The Association of British Insurers' new guidelines on HIV ask insurers to question policyholders on whether they have been exposed to HIV infection by having unsafe sex. Many industry experts have slammed the new rules, arguing that the question is too intrusive and could give rise to more non-disclosures. Do you agree?
Market views
Chris Morgan, Compass
On 30 September, the gay community finally gained the opportunity to insure their lives, partners and income without fear of discrimination. This was the end to a journey that started back in March 1999, with a promise to remove the 'gay question' from all life assurance application forms. With the introduction of the new ABI guidelines relating to HIV and insurance, intrusive questions for gay men have been removed from all life, income protection and critical illness cover applications.
Finally, the insurance industry is recognising that HIV is a global issue which affects people from all walks of life and not just the gay community. The new question that will be asked of all those applying for cover, regardless of sexuality, reads: "Within the last five years have you been exposed to HIV infection by having unsafe sex?"
A number of insurance industry professionals have already selfishly criticised the new procedures on the grounds that they are more intrusive towards heterosexual clients. They seem to forget that the gay community has suffered more intrusive questioning than this for more than a decade.
What we are now experiencing is an equalisation that promotes respect and fair treatment towards all risk groups regardless of sexuality. The new question is in line with the current HIV diagnosis figures. These figures justify asking a 'common question' on all application forms for life assurance, which covers HIV and Aids. This has been balanced with increased HIV testing limits for single males. Most companies that were asking for HIV testing at £100,000 have now increased it to £250,000.
Overall the underwriting process for HIV risk has become less intrusive.
Roger Edwards, Bright Grey
The protection industry has always been accused of asking intrusive questions on its application forms, but the questions we have used to try and gauge HIV risk have always caused the most controversy.
In an attempt to diffuse the consistently bad feedback from the gay community about unfair HIV questioning, the ABI has introduced a new question. Unfortunately the reference to 'unsafe sex' in the new question seems to be generating similar negative feedback.
The problem is that the ABI has not defined exactly what unsafe sex is. And without a definition, how can people be expected to know what to disclose? So providers, who have adopted the new question, have had to come up with their own definitions of unsafe sex. Differences between various providers' definitions could cause confusion.
Even with a definition, feedback suggests that advisers are nervous about actually asking the question. Will a client be embarrassed by it? Will it really be that effective in some cases? What happens if a couple in an adviser's office say they haven't taken part in unsafe sex, but in reality one of them is having an affair? That person is not going to own up during an interview, so they will be non-disclosing.
I would like to see the ABI revisit the use of the term 'unsafe sex' in this question, and see if there are any alternatives, and whether we do need to keep the term. Perhaps we need an agreed standard industry definition as to what it means.
Dale Tranter, Sesame
The objective of this statement has been to achieve fair and respectful underwriting for all sections of the community. HIV has been seen by some as a gay issue, but the latest available data sees HIV incidence in the heterosexual community outstripping that in the gay population, with heterosexual black people of African origin contributing significantly to the total.
The industry has justifiably sought to level the playing field between the gay and straight communities by asking similar 'intrusive' questions about lifestyle/sexual behaviour to all groups. Whether or not this will lead to non-disclosure is open to question.
While some may be reluctant to supply this information, the perils of non-disclosure are now becoming increasingly known to the wider population. People of all sexualities will soon realise, as they 'shop around', that if they want cover they will have to answer these questions. As they have the option of sending the answers to the insurer in a separate envelope, if they are unwilling to give their answers to the IFA sitting across the table, this should not lead to an explosion in non-disclosure and declined claims.
On the contrary, this fairer underwriting across the board should hopefully lead to reduced HIV-related claims for the industry in years to come.
Richard Walsh, ABI
Before the new guidance, to establish HIV risk many companies asked if an applicant was gay. This attracted universal opposition from the gay lobby, the Terence Higgins Trust and medical organisations, for two reasons.
Firstly, being gay does not make someone at higher risk of HIV infection. They may be celibate, or may always have protected sex. The medical profession has acknowledged this for some time and to establish HIV risk, for example, with blood donors, instead asks questions about personal behaviour.
Secondly, unfair discrimination against gay men has, unfortunately, been prevalent in the UK for some time, with many personally experiencing discrimination. Their communities have struggled for years to obtain legislative change to prevent this from happening.
The insurance industry's determination has led us to our current question about unsafe sexual behaviour. While it is not compulsory to ask it, it is an alternative to the unacceptable 'Are you gay?' question used in the past by insurers to assess HIV risk.
Our experience is that people have been in favour of the decision, including organisations such as Stonewall.
