Latest Poll – Standard Trauma Definitions

The release this week of draft minimum standard trauma definitions forms the basis for our latest poll, which seeks your views on this significant initiative.

As we reported earlier this week, the Financial Services Council has released minimum standard definitions for heart attack, stroke and cancer for industry consultation (see: Standard Trauma Definitions Announced). Following this period of consultation the FSC will submit the definitions to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for approval.

What is your view? Do you support this move?

The ‘minimum’ tag also allows insurers to develop more generous wording…

The notion of standard definitions is not new. They have been introduced in the United Kingdom with success, while the debate on the merits of applying standard definitions within the Australian market has existed for many years – we first ran a poll on this topic in 2009 and conducted the same poll earlier this year, which indicated general adviser support for this move (see: Advisers Favour Standard Trauma Definitions).

The idea behind minimum standard definitions is to deliver greater consistency and certainty when dealing with claims in particular. The ‘minimum’ tag also allows insurers to develop more generous wording as they seek to establish a potential commercial advantage over their rivals. But this option is always a challenging balancing act between pricing and the generosity of the definition.

As the public consultation process commences, we’re keen to know whether you’re ‘on board’ with going down the path of standard definitions, at least for the three main trauma events…

(Click here for more details and the proposed minimum standard definitions for heart attack, stroke and cancer.)