Life insurance and inflammatory bowel disease: is there discrimination against patients?

Abstract

The aims of this study were to compare and contrast the attitude of major insurance companies to patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and to a Consultant Gastroenterologist (JFM) requesting guidelines for patients with IBD. The experience of patients in Leicester with insurance companies was also investigated. A standard letter requesting information regarding the likelihood of loading on life assurance in connection with a mortgage was sent to 50 major insurance companies from a typical patient. A similar letter was constructed from a consultant gastroenterologist (JFM) to the same 50 insurance companies requesting simple guidelines for patients with IBD when applying for various types of insurance. A questionnaire investigating the experience of patients with IBD when applying for insurance was also sent to 100 patients with IBD selected at random from the Leicestershire data base of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, 39 insurance companies responded to the request for information by a typical patient, (response rate = 78%). 24 were split between those who thought the patient would be accepted at normal rates (n = 7) and those who would request an increased premium (n = 17). Only 27 companies replied to the letter by a consultant gastroenterologist requesting general guidelines, (response rate = 54%). There were only 17 overlapping replies to the two letters. Of these 17 overlapping replies, five companies (30%) informed the patient to expect increased premiums whilst advising the consultant a similar patient could expect normal rates. Six companies conferred (35%), telling both the patient and the consultant to expect normal rates. Either one or both of the remaining six companies (35%) felt unable to comment without either specific details of the patient or a medical examination. 69% of patients responded to the questionnaire. Over half (54%) had applied for an insurance policy. More than a third of patients had required either a medical examination (36%) or a report from their GP (41%) before being accepted for a policy. 39% of patients had received an additional loading on their policies because of IBD including two patients who had been turned down altogether. In conclusion patients with IBD are clearly discriminated against by insurance companies. Life tables should be amended to take account of the low mortality recognised in recent years. Patients should be aware of the difficulties that currently exist.