfortunately people are now too impatient to just wait and let nature heal, they want a quick fix. Plus, of course many think as the insurance will pay for it they might as well do all these investigations.

I disagree. I would be more than happy for 6 months in the field as a first option, but once I have spoken to the vet I only have 12 months to be done and dusted, so would have to go all on from the start.

Maybe there would be an opening for a company to have a policy where £1000 could be spent, then have a 6 to 12 month hold on the policy where the clock is not ticking. I think this could save the insurance companies money and improve outcomes for horses.

 

[Evie91]

I agree with poster that said the 12month cut off with insurance is not necessarily helping. My horse is almost three months post op, vet to reassess on weds - £5k vets fees almost gone on this one condition,plus over £1k of bits and bobs insurance won’t cover. I still don’t think the horse is right. Sending a horse for a G.A is not a decision I took lightly but the alternative was to turn away for six months to a year, then reassess. This wouldn’t have been a problem but the insurance clock starts ticking and therein lies the rub.
Tbf my insurance have been excellent, but I’d have liked the option to defer treatment for up to one year and still be covered.
We also have to remember that vets with horsepital facilities are business too. It brings up a whole dilemma for me, just because we can, should we- think there’s big ethical debate to be had around some procedures. There’s certain things I just wouldn’t put my horse through, but know others that have and some with good results too!

 

[eggs]

I also agree that the 12 month ticking clock is an issue in itself.

One of my horses came in from the field lame in April last year. We was also sore around his stifle and I thought he had maybe banged it. Vet was up a few days later to see another horse so had a look at my horse. He was much sounder than a few days earlier but quite hoppy on flexion tests. X-rays showed some arthritic changes so vet suggested injecting his hocks. As he needed to lose some weight we decided to wait until he had lost the weight due to the laminitis risk. A few days later he came completely sound. I then had to decide whether to have his hocks injected before the 12 months were up - vet's recommendation was to get them done although they didn't feel it was essential - so a couple of weeks ago he had his hocks injected. In fairness it has improved his canter (advanced dressage) so has obviously helped him but I would have preferred the option to delay treatment beyond the 12 month limit.

My friends youngster had a bad field accident and it looked at though she would never come sound. As she is a bit tricky her owner did not want to send her to hospital for more diagnostics and potential operations but decided to turn her away for 6 months. She has now come sound and is being backed.

 

[Casey76]

When I looked into insurance in France, diagnostics weren’t covered at all, only treatment, and even then only 50% of surgery fees.

There are very few high tech hospitals in the area, and I know if I needed a scintigraphy, I’d have to go to Zürich. I have no idea where our nearest horse MRI is.

 

[milliepops]

Even after going through all the expensive investigations it seems that the old-fashioned treatment of turning the horse away for 6 months or a year is what is needed and a large number of horses come sound after this. Unfortunately people are now too impatient to just wait and let nature heal, they want a quick fix. Plus, of course many think as the insurance will pay for it they might as well do all these investigations.

I'd always want to know - or at least to try and find out - what I was turning away though. So insured or not, I would scan anyway.

In addition, the continued use of scans etc tells you how an injury is progressing. My oldie's first check ligament took far, far longer than expected to heal well - she was sound, the leg felt good, but u/s showed a different story. So I was pleased to keep on repeating them because otherwise we might have restarted her too soon.

I have one horse insured and 3 not not so it's not that I have a set view on insurance, more that hedge my bets for the advanced horse and the baby one has to prove herself first! The old girls.... well, i just keep everything crossed.

My insurance policy allows 18 months for a claim as standard, wouldn't it be more use to push more insurers to extend the time available?

 

[confirmedponyaddict]

I was literallty having the same conversation with my friend yesterday, we are both down in the dumps because her horse is currently rehabbing in the field after tearing a collateral ligament and I'm in the process of diagnosing a 2/10 lameness on my previously sound 6 year old. My friend has insurance, I don't. I have decided to have her hocks x rayed as that seems the most logical cause (hock is swollen) but if nothing shows up she will be turned away for 6 months. My friend had MRI done on her boy and lots of trips to the equine hosiptal but she said if she hadn't had access to all that through insurance her treatment plan would have been pretty much the same as reccomended by her vet. Made me feel a bit better about not insuring although I have to say I now wish I was...

 

[jm2k]

I always renew, never automatically stay with the same company with their next year quote. Often im still with the same insurance company but their 'new customer' quote is much cheaper!
Just make sure you over lap your policies so you dont have the 14 day exclusion period with no cover at all. Sods law thats when something will happen.
I also just insure for vets only and loss of use. Keep horse value to £1000. PL is cheaper if insuring one horse on their insurance but if you have several horses then get PL with BHS Gold or Harry Hall

 

[sarahann1]

I haven't insured for anything other than public liability for years now. My current horse has a bank account with some savings should I need them. It's a risk, but I'd still rather take this approach than shell out for insurance which may never pay out.

 

[MuffettMischief]

Insurance companies would help themselves hugely if they didnt exclude things that had never been claimed for. For example my mare was lame left hind 2 years ago, vet came and looked, nothing obvious and a bit of rest sorted it. If she goes lame again on that leg then they wont pay as its been looked at before.
this then leads to people thinking 'screw it, they are going to exclude it anyway so may as well claim'. I claimed for an eye injury a coupe of years ago that was only £400 for those reasons i mention. If insurance didnt work the way it did I would have thought twice about claiming in case I had a bigger eye claim in a few years to come. Does that make sense? I think NFU have just started something like this. If you dont claim then it isnt excluded. Very clever. As would people then think 'I wont go all out and X-ray those hocks just yet as I dont want to ruin any future claims' and then turn a horse out to rest for a while instead? Horse comes sound, insurance has saved a bunch and horse may never hurt itself again but owner is happy as they still have the claim there if needed!

 

[Aragon56]

I always renew, never automatically stay with the same company with their next year quote. Often im still with the same insurance company but their 'new customer' quote is much cheaper!
Just make sure you over lap your policies so you dont have the 14 day exclusion period with no cover at all. Sods law thats when something will happen.
I also just insure for vets only and loss of use. Keep horse value to £1000. PL is cheaper if insuring one horse on their insurance but if you have several horses then get PL with BHS Gold or Harry Hall

I had never even thought of lowering the horse value to £1k only. I always thought I had to put the market value... stupid question but does it have any impact on the policy? I know over a certain value the insurer requires a 5 stage vetting certificate but that's about it. I don't insure for LOU as it really increases the cost.

 

[junglefairy]

Insurance companies would help themselves hugely if they didnt exclude things that had never been claimed for. For example my mare was lame left hind 2 years ago, vet came and looked, nothing obvious and a bit of rest sorted it. If she goes lame again on that leg then they wont pay as its been looked at before.
this then leads to people thinking 'screw it, they are going to exclude it anyway so may as well claim'. I claimed for an eye injury a coupe of years ago that was only £400 for those reasons i mention. If insurance didnt work the way it did I would have thought twice about claiming in case I had a bigger eye claim in a few years to come. Does that make sense? I think NFU have just started something like this. If you dont claim then it isnt excluded. Very clever. As would people then think 'I wont go all out and X-ray those hocks just yet as I dont want to ruin any future claims' and then turn a horse out to rest for a while instead? Horse comes sound, insurance has saved a bunch and horse may never hurt itself again but owner is happy as they still have the claim there if needed!

D

ThIis is an interesting point. I’ll need to check out NFU cover.

 

[googol]

This is a really interesting thread. I don’t have mine insured but I have some money to spend on him (which he is using at the minute) I can’t decide if I feel I have made the right decision. I agree with whoever said sometimes the treatment will be the same regardless of whether a full diagnostic is done. I think the main thing I have missed in the past is having the money to MRI. We have been a bit unlucky tho but with my sisters mare, a large amount of money was spent on diagnosis and treatment and issues did show up on x rays, but she remained unsound and we didn’t have the money for an MRI. The vet said the treatment would likely be the same anyway but at the yard I’m at now a horse had an MRI and then an op, and I always wonder if the outcome could have been different for our mare who has been retired and just about field sound for the past 3 or so years