Insurers get tough on 'barefoot' horse claims

[Amaranta]

Amaranta I don't think there are huge number of claims about horses going barefoot which has led to this and I don't think that is why they have put this clause in.

I think this has come out of a specific case of people claiming for barefoot rehab which is a tiny tiny amount in the grand scheme of their claims.

To support some cases that are going to the ombudsman they have changed their wording to registered farrier so they can say that barefoot rehab is not provided by a suitably qualified professional.

Not all insurers are taking the same view though.

Ahh I see, then the answer has to be that the barefooters get recognised by WCF or get proper veterinary recognition.

There was a time when MRIs were not covered under insurance, most insurance companies now pay out for at least 1/2 the cost, there is also a provision for 'alternative treatment' in most policies these days.

 

[criso]

Ahh I see, then the answer has to be that the barefooters get recognised by WCF or get proper veterinary recognition.

And I don't think anyone shod or barefoot would disagree with that but it's not straightforward and not for lack of trying by the good barefoot organisations.

 

[Goldenstar]

And I don't think anyone shod or barefoot would disagree with that but it's not straightforward and not for lack of trying by the good barefoot organisations.

I don't know much about how the barefoot organisations stucture them selves but yes it's time they organised themselves and stood alongside other professions who provide horse care and as I said in my earlier posts it's the vets that are key to them joining the mainstream.

 

[ester]

I was studying my petplan T & C's recently and couldn't see a mention of regular foot care (dentist (must be qualified.. although that was/is on a similar level to trimmers re qualifications for a while I think)/worming/vaccinations etc all included) or who was to do it if they did.

I thought they best know that under vets agreement I was taking the shoes off Frank who is the subject of a current claim started in Nov '11 and queried the use of a trimmer (which has also been agreed with vet and who is UKNCHP qual). Person on the phone wasn't sure and checked with legal, legal said WCF only (but then I suppose this is the easiest thing to say regardless) and although farrier has done a good job since Nov, previously it likely contributed to the lameness that then developed before that.

In addition my farrier is not up for taking videos/discussing tracks and diet/and doesn't come with a full hoof boot fit kit

 

[Fransurrey]

Amaranta, back when I was studying Equine Podiatry (2005), the organisation was in constant contact with the WCF, trying to get accreditation and ease the tension. As far as I know, this is still ongoing, as the WCF went into Stonemason mode and refused to play out with the hippies.

As far as independent regulation goes, don't make me laugh. Who regulates farriers in this country? Oh, that's right, the WCF...

Don't make this into a shod Vs unshod debate. This is clearly another way of reducing claims, by catching out customers who don't read the microscopic print. In 12 years of policy, I had one claim for LGL. 4 years later, they still tried to exclude laminits, EMS, IR and Cushings. Utter, utter bolox and the reason I finally had enough and went PL only with the BHS.

Btw, I do use a farrier.

 

[amandap]

Here's the link to the NOS standards for barefoot care which were drawn up by LANTRA with consultation with trimming organizations, farriers and vets.
http://www.lantra.co.uk/getattachme...4d/Equine-Barefoot-Care-NOS-(April-2010).aspx

I don't know what the latest WFC position is but ?they (some farriers) wanted their training as the benchmark in 2009 which seems a bit pointless as much of it is to do with shoeing and making shoes. Hopefully sense will prevail and this can be sorted. Trimmers and bare hoof care isn't going away whether you like it or hate it.

 

[Amaranta]

Amaranta, back when I was studying Equine Podiatry (2005), the organisation was in constant contact with the WCF, trying to get accreditation and ease the tension. As far as I know, this is still ongoing, as the WCF went into Stonemason mode and refused to play out with the hippies.

As far as independent regulation goes, don't make me laugh. Who regulates farriers in this country? Oh, that's right, the WCF...

Don't make this into a shod Vs unshod debate. This is clearly another way of reducing claims, by catching out customers who don't read the microscopic print. In 12 years of policy, I had one claim for LGL. 4 years later, they still tried to exclude laminits, EMS, IR and Cushings. Utter, utter bolox and the reason I finally had enough and went PL only with the BHS.

Btw, I do use a farrier.

Sorry but I am NOT trying to make this into a shod vs unshod debate, please read my posts properly. You may well be right and it is another way for them to wriggle out of claims, insurance companies are very good at that.

 

[Amaranta]

Here's the link to the NOS standards for barefoot care which were drawn up by LANTRA with consultation with trimming organizations, farriers and vets.
http://www.lantra.co.uk/getattachme...4d/Equine-Barefoot-Care-NOS-(April-2010).aspx

I don't know what the latest WFC position is but ?they (some farriers) wanted their training as the benchmark in 2009 which seems a bit pointless as much of it is to do with shoeing and making shoes. Hopefully sense will prevail and this can be sorted. Trimmers and bare hoof care isn't going away whether you like it or hate it.

I think your problem is that the WCF are a very old died in the wool organisation, if I were a barefooter I would agree with Goldenstar, vets are probably the way to go, if you can get proper veterinary recognition you will be half way (if not all the way) there.

 

[rockysmum]

Afraid I agree with NFU, wouldn't let a barefoot trimmer near mine, but then I wouldn't let half the farriers around either. I have had some bad experiences with farriers and seen some that other people have had with trimmers.

My current farrier is also trained as a barefoot trimmer and is the person our vets use for both.

This has got to be the way forward. Apprentices should now be fully trained in both methods and the circumstances in which either would be appropriate.

Us poor customers would then not be torn by different opinions which often appear to be in direct conflict with each other.

A governing body which has representatives from both camps would appear sensible.

Yes it would mean barefoot trimmers would have to do an apprenticeship, well good, I think they should anyway.

 

[Oberon]

I guess I'll be cancelling my policy with the NFU then.

I won't go back to using the farrier who made my horse stand in pools of blood.

I'll stick with my UKNHCP trimmer who has been nurturing for my horses' hooves and doing a great job for many years now.

I won't be bullied by an insurance company.

End of.

 

[Orangehorse]

This is strangely ironic. The insurers would payout for "barefoot treatment" with Vet's approval, to put right what could well have been caused by shoeing by a Registered Farrier.

But if you decide to keep your horse barefoot and use a trimmer (properly trained and insured) and, say, your horse steps on a nail, the insurance company won't pay out?

 

[amandap]

My current farrier is also trained as a barefoot trimmer and is the person our vets use for both.

This has got to be the way forward. Apprentices should now be fully trained in both methods and the circumstances in which either would be appropriate.

I agree but many farriers it seems don't see any need to learn what trimmer training teaches. This is I believe the sticking point but the fact that some farriers have bothered to do trimmer training says to me there are differences and both can learn from each other...

 

[ester]

This is strangely ironic. The insurers would payout for "barefoot treatment" with Vet's approval, to put right what could well have been caused by shoeing by a Registered Farrier.

But if you decide to keep your horse barefoot and use a trimmer (properly trained and insured) and, say, your horse steps on a nail, the insurance company won't pay out?

apparently so, whilst on the phone advisor actually suggested we could probably try claiming for the bf treatment of his lameness! on the rockley blog a while ago Nic said she was going to say who they found were easiest or not to deal with insurance wise.

 

[indie999]

I would rather use a person that has had training and belongs to a nationally recognised professional body...no different to doctors, dentists, lawyers, nurses, vets. Good and bad in every profession but at least it cuts the risk.

I would never let anyone other than my farrier touch horses feet. And yes he is barefoot, retired etc etc

Completely agree with NFU on this one.


How can they insure someones animal when they are not using a nationally recognised professionally qualified person?

 

[cptrayes]

by cptrayes
This is just NFU trying to avoid paying claims.

by Amaranta
Which would infer that they have had lots of claims because of barefoot trimmers, otherwise they would not have put in the clause.

Not so. It simply means that when a horse gets a foot abscess or an infected overreach or a keratoma or .... , as both shod and unshod horses can do from time to time, that they can refuse to pay out on the unshod one.

 

[ester]

I think that works for lots of things though, how can they insure for say worm-induced colic when the owners are responsible for the worming of the horse?

T & Cs say must be wormed regularly but owner knowledge frequently seems to be lacking in this area, but it would be owners word v. insurers as to whether appropriate worming had actually taken place or not.

 

[cptrayes]

I would rather use a person that has had training and belongs to a nationally recognised professional body..

So would I. But the only organisations which train in depth to keep a horse working hard and on tough surfaces without shoes on are the trimming ones.

For your farrier, it depends entirely on whether or not he trained with a Master who had any on his books, and very few do.

 

[cptrayes]

OPEN LETTER TO THE WORSHIPFUL COMPANY OF FARRIERS


Dear WCF

What we horseowners want is this:

Your trainees to be taught in depth about hoof mechanics and to dissect hooves of both shod and unshod horses during their training and to note the internal differences.

Your trainees to be taught in depth about how nutrition and metabolic issues (Cushings, IR, EMS, EPSM) affect a horse's feet.

Your trainees to spend a period with a Master who has a number of unshod eventers/hunters/long distance horses on his books.

You to have two strands of apprentices - those who are accredited to shoe and trim and those who are only accredited to trim.

PLEASE pull your fingers out and get on with it!

The Horse Owning Public.

 

[Ranyhyn]

I use the person who keeps my horse sound.

Don't bother with insurance anyway we just have money aside for the animals

 

[Fransurrey]

Sorry but I am NOT trying to make this into a shod vs unshod debate, please read my posts properly. You may well be right and it is another way for them to wriggle out of claims, insurance companies are very good at that.

Sorry, should have been clearer. Only the first sentence was aimed at you. I was on my phone and so hard to scroll up when typing a long post (so called smartphones...).

 

[Amaranta]

Sorry, should have been clearer. Only the first sentence was aimed at you. I was on my phone and so hard to scroll up when typing a long post (so called smartphones...).

Ahh no problem

 

[LucyPriory]

Sorry, should have been clearer. Only the first sentence was aimed at you. I was on my phone and so hard to scroll up when typing a long post (so called smartphones...).

interestingly NFU insure barefoot trimmers.

 

[barehoofhannah]

Hello,

When everyone; farrier asociation and trim schools sat round the table they updated the minimum LANTRA NOS for farriers and created the trimming ones. They*are the same apart from the metal/shoe training. Involved was*representatives from, FRC (Farriers Registration Council), WCF (Worshipful Company of Farriers), FTA (Farriery Training Agency) and NEWC (National Equine Welfare Council) Trimming organisations: IAEP (Institute of Applied Equine Podiatry) EPAUK (Equine Podiatry Association UK), AANHCP (American Association of Natural Hoofcare Practitioners) ESA (Equine Sciences Academy) and the UKNHCP (UK Natural Hoofcare Practitioners)

These are both now signed off and as previously mentioned on LANTRA's website. I'll ask LANTRA if they can do more awareness raising of this.

Many of the trim schools include a lot of detailed training around feed, nutrition and other 'whole horse' learning well above what's included as a minimum. From my learning so far with the Equine Sciences Academy I would say its pitched at least degree level. From what I know of the standards and curriculum I imagine that's probably the case of the UKNHCP as well and I don't know about the other schools but I'm sure others on here could update. *I can't remember what the minimum standards ask for off hand, NVQ 3 maybe?

Another question; there has been mention of apprentices going out alone on behalf of their farrier. If insurances could identify this would they refuse to pay out as not done by a registered farrier?*

I think I'll contact LANTRA and see if they can have any influence or inform insurances of what trimming organisations pass the minimum training requirements and whether they can pass this info on to main insurance companies saying if you can confirm qualification from one of the above schools then the standard has been met. Those not involved at the time could submit their schemes of work/curriculum to see whether they are at a suitable level.

Oh I don't know, prob rambled on.

Happy Easter everyone

 

[ester]

Hello,


Another question; there has been mention of apprentices going out alone on behalf of their farrier. If insurances could identify this would they refuse to pay out as not done by a registered farrier?*



Happy Easter everyone

when I looked recently apprenctices are 'registered' with the WCF but not qualified as such so I think they would be covered.

 

[barehoofhannah]

Sorry it's put stars everywhere, I also may have missed bits out, so poss not completly a full and thorough account and missed of representatives. I wasn't on the group but have heard from attendees at the meetings and LANTRA during its development. I've been interested as I'm training myself and it's tough, it's also not easy when there is negativity about an occupation. I guess there is good and bad of everything, a lot down to the individual person and how much they adopt an open mind/critical thinking approach and want to develop professionally.

Best wishes
Hannah

 

[MotherOfChickens]

interestingly NFU insure barefoot trimmers.

seriously!? god, I hate insurance companies!

and of course, if you want your horses trimmed by a trimmer you would do your research and get a qualified one (unless you are an idiot) and you would look into that training/qualification (unless you are an idiot) to see if it's up to snuff.

If I were an NFU customer I would want to know why they insure trimmers and take their money, while endorsing farriers only.

 

[Fransurrey]

interestingly NFU insure barefoot trimmers.

You know, Lucy, that's a very good point! When I was training I looked at getting an insurance policy and the local NFU office drew one up for me, no problem at all. I never went through with it (decided I couldn't deal with the owners - kudos to the farriers for that!). Had I gone through with it, they would have insured an unqualified trimmer, as I was still training and in those days the Diploma was only recognised by some owners and KC La Pierre!!

 

[amandap]

interestingly NFU insure barefoot trimmers.

I'm sorry but...

Just typical!

Thank you for that post peteralfred.

I also sign your open letter too cptrayes.

The current Professional status situation really is a total farce. I'm no longer in UK but I would change insurers on principle and just imagine the wasted (insurance) man hours trying to clariify the confusion when 'suspect' claims come in. That's what you are really paying for as far as I can see. Surely the vast majority of hoof claims are with shod horses anyway.

 

[SO1]

Actually this is not a new thing as it was in my 2011 policy along with appropriate worming, vacinations and annual dental checks.

I think potentially a lot of people could get caught out and I know a lot of people who do not have annual dental checks for their horses for example and even if the problem is not related to teeth if you are not complying with the terms and conditions of the policy they could refuse to pay out. However I am not sure if they are asking for evidence of all of the these if you make a claim, amazingly enough I actually had a claim free year last year!

However when when my vet came in 2010 as my pony had a hock injury and I made a claim he did mention that insurance companies were getting strict with such things as vacinations and dental checks being kept up to date and not paying if they were not even if it was unrelated to the injury. There was also a section on the claim form for the details of my farrier. I don't think NFU are the only ones putting definitions on what is deemed as reasonable care, I saw one policy with another insurer which said it would refuse to payout any claims if your horse or pony was overweight.

I think in part it does make it clearer for those with insurance what "reasonable care" is if there are some examples of what is expected as people definitions of "reasonable care" are different.

I think NFU perhaps have taken a big financial hit with their horse insurance as so many people went with them due to their reputation of paying out and and with more advanced vet treatment available the costs of treatment is often more and I know very few people who have never made a claim on their insurance!

I doubt the WCF would ever incorporate the trimmers, as my understanding is that the trimmers use a different method to the farriers which is why they are used instead of the farriers. If they used the same method then the WCF might consider registering but then that would defeat the object as there would no reason to use a trimmer if they were using the same method as the farrier!

 

[cptrayes]

I doubt the WCF would ever incorporate the trimmers, as my understanding is that the trimmers use a different method to the farriers which is why they are used instead of the farriers. If they used the same method then the WCF might consider registering but then that would defeat the object as there would no reason to use a trimmer if they were using the same method as the farrier!

A good trim is a good trim. There is no "different method" although one organisation registered a name for their training so they could package it for marketing purposes.

A good trim will be the one that suits that foot, on that horse. Lots of farriers do them too and there is no barrier to them training apprentices to trim hardworking horses. Some already do, but it is far too few because far too few train with Masters who have hardworking unshod horses on their books.

The reason that there is a need for trimmers is that most farriers are not taught to trim hardworking horses at all, are not taught biomechanics to the same level, are not taught the differences in the physiology of a shod foot from a barefoot one (ie the effects of shoes on the internal foot development), or in any depth about the effect of nutrition on foot quality or of mild metabolic conditions on ability to work without shoes on.

Shame on the WCF, I say.