In the third of a series of articles exploring the finer points of critical illness protection, CIExpert's Alan Lakey discusses the new ABI+ definition.
Insurers continually search for some means of persuading advisers and consumers that their plan is the most efficacious and worthwhile. Historically, the trusted, if somewhat irrelevant, method was to count the numbers of conditions on offer. However, that dubious tool has gradually been replaced by a new enticement - the designation ABI+.
Hopefully it is not just a few that dislike spin and misdirection. Occasionally something that was once meaningful can degenerate to the point where it becomes an unreliable measure of value and actually creates bewilderment.
What exactly is an ABI+ definition? What does it actually mean to advisers and clients and, more importantly, is it of any real worth? It is perhaps time to accept that the term has become redundant and that it no longer assists the adviser or the consumer. In fact, it serves to confuse because plans with varying claims wordings are unnecessarily lumped together as if identical.
The ABI introduced model wordings for those conditions included by at least 75% of members. These were intended to bring clarity and ensure that members could not use inferior definitions but the establishment of ABI+ has served to take us back to pre-model wording days when mystification was the rule.
In disrepute
Including terminal illness but excluding partial payments, there are 51 specific conditions that insurers use. Of these, only 24 have model wordings. This in itself weakens the validity of ABI+ as a determinant of quality and, together with the wide variation of claims wordings, throws the usage of the term into disrepute.
