This month's Think Tank debated the future of underwriting in the protection market - a particularly hot topic at the moment.
Providers believe they have come very far with the advent of tele-underwriting and straight through processing, and while advisers agree, they are less congratulatory with their praise.
Certainly, these methods are helping the underwriting process, and in particular, they are addressing the issue of non-disclosure.
There has been a massive push for teleunderwriting recently, but it is important the industry does not lose sight of the end goal.
Tele-underwriting is only one part of the solution, and expecting it to be the answer to all problems is dangerous.
It is important to look at the bigger picture.
Advisers believe that where underwriting is failing is, in fact, where it is most needed – for those less than straightforward cases.
Providers have indeed come a long way in tackling the backlog by getting clean lives on the books faster, but what about those cases that do not fall into this category? Disgruntled advisers will agree that waiting to hear about loadings from underwriters is frustrating and in many cases, loses them clients.
If they can inform the client of the potential extras and gauge whether or not the client can afford the extra premium, then everyone will save time and money by continuing with cases that will be placed on risk and disgarding those that will not.
But it is easier said than done.
Regardless, the developments the industry has made are certainly commendable but continued progress is needed before all involved are satisfied.
