Yes health insurance is a scam in Thailand

[Albert Zweistein]

9 hours ago, fredscats said:

Fully agree,but colonoscopy ain't exactly medical emergency,just routine health checking. Try India couple of hours away nearest point,what you were quoted could be had for 500 baht couple of years ago(covid)  prob now around 800 baht...borders opening up

Is a Thai insurance only covering medical emergencies, a matter of life and dead ? Besides a colonoscopy is done on suspect of cancer so not really a routine health check.

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

Just now, scubascuba3 said:

Is this thai insurance? or includes Intl insurance? time period of disclosure seems a lot less for intl.

 

This isn't just a Thai thing. International insurers have the same rights to deny claims or void policies for non-disclosure in most jurisdictions. I would not rule out the possibility that some countries may limit insurers' ability to do so, but I am not aware of any that do. It is a fundamental principle in the formation of a contract of insurance.

 

 

[Sheryl]

16 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

There isn't enough information from the OP to understand the reason for the insurer's denial of the claim, but the reference to the agent stating that things should be ok if something happened more than five years prior gives a possible hint.

 

Some medical insurance application forms ask the applicant to disclose any surgeries or medical procedures they have undergone during a specific time period, typically five or ten years. The intent of this question is to elicit more information regarding the proposer's medical history than may have otherwise been provided based upon the standard request to disclose pre-existing conditions.

 

Some applicants might believe that this means that their duty to disclose the medical condition for which the surgery or procedure was performed does not apply if the surgery or procedure occurred prior to the time period mentioned. This isn't the case. The applicant's duty to disclose material facts is without time limitation and the time period mentioned in the question regarding surgeries or procedures does not over-ride it.

 

An insurer is also entitled to deny a claim and cancel a policy from inception if the nature of the condition that had not been disclosed would have caused the insurer to reject the application based upon its underwriting guidelines, even if the non-disclosed condition had nothing to do with the immediate claim at hand.

 

It would not surprise me if an insurance agent here also misunderstood this issue and gave bad advice.

 

How exactly does one go about disclosing a condition that occurred outside the time period asked about? I have never seen a place on an insurance form for this.

 

Also my understanding of "pre-existing" is that it means existing at the time if application.... not every condition you ever had in your life.  It is quite possible to have had a procedure long ago for a problem which then completely resolved, no further or ongoing treatment needed.  Then to years later newly develop  problem  requiring same or similar procedure.

 

If the condition was not present at the time of the application and all questions were answered honestly I do not see a case for calling it "pre-existing". 

 

I have however known some local insurance agencies to make amazing leaps of (il)logic in trying to deny a claim as pre-existing. Someone who newly developed a cardiac condition for the first time comes to mind -- denied because they found somewhere (I forget if on his original application form or by digging through his medical  records) a prior incident of gastric reflux (which essentially everyone gets from tine to time, right up there with the common cold).  Insurance company employee was apparently reading off some very badly constructed chart that listed heart problems as a possible  complication of hiatal hernia (which this person did not have) and HH as a possible cause of GERD. Seen similar many times.

 

It really takes a medically trained person to determine whether there is a link between a different problem in the past and a current problem of a different type. Can't be done by lay people using garbled charts. At most they might flag possibilities but these would then  need to be reviewed by a doctor. In the case just mentioned any doctor would have said unrelated and not an indication at all that there was a pre-existing heart condition. International insurers have medical consultants for this purpose. But many local  insurers do not and claims reviews can seriously amateur hour with no telling what bizarre conclusions will be drawn. There does seem to be an excessive effort to categorize things as pre-existing on the part of some insurers and the lengths gone to can be quite extreme and medically nonsensical. Almost as if employees jobs or income depended on meeting a quota of denied claims with no concern for legitimacy or how they went about it.

 

Not saying this was the case here as insufficient information. But it does happen.

 

[Albert Zweistein]

3 hours ago, Pravda said:

 

 

My understanding is not poor and I'm not stupid. I am simply sharing my experience about what agent and hospital told me and what actually happened. Your mysterious health insurance policy offered over a decade ago on the other hand doesn't even seem to be Thai.

 

Actually Thailand also has this health and life insurance policy and I am quite familiar with it. Wife is insured this way, plus she also has her comprehensive work insurance and social security, of course. Even with this she has to pay for things out of her pocket, like mammograms, blood tests and many more even she's had it for 20 years. Yes, if she does of cancer they'll pay me 1 million baht. Woohoo 

 

Edit.

 

Or maybe not. I forgot I'm a foreigner.

 

 

 

 

 

Good point Pravda, perestroika again  !

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

How exactly does one go about disclosing a condition that occurred outside the time period asked about? I have never seen a place on an insurance form for this.

 

Also my understanding of "pre-existing" is that it means existing at the time if application.... not every condition you ever had in your life.  It is quite possible to have had a procedure long ago for a problem which then completely resolved, no further or ongoing treatment needed.  Then to years later newly develop  problem  requiring same or similar procedure.

 

If the condition was not present at the time of the application and all questions were answered honestly I do not see a case for calling it "pre-existing". 

 

I have however known some local insurance agencies to make amazing leaps of (il)logic in trying to deny a claim as pre-existing. Someone who newly developed a cardiac condition for the first time comes to mind -- denied because they found somewhere (I forget if on his original application form or by digging through his medical  records) a prior incident of gastric reflux (which essentially everyone gets from tine to time, right up there with the common cold).  Insurance company employee was apparently reading off some very badly constructed chart that listed heart problems as a possible  complication of hiatal hernia (which this person did not have) and HH as a possible cause of GERD. Seen similar many times.

 

It really takes a medically trained person to determine whether there is a link between a different problem in the past and a current problem of a different type. Can't be done by lay people using garbled charts. At most they might flag possibilities but these would then  need to be reviewed by a doctor. In the case just mentioned any doctor would have said unrelated and not an indication at all that there was a pte-existing heart condition. International insurers have medical consultants for this purpose. But many local  insurers do not and ckaims reviews can seriously amateur hour with no telling what bizarre conclusions will be drawn. Thete does seem to be an excessive effort to categorize things as pre-existing on the part of some insurers and the lengths gone to can be quite extreme and medically nonsensical. Almost as if employees jobs or income depended on meeting a quota of denied claims with no concern for legitimacy or how they went about it.

 

Not saying this was the case here as insufficient information. But it does happen.

 

The key to this issue is materiality. You are correct that some issues do resolve and failure to disclose would likely not be material and underwriters would probably not seek to deny a claim based upon this type of non-disclosure. 

 

But section 865 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code stipulates that a policy is voidable if an applicant knowingly omits to disclose facts that could cause an insurer to deny coverage or increase premium. This requirement seems to be broader than simply requiring an applicant to truthfully and completely answer the questions in the application and I have seen at least one health insurance proposal form that refers to this section of the law. 

 

My concern is that insurers have implied a time limit for disclosure of material fact that is not supported by the Thai Civil and Commercial Code and their reference to this section of the law on an application form could be used to deny a claim based upon material non-disclosure of something that fell outside the 10 year timeframe.

 

I am not sure why some insurers ask for details of surgeries and procedures going back only ten years and others seem to leave the disclosure requirement open ended.

 

I certainly do not doubt your statements regarding the low level of competence displayed by claims department staff of local insurers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[scubascuba3]

4 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

The key to this issue is materiality. You are correct that some issues do resolve and failure to disclose would likely not be material and underwriters would probably not seek to deny a claim based upon this type of non-disclosure. 

 

But section 865 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code stipulates that a policy is voidable if an applicant knowingly omits to disclose facts that could cause an insurer to deny coverage or increase premium. This requirement seems to be broader than simply requiring an applicant to truthfully and completely answer the questions in the application and I have seen at least one health insurance proposal form that refers to this section of the law. 

 

My concern is that insurers have implied a time limit for disclosure of material fact that is not supported by the Thai Civil and Commercial Code and their reference to this section of the law on an application form could be used to deny a claim based upon material non-disclosure of something that fell outside the 10 year timeframe.

 

I am not sure why some insurers ask for details of surgeries and procedures going back only ten years and others seem to leave the disclosure requirement open ended.

 

I certainly do not doubt your statements regarding the low level of competence displayed by claims department staff of local insurers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're talking about section 865 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code this won't apply to International insurance companies who follow EU rules etc

Edited November 20, 2021 by scubascuba3

[BusyB]

8 hours ago, Albert Zweistein said:

Is a Thai insurance only covering medical emergencies, a matter of life and dead ? Besides a colonoscopy is done on suspect of cancer so not really a routine health check.

It is indeed routine. I've got my second coming up soon. Health insurance here pays for 1 every 10 years from age 55 onwards.

It's about prevention. By the time a colonoscopy is needed because of symptoms, you're already in dodgy territory.

[Albert Zweistein]

1 hour ago, BusyB said:

It is indeed routine. I've got my second coming up soon. Health insurance here pays for 1 every 10 years from age 55 onwards.

It's about prevention. By the time a colonoscopy is needed because of symptoms, you're already in dodgy territory.

I had 3 during the last 10 years because of symptoms so not really prevention or health check. False alarm but my physician insisted on it and yes insurance paid fully. No funny things here like once in 10 years, the first 2 I had within 6 months.

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

2 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

You're talking about section 865 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code this won't apply to International insurance companies who follow EU rules etc

The Thai civil and commercial code does not apply to foreign insurers, but the same principle does apply  in other countries including the UK and the US.  

 

Intentional non-disclosure of material fact would allow insurers in most countries to either deny a claim or void a policy from inception. This isn't something unique to Thailand.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Etaoin Shrdlu

[Thailand]

I have had  4 colonoscopy's over a few years. Underlying problem of ulcerative colitis. Each time it has been overnight in patient treatment and the insurance has paid.

if it was "out patient" they would not pay.

[ivor bigun]

When i came here 16 yrs ago ,i applied for health insurance ,i had had heart problems in my 30s so they were not covered ,plus some other things  not covered and they wanted 39k a month , i didnt bother,so far the premiums if they had stayed the same (unlikely) i would have paid 624000k. last year had a minor heart attack ,1 night in private 52k .then with all my tests and another 2  stays in hospital(govt) 6 nights in all plus an angiogram and scan and x ray plus all my meds for the last year about 80k  ,so so far winning .

ps as i do have a pink card i was told i pay Thai price .

[Ebumbu]

21 hours ago, Sheryl said:

You should go through a good broker. I use AA, they have expat staff, specialize in expat policies, and will help with after care (i.e. any issues with claims) .  www.aainsure.net My broker there is Jenny out of their hua Hin office [email protected]  Can do it all by email, no need to go in person. Jenny and also Matthieu in that office have provided me great service and gone above and behind in  helping ensure all claims paid.

 

Your age will greatly affect the range of choice.  Also need to consider how long you expect to be here for, if planning on living out your old age here then there are a host of concerns not otherwise relevant - including whether lifetime renewal is guaranteed, how much rates go up with age, and (very important!) whether they can raise premiums based on claims history. (The latter -- which all Thai-based insurers are allowed to do --  can result in pricing you out making a guarantee of lifetime renewal not worth much)

Great. Thanks.

[Sheryl]

15 hours ago, Albert Zweistein said:

Is a Thai insurance only covering medical emergencies, a matter of life and dead ? Besides a colonoscopy is done on suspect of cancer so not really a routine health check.

Actually colonoscopies are recommended for routine screening in people over age 45.

 

But we have no idea why the OP's procedure was done nor the details of his policy. It does sound like the issue was that the insurer was claiming a pre-existing condition based on something they found in his records but we do not know the details.

 

I have never seen a Thai issued health insurance policy that covered only medical emergencies. Some international companies do offer emergency only cover.

[Sheryl]

4 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

The Thai civil and commercial code does not apply to foreign insurers, but the same principle does apply  in other countries including the UK and the US.  

 

Intentional non-disclosure of material fact would allow insurers in most countries to either deny a claim or void a policy from inception. This isn't something unique to Thailand.

 

But how is a "material fact" defined? How is someone supposed to know what would cause an insurer to refuse cover or charge higher premiums, if the insurer's application forms are not designed to elicit it? Surely the insurance company has some responsibility to design their intake forms to elicit the information they consider material.

 

Every insurance policy I have seen defines pre-existing condition as a condition known (or which could reasonably have been known) to be present at the time of application. Not as "every condition the person has ever had in their life, even those fully recovered from and not covered by any questions on the application". 

 

The application forms of international companies that I have seen are pretty well designed to elicit anything that could be logcally be "material". Some of the local insurer forms on the other hand are extremely garbled and vague.

 

I haven't seen any forms which provide an open ended space to provide "other" information.

 

In any event if OP was completely truthful on his application and the procedure was done for reasons not related to a condition present at the time he applied for the insurance, he should launch an appeal with the OIC. Costs nothing to do and good chance (though not certainty) he would win.

 

 

 

[Sheryl]

11 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

I certainly do not doubt your statements regarding the low level of competence displayed by claims department staff of local insurers.

 

not only low competence (to put it mildly) but it also appears as though their marching orders are   not "make sure this is not related to a pre-existing condition" but rather:  "find a way to call this a pre-existing condition". Which is a very different approach. International insurers do the former. Many local insurers do the latter and do it with no medical knowledge whatsoever.

[Pravda]

25 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

But we have no idea why the OP's procedure was done nor the details of his policy. It does sound like the issue was that the insurer was claiming a pre-existing condition based on something they found in his records but we do not know the details.

As I posted many times here, I have hiatal hernia found during endoscopy 6 years ago. It has nothing to do with ass

[Sheryl]

18 minutes ago, Pravda said:

As I posted many times here, I have hiatal hernia found during endoscopy 6 years ago. It has nothing to do with ass

 

I do not find anywhere in this thread where you have stated you had a hiatal hernia. Just one post mentioning a prior endoscopy.

 

If as I now understand, the procedure they are refusing to cover is a colonoscopy and their reason is because you had a gastrosopy X years ago this is indeed nonsensical and you should certainly appeal, assuming your policy covers out patient endoscopies (or it was done as an inpatient).

 

To mix up gastroscopy with colonoscopy is typical of local insurer claims staff, they have absolutely zero medical knowledge and would not know the difference.

 

The only possible grounds I can see for the insurer would be if you did not disclose your hiatal hernia on the application. Even though unrelated to the colonoscopy, it is a chronic condition so should have been disclosed and failure to disclose even a condition unrelated to the claim in question could invalidate the policy.

 

However it sounds like they are trying to deny it based on misunderstanding of the difference between gastroscopy and colonoscopy and the conditions for which each are done.

 

Appeal it. If you do not want to go straight to the OIC, read your policy and see if there are other initial steps you can take. There might (no guarantee) be an appeals channel within the insurer that would enable you to lay out the facts and get them to the eyes of someone more senior/ better informed.

 

Whether to the insurer or to the OIC, be very clear, detailed  and factual in your statements and avoid inflammatory words, slang, profanities, ambiguities  etc.

 

For example:  "I had a colonoscopy done on (date, place) for (reason). (Name) the insurer is refusing to cover this on the grounds of a pre-existing condition apparently based on the fact that I had a gastroscopy (completely different procedure involving different body part) X years ago for a completely  unrelated condition."

 

If you would like help with the wording, post here or PM me. Your posts in this thread have not always been very clearly worded and we are an audience of mostly native English speakers, the insurer and OIC are not, so some real effort with the wording is important.

 

I am sure the OIC has encountered cases before where a local insurer's ignorance of medical procedures, terminology and conditions led to an incorrect disallowal. Won't be the first time. Give them a try.

[Sheryl]

21 hours ago, Pravda said:

Sheryl, if not a secret how much do you pay for your policy?

No secret but unless you are same age, won't be applicable to you.

 

At 65 I paid $2,800 USD annually.  At 68, $3,299 USD annually (increased due to age). This is for US $1 million in cover with a $500 deductible per year.

 

At younger age their premiums are of course much lower. Start at under $1,000 then rise with age.

 

When I applied I disclosed the fact that I take regular medication for hypothyroid. I was given the option of paying a higher premium or having thyroid-related diseases excluded. I opted for the exclusion. I could probably get that exclusion lifted if I went to a lot of trouble and had a number of tests done to demonstrate I don't have Hashimoto's disease etc but I have not bothered.

 

As it happens I have received far, far more in payouts over the three years with this specific insurer (April Global, based in France) than I paid in but that is because I have had 3 very unlucky years. Hopefully this will change!

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

9 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

But how is a "material fact" defined? How is someone supposed to know what would cause an insurer to refuse cover or charge higher premiums, if the insurer's application forms are not designed to elicit it? Surely the insurance company has some responsibility to design their intake forms to elicit the information they consider material.

 

Every insurance policy I have seen defines pre-existing condition as a condition known (or which could reasonably have been known) to be present at the time of application. Not as "every condition the person has ever had in their life, even those fully recovered from and not covered by any questions on the application". 

 

The application forms of international companies that I have seen are pretty well designed to elicit anything that could be logcally be "material". Some of the local insurer forms on the other hand are extremely garbled and vague.

 

I haven't seen any forms which provide an open ended space to provide "other" information.

 

In any event if OP was completely truthful on his application and the procedure was done for reasons not related to a condition present at the time he applied for the insurance, he should launch an appeal with the OIC. Costs nothing to do and good chance (though not certainty) he would win.

 

 

 

A material fact is anything that would cause an underwriter to either deny coverage or increase the premium charged. This is of course not something that the applicant would normally know in any great detail and in that respect it is indeed unfair. This is basically what the law says, however on proposal forms insurers may limit this risk to the proposer by stating that they only require that the questions be answered completely and truthfully. You are correct in this respect.

 

I would hope that an insurer would have designed a proposal form in a manner that would essentially preclude the ability to deny a claim or void a policy if the proposal form were to be answered truthfully and completely. I am not sure that is always the case and my concern is that the insurer has a get-out-of-jail-free card in the form of section 865 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code and precedent under common law in other countries. 

 

I am not a medical expert or a medical insurance underwriter so I don't know if there are pre-existing conditions that could have required surgery or a procedure more than ten years prior to application that would remain a material fact for underwriters at application time that would not otherwise trigger disclosure under other questions on a proposal form. 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

25 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

I do not find anywhere in this thread where you have stated you had a hiatal hernia. Just one post mentioning a prior endoscopy.

 

If as I now understand, the procedure they are refusing to cover is a colonoscopy and their reason is because you had a gastrosopy X years ago this is indeed nonsensical and you should certainly appeal, assuming your policy covers out patient endoscopies (or it was done as an inpatient).

 

To mix up gastroscopy with colonoscopy is typical of local insurer claims staff, they have absolutely zero medical knowledge and would not know the difference.

 

The only possible grounds I can see for the insurer would be if you did not disclose your hiatal hernia on the application. Even though unrelated to the colonoscopy, it is a chronic condition so should have been disclosed and failure to disclose even a condition unrelated to the claim in question could invalidate the policy.

 

However it sounds like they are trying to deny it based on misunderstanding of the difference between gastroscopy and colonoscopy and the conditions for which each are done.

 

Appeal it. If you do not want to go straight to the OIC, read your policy and see if there are other initial steps you can take. There might (no guarantee) be an appeals channel within the insurer that would enable you to lay out the facts and get them to the eyes of someone more senior/ better informed.

 

Whether to the insurer or to the OIC, be very clear, detailed  and factual in your statements and avoid inflammatory words, slang, profanities, ambiguities  etc.

 

For example:  "I had a colonoscopy done on (date, place) for (reason). (Name) the insurer is refusing to cover this on the grounds of a pre-existing condition apparently based on the fact that I had a gastroscopy (completely different procedure involving different body part) X years ago for a completely  unrelated condition."

 

If you would like help with the wording, post here or PM me. Your posts in this thread have not always been very clearly worded and we are an audience of mostly native English speakers, the insurer and OIC are not, so some real effort with the wording is important.

 

I am sure the OIC has encountered cases before where a local insurer's ignorance of medical procedures, terminology and conditions led to an incorrect disallowal. Won't be the first time. Give them a try.

Very good advice.

[Sheryl]

1 minute ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

A material fact is anything that would cause an underwriter to either deny coverage or increase the premium charged. This is of course not something that the applicant would normally know in any great detail and in that respect it is indeed unfair. This is basically what the law says, however on proposal forms insurers may limit this risk to the proposer by stating that they only require that the questions be answered completely and truthfully. You are correct in this respect.

 

I would hope that an insurer would have designed a proposal form in a manner that would essentially preclude the ability to deny a claim or void a policy if the proposal form were to be answered truthfully and completely. I am not sure that is always the case and my concern is that the insurer has a get-out-of-jail-free card in the form of section 865 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code and precedent under common law in other countries. 

 

I am not a medical expert or a medical insurance underwriter so I don't know if there are pre-existing conditions that could have required surgery or a procedure more than ten years prior to application that would remain a material fact for underwriters at application time that would not otherwise trigger disclosure under other questions on a proposal form. 

Thanks.

 

From the sounds of it now that additional information has been provided it appears that the prior condition and prior procedure were completely unrelated , not even same body part involved, and that the claims reviewer  failed to understand that "endoscopy" can refer to a wide range of totally different procedures done for totally different conditions. Exactly the sort of misunderstanding I referred to previously and nto a mistake a medically trained person would make.

 

OP needs to appeal.

[jerrymahoney]

Am I missing something here or did the agent or OP not obtain any written approval from the insurer to cover the non-emergency procedure before the OP went ahead and had the procedure  done?

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

22 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Thanks.

 

From the sounds of it now that additional information has been provided it appears that the prior condition and prior procedure were completely unrelated , not even same body part involved, and that the claims reviewer  failed to understand that "endoscopy" can refer to a wide range of totally different procedures done for totally different conditions. Exactly the sort of misunderstanding I referred to previously and nto a mistake a medically trained person would make.

 

OP needs to appeal.

The OP definitely needs to appeal.

 

As you suggested, the first stop should be to escalate internally with the insurance company. I would at least initially believe that it is a junior staff member making a simple mistake due to lack of knowledge. If it gets to management level and still no positive result, then filing a complaint with the OIC is warranted. But at least give the insurance company a chance to fix their mistake before going to the OIC.

 

This situation highlights the need for a good insurance broker as this is exactly the type of situation in which a broker can be of help.

[Sheryl]

29 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Am I missing something here or did the agent or OP not obtain any written approval from the insurer to cover the non-emergency procedure before the OP went ahead and had the procedure  done?

We do not know and we also do not know if pre-approval was required.

 

However this appears to have nothing to do with the denial.

 

The denial was due to lack of understanding of medical procedures /terminology by the person reviewing the claim. Wrongly thinking that a gastroscopy (gastric endoscopy) done some 6 years ago which revealed a hiatus hernia has relevance to a colonoscopy (endoscopy of the colon). We don't know the reason for the colonoscopy but there is no possible way it could be related to the hiatus hernia.

 

Ignorance/incompetance on part of the claims reviewer are not uncommon with local insurers here.

 

 

[Chris.B]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

No secret but unless you are same age, won't be applicable to you.

 

At 65 I paid $2,800 USD annually.  At 68, $3,299 USD annually (increased due to age). This is for US $1 million in cover with a $500 deductible per year.

 

At younger age their premiums are of course much lower. Start at under $1,000 then rise with age.

 

When I applied I disclosed the fact that I take regular medication for hypothyroid. I was given the option of paying a higher premium or having thyroid-related diseases excluded. I opted for the exclusion. I could probably get that exclusion lifted if I went to a lot of trouble and had a number of tests done to demonstrate I don't have Hashimoto's disease etc but I have not bothered.

 

As it happens I have received far, far more in payouts over the three years with this specific insurer (April Global, based in France) than I paid in but that is because I have had 3 very unlucky years. Hopefully this will change!

Your insurance costs the equivalent of 2000 THB a week, approximately. I would think most guys here would pay that if they were eligible to.

 

Edited November 21, 2021 by Chris.B

[scubascuba3]

18 minutes ago, Chris.B said:

Your insurance costs the equivalent of 2000 THB a week, approximately. I would think most guys here would pay that if they were eligible to.

 

Yes but people need to factor in future costs, in 70s and 80s will be very high

[tgw]

18 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Your mileage will vary with any company obviously.  I just go the extra mile and ensure it will be covered and the doctors I have and the hospital require a guarantee of payment prior to the procedure.  However, the doctor I use for my regular procedures always writes up his citation as to why the procedure is needed on a Medical certificate.  For any of my medical stuff that's not cover because of it being a pre-existing known and listed condition my insurance in the US picks up around 90%. of it ie...my diabetic endocrinology visits and they even pay for my meds, well I pay for them first and they reimburse me about 6 weeks later.  I can only say that I guess I have been lucky.

?

[BusyB]

8 hours ago, Albert Zweistein said:

I had 3 during the last 10 years because of symptoms so not really prevention or health check. False alarm but my physician insisted on it and yes insurance paid fully. No funny things here like once in 10 years, the first 2 I had within 6 months.

Fair enough, I don't want to argue with your personal experience. But you said it's not routine.

It is (in absence of symptoms) a recommended routine procedure later in life. It's about early detection and prevention, at least where I live and many other jurisdictions as well.

Bowel cancer like skin cancer, breast and prostate is one of those that can be caught quite easily early on  and treated simply by respecting yourself and your own body enough and paying attention.

I'm glad it was only a false alarm for you. A Thai friend of mine's father died of bowel cancer aged 60 - totally preventable but undetected.  There's no general screening program that I'm aware of in Thailand for oiks like me (or him).

 

[sead]

I didn't know there existed insurance that covered health checkups

[Sheryl]

4 minutes ago, sead said:

I didn't know there existed insurance that covered health checkups

Most policies offer it as an add-on. It increases the premium, usually by more than it is worth.