IFAs have voted in favour of a change of definition for prostate cancer, writes Rachel Williams. ...
IFAs have voted in favour of a change of definition for prostate cancer, writes Rachel Williams.
Following a speech from Nick Kirwan, chairman of the ABI Working Party for Critical Illness, held at the COVER Protection Forum in Manchester, approximately 75% of IFAs said a change of definition would be preferable to increased premiums.
However, there was an overwhelming concern that consumers need to be given choice. One IFA delegate said: 'Why have an either/or situation, why not give consumers choice? They should be able to either pay a higher premium and maintain the definition or pay a lower premium and get a lesser definition.'
But Kirwan said that choice would more than likely be maintained if the industry went ahead with a change of definition. 'If we were to change the definition it would be up to individual providers how they act. Although I think insurers may offer a basic contract and for a larger premium other conditions could be covered, such as less advanced cases of prostate cancer.'
Although the working party has yet to confirm its decision on the matter, industry figures were not surprised by the IFAs' response.
Roger Edwards, product marketing manager at Scottish Provident, said: 'Critical illness is perceived to be an expensive product, so it will be harder to sell if there is a premium increase.'
However, he added that a change of definition would bring additional duties to IFAs. 'Changes to the definition brings more responsibility to IFAs when it comes to explaining what is covered and what is not.
