- Agree (60%)
- Disagree (30%)
- Not sure (11%)
Our latest poll addresses one of the most prominent issues stemming from the recent TPD Round Table, namely how to address the challenges associated with mental illness TPD claims.
Given the relative lack of objectivity that applies to assessing mental health TPD claims compared with, say, musculo-skeletal conditions, and the significant pressure that we understand continues to mount on increasing TPD premiums even more, one logical pathway suggested by the TPD Round Table panel was one that projects a future in which the client is offered a choice as to whether they want their TPD contract to include cover for mental health and other neurological-type conditions.
…the premium applying to TPD contracts that exclude coverage for mental illness and related conditions will be lower
The logic runs that – as long as the client is offered the option – the premium applying to TPD contracts that exclude coverage for mental illness and related conditions will be lower than the standard TPD policy offers which include them.
At this stage, this is simply a hypothetical conversation, where any future move to offer the option of TPD mental health exclusions for a lower premium would need to be signed-off by the law makers. For example, in one of our recent TPD Round Table articles, we reported CALI chief, Christine Cupitt’s point that the Disability Discrimination Act does not allow blanket mental health exclusions unless there is an actuarial basis supporting this proposition – a basis that a tribunal ruling has declared is not currently supported (see: Call for New Name, New Mindset on TPD).
Regulations notwithstanding, however, what is your view, at least on the principle of offering TPD contracts which don’t cover mental illness claims, but which are naturally priced at a lower level for the client who freely elects to take that option?
Tell us what you think and we’ll report back next week…