ABI+ definitions: A land of confusion

Consider benign brain tumour. The model wording stipulates a non-malignant tumour which has caused permanent neurological damage. Initially, some providers went beyond this by paying claims where the tumour was surgically removed. This was then extended by some plans also paying if the tumour was partially removed. Aviva’s plan enhances further by paying out purely on diagnosis.

Logically, such antics leave us with ABI+, ABI++ and ABI+++, as in Table 1.
It is meaningless to use the term ABI+ for benign brain tumour and the notion of ABI++ is ludicrous. Table 2 highlights a more extreme situation with third degree burns where there are six variations of ABI+.

As well as being a poor method of assessing the worth of a condition, the ABI+ term also deceives with the implication that it automatically improves the likelihood of a successful claim. In many instances it will but with others the improvement is illusory or so insignificant as to be of little use. With HIV/AIDS cover, the ABI wording enables each insurer to select its preferred geographical limits yet many insurers state that their plan, extending cover worldwide, is therefore ABI+. Not only is this incorrect but, as no claims have yet to be paid for HIV/AIDS, the difference becomes redundant.

Trying to standardise wordings has proved impossible and this may not be a bad thing. The process of continual improvement and innovation cannot be held in check by any organisation, be it ABI or FSA, and nor should it.

After all, if all plans included the same conditions and used identical wordings then the product will have become commoditised with premium and name awareness being the prime determinants.

However, the illusion of superiority suggested by the ABI+ term is not especially relevant and advisers need to ensure that they are not deceiving themselves and their clients by adopting it, on its own, as a means of plan selection. 

Alan Lakey is director of CIExpert

Table 1:

Table 2: