UKC

Do any UKCers have to declare pre-existing medical conditions when applying for travel/trekking/climbing insurance? There seems to be quite a wide variation in the attitudes of insurance companies towards medical conditions and age. Some give an outright refusal whilst the attitudes of others I find a bit puzzling.

Having had Lymphoma last year I contacted the BMC underwriters who said they would insure me but not for anything claim arising from me having had Lymphoma. Other companies gave similar responses. One firm advertised on their website as being specialists in adventure travel insurance and pre-existing conditions. I got to the section asking my age and a message popped up saying that because their policies were intended for adventurous activities they did not insure people over 65. Do these people honestly believe that, when everyone gets to 65, they hang up their climbing boots et al and shuffle off to the pub or bingo hall? At 69 I have no intention of conforming to that assumption.

It seems to me that insurance companies are too dependent on pigeon holing everybody and ignoring the fact that many people in their sixties and seventies are actually fitter and healthier than some half their age.

If anyone can make any recommendation I'd be happy to look them up.

Thanks.

In reply to mypyrex:
I have had to declare that I have had prostate cancer and any complications which might arise as a result of this are excluded from my travel insurance. I also had to undergo kidney stones removal last year and for a period until they had been removed I couldn't get insurance at all so couldn't travel. My consultant also advised me not to travel, but following the op gave me a written all clear to pass onto my insurers.

The cancer history a risk I accept and as I am covered for all other medical eventualities I still travel.

I think it's a common theme and goes with getting older

In reply to Trangia:

Thanks. I'm seeing my consultant next week and I'm going to mention it to him about the absence of cover. As far as I can see it's only likely to have consequences if something happens suddenly and dangerously as a result of the lymphoma otherwise I would envisage that if you start feeling grotty you just get yourself on the next available flight home.

In reply to mypyrex:

I can totally sympathise, especially, as you say, with people living longer and remaining (in some cases at least) fitter much longer yet you get stuck with the "you're old" tag like the folks who've let themselves go.

I think though that you need to remember insurance companies are out to make money, not be moral. They want people to pay and then not need anything back. They're processing huge numbers of applicants and have to pigeon hole to make money.

If you're over 65 and still doing things that are so active that is wonderful and I hope I'm able to do the same when I get to that point, but having worked sort of in insurance previously I get why most companies won't cover you. There are specialist companies though, as you mentioned the BMC will cover you, and because you don't fit the mould that's what you should be looking at.

In reply to mypyrex:
That's my attitude. I no longer have a prostate gland, so that can't recur, and in the event that any secondary cancer was missed in the prostatectomy I feel (and hope) that should problems develop they would be gradual and not sudden and catastrophic.

From that point of view the kidney stones presented a much greater risk of sudden problems happening. The pain, when it happened, was so excruiciating that I wouldn't have risked travelling whilst they were still there.

In reply to mypyrex:

And with my BMC travel policy I had to declare treatment my daughter had which they came back and said was not covered so anything related to it which meant she had to go into hospital for which meant I had to cut short or cancel my trip was not covered. That and stupid premiums meant I gave up on BMC travel insurance.

In reply to Scarab9:
Yes, thanks for that. Depending on what my consultant thinks(ie as to whether I might be caught unawares with some sudden unforeseen complication) I shall probably stick with the BMC. I've tended to use them in the past and I feel they are more attuned to things like SAR and mountain rescue. I looked at one company and they would cover trekking up to 3500m if you were in an organised group. I phoned them up to seek clarification but they couldn't seem to grasp the fact that not everyone needs or wants to be part of an organised group.

In response to my questions they actually said "Are you not going with a qualified guide?" When I said (emphatically) no they said "Oh, we would need to think very carefully about that" :o{

In reply to mypyrex:

My M-i-L used to get insurance for horse riding well into her 70's.

Horse riding is typically viewed as more risky than rock climbing
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/risk/sports.html
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/how-dangerous-are-climbing-and-hill-walking

I'll ask Mrs Rubberfeet who her mum was insured with tonight.

In reply to Ghastly Rubberfeet:

Age Concern, apparently.