ADVISER WISHES FOR 2023
At our December Protection Forum we asked advisers to tell us their wishes for the protection industry for the coming year. They had some fantastic ideas…
“So my one wish for the protection industry for next year is for when AMI carries out its viewpoint research. Again, we start to see a positive shift in consumer perceptions, even if it is just a small shift. And that’s a step in the right direction, particularly around consumer mistrust. If claims stats mistrust around advisors motivations are mentioned at last month’s forum that these were trends that were reoccurring, we’ve seen them over the last three years. So I really think that they’re areas that we need to kind of tackle quite urgently, first of all. And I’ve been thinking, how can we try and tackle some of these areas? And it links back to what a lot of you have been talking about today, about real life stories. I think they’re so important and I’d love to see even more of those because I think if we’re doing that in conjunction with claims stats, that should help build trust. So it’s not just about the figures, it’s about the actual feelings of people.”
“I’m thinking along the lines of a simple product that covers all areas of protection in one policy. So a policy that would give more peace of mind without numerous limitations on what’s covered in it and what’s not covered or what is covered, what isn’t covered. And without having to apply for three separate policies, so say basically a policy that wraps life critical illness income protection into one without multiple exclusions and time limits on claims they’re only claiming under one umbrella. And it’s an all inclusive policy for every eventuality. With great peace of mind or great peace of mind to say.”
“My wish it would really be to have a big overhaul on underwriting everything from the philosophies and the process. And we’ve already spoken today about sort of GP reports and the issues that they cause for us, but also being able to speak with underwriters as well about decisions and why. Because the more we can understand about why a decision is being made, we can then better understand how to help that client and know where maybe best to place them, or if they can’t be help now when there may be able to be helped in the future. So it’s having that sort of dialogue afterwards as well. Definitely. Also, we’ve spoken about, you know, the length in underwriting. So yes, some providers may offer mortgage free cover but we have to underwrite later. But again, we spoke about clients that that may have a postponement whilst they’re waiting for something or tests, you know, can we not give clients a certain level of cover during that period? Because, you know, with the waiting times that we have now, you know, we’re leaving clients without any cover whatsoever. And also around exclusions, I really want to see more providers doing reviewable exclusions. And if we get to a situation where if a client was to take out a new policy, they actually wouldn’t have that exclusion. Why can’t we have that exclusion removed?”
“My one wish would be to scrap GPRs and look for new ways to gather evidence… Surely there’s a better way. And I need to, I suppose, recognise many of the efforts of the insurers have made over the past few years and trying to make it easier to protect families. I mean, electronic reports are making a big difference to turnaround times, but so many surgeries won’t or can’t accept them.”
“We all advocate the additional services, all the additional services that the insurers offer. And while, again, I think the industry needs to be applauded for the value they bring, our relationship with primary health care is changing the way and the way in which we’re able to see GPs or not, and how they record those details has changed. I think we just need a radical rethink how we source evidence. And is there a better way to check customers disclosures? I’m not an underwriter nor an actuary, and I’m sure there’s lots of people on this call that say GPRs are needed. But what does it actually tell you? Are they worth it? How many applications as advisors have we seen run out of steam or clients are left unprotected because of the time it takes to for a GPR to be sent back?”
“My 2023 wish: the end of combined KFDs. If someone has life only, send them a life only KFD. If they have IP only, send them an IP only KFD. Let’s remove the chance of a client with life only thinking they have CI and IP, because they’ve read it in the KFD that they got sent. It makes the amount of paperwork for clients slimmer and reduces the risk of them thinking they have cover they do not have, and so helps stop “I tried to claim, but the insurer says I wasn’t covered…” type conversations, which help reinforce peoples (incorrect) view that insurers don’t pay out.”
“What I would really love for 2023 is a bit of a reality check from providers. Some honesty! I see comments about ‘could a provider just do x or y’ when in many (not all) cases, the provider just doesn’t have the money/time/resource to do something. For so many things that advisers think would be obvious quick wins, the reasons that insurers don’t implement them isn’t because they haven’t thought of it themselves, or because they don’t want to, it’ll be because they need funding and project managers and IT release time to put something in. Then there might be a list of 15 or 20 changes that the protection teams really want to deliver but they’ll have to prioritise them, then do a cost benefit analysis for them and invariably they’ll be told they can do 5 of the 15, and another 5 can be done alongside another project in the same area but are co-dependent etc… And then you might be told ‘ok, you can afford to do that one midway down the list plus one other’ or ‘you can afford to do one things from the top or 10 from the bottom’…”
“In 2023 I’d like to see (although I know I wont) a life and permanent incapacity/TPD shareholder protection policy. Cross Option/Single Option agreements often refer to the permanent incapacity of a shareholder as the trigger event for the purchase of their shares. Typical CI policies cover far too many conditions that aren’t required for this and could end up causing, should they be claimed on, as many problems as they solve. A life and TPD policy, that can be claimed on, based on impact, not condition, would be far more relevant. It would hopefully also price far better than a full CI policy.”
“My 2023 wish is – every adviser (supported by networks / providers and others) to revisit the beneficiary name on a policy…. even if we avoid one incorrect beneficiary being contacted (because the clients circumstances have changed) then its a winner… consequential benefits (1) More beneficiaries spoken too about there role (2) Trusts being put in place when they might have been overlooked at the time of the sale (3) Lots of the right people getting pay-outs.“
