# Changes to Pet Insurance



## gesic

Some well known pet insurance providers are restricting who you can go to for specialist referral treatment!
Why should an insurance company you pay for dictate where you receive specialist treatment? They are not vets they are insurance providers, surely you as the owner and your 1st opinion vets should be the only people that decide who and where you go for specialist treatment!!
Please sign and share
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petiti...&source=facebook-share-button&time=1459326989


----------



## I love cats

Thank you do you happen to know if Pet Plan is one of these?


----------



## havoc

As far as I know Petplan aren't the insurer trying this - so far. I can see it catching on though just as motor insurers try to insist you use their recommended repairers. The argument they give for it is that they get to negotiate favourable rates so keep costs down. I don't like it but I do understand it. I'm really not sure they could enforce it without having the referring vet on side. I guess the first case to go in front of the insurance Ombudsman will tell.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

It's RSA. I posted all about it a few weeks ago. Will see if I can find it.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

http://www.petforums.co.uk/threads/...eferred-provider-list.423205/#post-1064476122


----------



## havoc

As I understand it you can still go to your preferred specialist but it will incur a charge of £200. I'm not sure what that 'charge' is for and any challenge will presumably be on whether that charge is fair.


----------



## havoc

Ceiling Kitty - as a vet would you back an owner in a challenge? I don't think an owner would have much chance without a pretty strong report from their vet.


----------



## StormyThai

Glad I stuck with Pet Plan who have no plans to introduce this in the near future.
This would stop me using or recommending an insurance provider...I can understand putting caps on some types of treatment, but not dictating where and who treats the pet.


----------



## havoc

_This would stop me using or recommending an insurance provider..._
I think we'd all pass on the information to anyone we know but I don't know if vets can. They can (and do) insist on payment up front from the owners insured with known bad payers (may be historical now) and they do recommend in that they act as agents for players such as Petplan. Question is, would they tell an owner insured with one of these companies that the preferred supplier wouldn't be a first choice? It wouldn't be an easy conversation and they'd have to justify their decision. That's a lot to ask.


----------



## gesic

Its Royal Sun Alliance who are the underwriters so any policy connected to them is at risk, currently Tesco and More Than with Marks and Spencer and John Lewis possibly at risk of this clause. It is not right that the insurance providers are basically taking on the job of your vet and dictating what treatment is available and where to go for it. There are currently only 29 approved centres on the list and god help you if your in Scotland as they only have 2 approved centres which means considerable traveling for most owners. That will also result in increased travel expenses which is not covered in a lot of policies, possibly overnight stays for owners near to the "approved" centre and more stress on both owner and pet if having to make long and often unnecessary journeys when there is often a nearer alternative.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

If M & S join the scheme I will absolutely challenge taking my one who is insured with them to the approved specialist covering our area. I've already had one dispute with them (they settled before it got as far as court action) so no way I would be going back to them. I just hope anyone insured with the RSA providers moves now if they can (if they don't have pre existing conditions of course) and hope they make it clear why they are doing so. I have a strong feeling if RSA get away with doing this (as in they don't lose a lot of customers over it) then others will follow suit.


----------



## bogdog

I believe there is one referral vet practice not on the list who say they will pay the £200 charge on behalf of the client, if the client chooses to use them instead of the listed ones. Can't remember the name...


----------



## havoc

It is messing with the relationship between owners and vets. Your vet could refer you to an approved centre because that's where they would have referred you anyway - you'd always wonder though wouldn't you.


----------



## havoc

_I believe there is one referral vet practice not on the list who say they will pay the £200 charge on behalf of the client, if the client chooses to use them instead of the listed ones. Can't remember the name..._
Maybe they'd be the ones to help with a challenge. Any charge should be fair and truly represent the costs involved. If somebody insists on a breakdown of that charge then RSA will have to justify it.

Insurers are currently under scrutiny for their unfair charges - cancellation charges, change of address etc. Maybe this one should be brought to the attention of MPs. It needs individuals to each inform their own MP as they're unlikely to see a petition.


----------



## bogdog

havoc said:


> It is messing with the relationship between owners and vets. Your vet could refer you to an approved centre because that's where they would have referred you anyway - you'd always wonder though wouldn't you.


I have never questioned my vet's choice of referral vets. He referred me those whom he knew had the expertise to do the job well.

Luckily, my insurance, Petplan, haven't placed any restrictions on the vet's decisions.


----------



## havoc

Presumably you've never had reason to and won't in the future but those with RSA might.


----------



## bogdog

Having had bad experience with an insurance company I would never insure with anybody but PetPlan. But, of course, changes might happen anywhere.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

havoc said:


> Ceiling Kitty - as a vet would you back an owner in a challenge? I don't think an owner would have much chance without a pretty strong report from their vet.


Yes.

RSA have said they would waive the £200 charge if there are no preferred centres in an owner's area. It also doesn't apply in emergencies.



bogdog said:


> I believe there is one referral vet practice not on the list who say they will pay the £200 charge on behalf of the client, if the client chooses to use them instead of the listed ones. Can't remember the name...


North West Surgeons.


----------



## havoc

Any owner or vet dealing with RSA might like to keep this link safe

http://fenchurchlaw.co.uk/coles-v-hetherton-implications-for-recovery-actions/

_"................The foreboding with which these conclusions have been met by insurers highlight the advantages they offer to policyholders who find themselves in the position of having to make a claim. As long as they can show the sums sought are reasonable (or perhaps, not unreasonable), they will be recoverable. There appears to be no obligation on the policyholder - even if he is backed by an insurer - to obtain the cheapest quote.................."_

Give you one guess which company brought the case to court. Would be delicious to use their own case against them


----------



## stoke

yes it can be frustrating with getting situation like this. we should always check every insurance policy carefully before get one otherwise it can be tough for us to pay high rate of bills for our loving pets. for better understanding of the pet insurance policy. I'll include a few resources that I found helpful in comparing coverage and understanding the basics of pet insurance.

Is Pet Insurance Worth It? - BarkPost
https://www.petinsuranceu.com/yorksh...pet-insurance/
5 Things Your Pet Insurance Policy Should Cover


----------



## squirrel605

Anyone know anything about VPI/ Nationwide insurance for dogs and cats? I currently have them for my dear dog.


----------

