The recent comparison of health insurance at this link by Jenee Tibshraeny highlights just how difficult it is to compare health insurance. This enjoys a journalists exemption from advice standards, because health insurance is such a complex area that such a high level comparison must have very limited use. Here are some of the challenges with a brief ‘tick the boxes’ approach:
- Surgical cover is compared simply by showing the upper limit offered. Of course, these upper limits are rarely tested, but it is far more common for claimants to discover that their claim is limited by factors such as restricting the claim to the ‘usual and customary’ amount, sub limits on certain procedures, and exclusions. None of these is covered at all.
- Specialists and Tests cover is indicated with a simple “yes” suggesting that all such cover is the same. It isn’t. The difference that would be felt by most policyholders is the excess level, which is frequently different to the excess on the plan. Again sub-limits can apply. A schedule of available tests or procedures is not touched on.
- Non-pharmac cover is described at three levels: yes, no, and limited. It is more complex than that, and the available scope of drugs is a big issue. The first comment on the interest.co.nz article highlights this correctly.
- Overseas treatment – whether in Australia or elsewhere is indulged with two out of eight rating categories, and yet is a relative rarity.
- Exclusions, on the other hand, are a complex and difficult area to assess and no comment is made to help buyers pick their way through an issue which will affect almost every potential policyholder.
On Quotemonster we know it isn’t that simple. We compare thirty items, with an average of four sub-items each, and use that detailed analysis of the wording as the basis of the comparison. We take external data to weight these based on the likelihood of claim, the amount the client is likely to claim, and how frequently they will claim on the feature.