Strong Adviser Support for Standard Definitions

Our latest poll indicates strong adviser support for the move to introduce minimum standard definitions across the industry for heart attack, stroke and cancer.

As we go to print, 80% of those taking our poll support the implementation of minimum standard definitions for the three major trauma definitions, while around one in eight advisers (12%) do not, with the rest remaining on the sidelines for the time being.

An initiative by the Financial Services Council, and corresponding with the official release of its Life Insurance Code of Practice last week, the introduction of minimum standard definitions is intended to address inconsistencies in the interpretation of the insurance definitions of these events, leading to the creation of greater certainty at claim time and elevated levels of trust in the mind of the consumer (see: Minimum Standard Trauma Definitions Announced).

It… deserves considered input so that we all get this right first time

Questions were raised last week regarding the relatively brief consultation period being offered to industry stakeholders (submissions are required by 11 November), where the risk store’s Founder, Sue Laing said she felt the one-month consultation period was “…ridiculously short”. She noted, “It is a brand new operational, policy, marketing and PR initiative (despite being debated for some time) and deserves considered input so that we all get this right first time.”

Laing, a long-time industry champion for the introduction of minimum standard definitions, also stressed the critical importance of medical profession support to the credibility of this initiative: “The imprimatur of the medical profession is the key to ‘selling’ the benefits of the standardising philosophy in practice, to the consuming public.”

While there may be issues about the consultation process and some uncertainty about the involvement and support of the medical fraternity in the successful introduction of these three minimum standard definitions, there appears to be little to no opposition to the initiative itself.

Do you represent the 80% who support this move? Or do you have another perspective? Will this initiative stifle competition between the insurers, even though they can still deliver enhanced definitions? What are the other issues that may accompany the introduction of minimum standard definitions of heart attack, stroke and cancer? Our poll remains open for another week if you’d like to add your voice to this important conversation…