The annual rankings for the sector have been introduced alongside the organisation's existing protection categories.
As part of the unveiling, the company released research which found that half of those surveyed (49%) do not understand the features of the products they own.
It also noted that a quarter (23%) were worried about purchasing a financial product that was not right for them while two thirds (69%) saw price as a very important factor when purchasing financial products.
Ben Heffer, insight analyst for protection at Defaqto, told COVER why it had decided to produce ratings for PMI.
"We're firmly of the opinion that people should choose products on the basis of the benefits and features they have, rather than on price," he said.
"The PMI market is a very competitive one and the providers are trying very hard to get business and are offering cut price deals.
"We thought it was time that we highlighted the difference between products and features and identified those plans that were more comprehensive in the market."
Heffer has previously explained how it derives critical illness (CI) scores and identified the key elements that had been considered when rating the PMI market.
"We're looking for plans which covered inpatient and outpatient treatment," he continued.
"But we're keen to focus on cancer cover, because anyone with a PMI policy might reasonably expect their policy to cover them for extensive cancer treatment, that's quite an important thing.
"So cancer cover and also the range of hospitals included were important criteria," he added.
Advertisment
Stay up to date with all the latest news, product development and changes happening within the protection and health insurance market.
All of the latest news and features on all aspects of the protection and health insurance market are available from our print edition.
Advertisment
Visitor Comment
Add your comment
Add your comment
How to confuse consumers!
These ratings are inaccurate and misleading. If the aim was to provide clarity to consumers, then the opposite has been achieved. There is no out-patient limit comparison, a key part of medical insurance! What about underwriting options? Some 3 star products are more comprehensive than 5 star products. This is flawed in so many ways and so misleading in should be removed.
Posted by: Richard Bamford | Feb 01 2012
More Gravy
I guess charging £22,000 p.a. for a licnce to use the 4 or 5 star rating is proving a lucrative business. What's that? Of couyrse they're not doing the rankings for this reason, eh?
Posted by: Bereft & Bewildered | Feb 01 2012
Add your comment