In the second half of this dynamic Protection Forum session, our panel continues to explore the real-world implications of mental health disclosures in protection insurance — diving deeper into the growing call for change, practical fixes, and policy improvements.
With personal insight, professional frustration, and a focus on client outcomes, the conversation shifts toward solutions. Topics include insurer accountability, reviewable exclusions, menopause misclassification, and the impact of outdated underwriting guides.
Our panel features:
-
Colin Baxter, Director & Mortgage Adviser – Mortgages in Lincoln
-
Shirley Gooden, Specialist Protection Adviser – Protect My Hive
-
Adam Kaplan, Protection Adviser – Pendragon Protect
-
Emilie Ward, Protection Adviser – The Insurance Surgery
If you’re an adviser, underwriter or policymaker, this session offers first-hand accounts of what’s working – and what urgently needs to change.
Listen to the full audio below and scroll down for session highlights and key quotes…
“I had a client who contacted her GP because her daughter was having suicidal thoughts. She was worried about how she’d cope. No medication, no diagnosis. But she got a mental health exclusion. How is that reasonable?”
“If clients are proactively seeking help, we should be rewarding that – not penalising them. Just like how we reward physical activity through rewards programmes, there should be a model that recognises positive mental health engagement.”
“We should also be seeing more reviewable exclusions. Circumstantial stress five years ago shouldn’t result in a lifetime exclusion.”
“If mental health is excluded, where’s the discount? If you’re excluding a major claim area, shouldn’t that be reflected in the premium?”
Click the audio playback below to listen to the full session.
Full session audio
Part 2:
“Some insurers not on UnderwriteMe are now shaping their question sets to match UnderwriteMe timeframes – which is shrinking choice and forcing everyone into a rigid mould.”
“There’s less flexibility and more alignment to one rigid structure. It makes it harder to find good outcomes for clients.”
“Medication and management should be seen positively. Just like someone taking inhalers for asthma or statins for cholesterol – it’s evidence of control, not risk.”
“I had a lady who’d never had mental health issues. She’d just had a baby, wasn’t sleeping well, spoke to her GP, and an insurer immediately applied a mental health exclusion. I pushed back. They said, ‘That’s our guide.’ So I went to Royal London, and they were fine. Why such a difference?”
“I push back on everything. But I shouldn’t have to push back on things like this. There should be common sense applied at the start.”
“More understanding and better education among underwriters would make a massive difference. And it’s not about blaming them – it’s about equipping them to assess risk properly.”
“Should insurers actually have to contact clients at the end of the reviewable exclusion period and say, ‘Can we remove the exclusion?’ Because it’s just left for the client to ask. Shouldn’t it be on the insurer to go back and say, ‘Can we now reassess this?’”
“There needs to be more focus on how clients have managed their mental health and how it’s impacted them day to day, rather than just ticking boxes. That’s where the context gets lost.”
