In our July Protection Forum session, our expert panel explores one of the most pressing topics in insurance advice today: how mental health disclosures are treated in the protection market.
With increasing awareness around mental health, clients are more willing to disclose – but advisers often find themselves battling confusing exclusions, premium loadings and inconsistent insurer responses. This session dives into the reality behind those challenges and offers examples of where the system can do better.
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
The discussion covers the real-world impact of mental health disclosures, the importance of better question sets, how menopause is often misclassified, and the frustration around GP delays affecting cover.
From personal experience to professional insights, this session is a must for anyone committed to improving outcomes in protection advice.
Listen to the full audio below and scroll down for session highlights and key quotes…
“I’m still currently facing, writing 250–350 new policies every year, and one in four of my clients has got mental health issues at least. My particular interest in this is that I’ve had mental health issues all my life. I’m old enough to know that for the first 50 years of my life, no one acknowledged them.”
“When I look at the questions I’m asking my clients who’ve got mental health issues, some of the questions are unrealistic. They disturb the client and I don’t think they do anything for the underwriting.”
“Here’s an example from Royal London, one of my favourite insurers, but still—here’s the question: ‘When did you last have symptoms of your depression?’ And the grey text says, ‘Symptoms include feeling helpless or hopeless, strong sad feelings, low self-esteem, marked tiredness or loss of interest in life.’ That’s everybody, every day of the year, at some point in their day.”
“I’ve not had a day off work in my life. I’ve been working 53 years with mental health issues. So if you were assessing me for income protection, you’d exclude mental health issues, but it’s never affected me being able to work.”
“It would be far more relevant to ask people about their life experience with mental health issues, diagnosed or not diagnosed, and see how it’s actually affected them. I had a couple last week—both had mental health disclosures. One had ongoing anxiety for nine years; the other had one episode three years ago. They both got the same terms. That’s a broken system.”
Click the audio playback below to listen to the full session.
Full session audio
Part 2:
“I’ve known clients to say that a doctor’s actually warned them, when talking about mental health, that if they refer themselves, it could go against them in the future if they decide they want insurance cover. I was absolutely gobsmacked. People are being encouraged not to get help. That’s dangerous.”
“I’ve got a current case: a chap who had suicidal thoughts around nine or ten years ago. He got the help he needed, has been on medication ever since, and is now doing brilliantly. But his critical illness premium has been increased due to mental health, and his income protection has a mental health exclusion. What’s the additional risk? What else are they trying to cover?”
“Why do some insurers accept and others exclude? You’re all in the same field. You’re all insurers. So if one insurer sees it as OK and another doesn’t, then where is the consistency?”
“I push back on everything. I write chapter and verse to underwriters. Yet I’m still hitting roadblocks. I’m getting blanket ‘No, we can’t do this, it’s above our threshold.’ That’s not an answer. That’s avoidance.”
“More accountability is needed. Not a dig at underwriters—but help us explain things to our clients clearly.”
“I had a case where a client was exhausted after having a baby. She went to the GP, discussed insomnia, and the insurer classed it as a mental health exclusion. She never had mental health issues. Went to Royal London—they said, ‘Of course, this is fine.’ Why the massive difference?”
“I had a client whose records flagged a mental health exclusion. No mention of it on the application. We investigated—she’d visited her GP due to menopause-related symptoms like stress and anxiety. I spoke to a senior underwriter. They agreed it was clearly menopause-related and overturned the exclusion.”
“I’ve had two major life events in five years that were entirely circumstantial. I didn’t go to the GP because I knew it was temporary. Once the situation changed, I felt fine. But if I had gone, it would’ve triggered an exclusion. That’s madness.”
“Most mental health is circumstantial, but we’re not seeing enough reviewable exclusions. If you review a client five years later, their health might have improved—but premiums are now more expensive, and new exclusions may apply.”
“If you’re taking medication and it’s well controlled—for asthma, cholesterol, thyroid—insurers don’t penalise you. So why do they when it’s for mental health?”
“There are clients out there being penalised for mental health when it’s actually menopause-related. It’s only because of my experience that I could identify and challenge it. How many others are slipping through the net?”
“For me, one of the biggest challenges in the industry is mental health. When someone has bipolar or schizophrenia, they’re often declined—not just excluded. But why can’t it just be excluded and treated the same as other conditions?”
“People are penalised for managing their condition. I had a client increase her medication. That’s good health management. But her premium went up. That’s not right.”
“With life insurance, why does increased medication mean increased rating? If someone increases their dosage, they’re doing the responsible thing. But instead of being rewarded, they’re penalised.”
“There’s only one provider I know of that rewards responsible mental health management. We need more. More mainstream insurers need to pilot better approaches.”
“Insurers seem to be conforming their question sets to fit the UnderwriteMe platform. Even those not on UnderwriteMe are adjusting their timeframes to align with it. We’re losing options and flexibility.”
