Chartis Insurance launches stroke and heart attack insurance

Neil Faulkner
by Lovemoney Staff Neil Faulkner on 26 September 2012  |  Comments 3 comments

Chartis Insurance has launched insurance policies offering cover if you suffer a heart attack or stroke. But is it any good?

Chartis Insurance launches stroke and heart attack insurance

Every year in England alone, 150,000 people have strokes, according to the NHS. It's the largest cause of adult disability in the UK and tens of thousands die from strokes each year.

Heart attacks hit around 90,000 people in a year, especially those over 45, with men two to three times more likely to have a heart attack.

A new insurance policy

There's a new product specifically designed to give you financial support in the event of these two risks alone, in the form of heart attack and stroke insurance from Chartis Insurance.

It will pay out a pre-agreed figure if you're hit by a heart attack or stroke, subject to terms and conditions.

The cost of the insurance is adjusted based on your age and whether you're a smoker, and whether you choose to receive a payout of £15,000, £25,000 or £50,000 when you claim. Your gender doesn't affect the cost, but the premiums rise as you get older.

Adults up to the age of 69 can take out the policy and it will pay out up to age 75, provided you keep paying the premiums.

What small print should you beware of?

The insurer will pay your claim if the heart attack or stroke is bad enough to pass the severity level described in the policy documents.

This level is reasonably clearly defined, although speaking as someone who isn't an expert in medicine, it might still leave wiggle room for the insurer to reject some claims.

In the small print, one of the indicators for a heart attack, for example, is that it must show “typical clinical symptoms”, such as characteristic chest pain. This means that if you have atypical symptoms only, the insurer might reject the claim. The insurer doesn't define “typical”.

Who can't buy the insurance?

No one who has been diagnosed with, or who is being tested for, specified conditions is allowed to buy the insurance. You're also excluded if you've undergone specified treatments.

Here's the list of conditions and treatments:

  • Hypertension
  • Diabetes mellitus (types one and two)
  • Raised cholesterol
  • Coronary artery disease
  • Atherosclerosis
  • Symptoms of chest pain and palpitations
  • Angina
  • Coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass graft
  • Irregular heartbeat – specifically atrial fibrillation
  • Rheumatic heart disease
  • Congenital heart disease
  • Cardiomyopathy
  • Endocarditis
  • Heart valve disease
  • Transient ischemic attack (TIA or 'mini-stroke')

Who does that leave?

This doesn't mean you have to be in optimal health to get the insurance.

A 45-year-old man in optimal health has just a 1.4% chance of having a heart attack or stroke by the time they reach 80. A 45-year-old woman in optimal health has just a 4.1% chance.

This is according to the most comprehensive study I have found: a Northwestern University study based on 250,000 people over more than half a century. The study relates to Americans, so figures are probably better in the UK based on our obesity levels, but I think it's still the best study to go on, being far more complete than any other.

However, if your blood pressure is sub-optimal at higher than 120/80, your risk increases dramatically, even if it is still not high enough to classify as high-blood pressure. The same goes if you smoke.

The same also goes if your cholesterol levels are more than 180mg per decilitre of blood, which doesn't qualify as high, but also isn't optimal.

A 45-year-old woman who has two or more of these factors that are sub-optimal has a greater than 30% chance of having a heart attack or stroke by 80 years old.

Men with two or more risk factors have a far greater chance of suffering one of these two terrible attacks at a massive 50%. Sobering figures indeed.

How much does the insurance cost?

Here's how much a 45-year-old man or woman will pay in the first year:

Smoking status

£15,000 of cover

£25,000 of cover

£50,000 of cover

Non-smoker

£6.89pm

£11.09pm

£21.69pm

Smoker

£9.99pm

£16.39pm

£32.19pm

Is it cost-effective?

Customers can see whether an insurance product is useful to them by looking at the small print, and they can work out for themselves whether they can afford the premiums.

However, it's impossible for most people to estimate whether the price is a good one for them, because they don't know what sums to do (most financial advisers don't even know) and, even if they did, insurers make it next to impossible to ascertain whether their insurance products are cost-effective.

I've asked many insurers over the years for the figures I need to do this. Invariably, they say they can't reveal this for “commercial reasons”, which means that they don't want to tell their customers when they're being ripped off.

Even if you're asking about a product of theirs that is obviously priced well for the customer, the insurer won't reveal the information, because that sets a precedent for all its other products.

In this case, there was no point asking Chartis Insurance anyway, because the figures I need can't be produced until it has sold the insurance for at least a whole year.

So I've made my best estimate for this insurance based on the facts, figures and statistics mentioned already.

If you're in optimal health, meaning you have no diabetes, cholesterol below 180mg/dl, and blood pressure below 120 at the top and below 80 at the bottom, and you're a non-smoker who's living healthily, I estimate this insurance is perhaps ten times too expensive for men and three times too expensive for women.

However, if you have two of those risk factors, this insurance is probably very good value-for-money. The deciding factor will be how fast your premiums rise over the coming years. If women who buy this insurance see their premiums rising by 10% per year or more, or by a lot more in a single year, I think the insurance is going to be too expensive for the risk involved – and that's despite the very high risks.

The same goes for men with two or more risk factors seeing their premiums rising by 13% per year or more.

Consider the alternatives

It's very easy for insurers to over-charge you when it's giving you peace of mind from frightening events like this. For some people, almost no price is too high, regardless of calculations such as mine, which weigh the risk against the price.

There are excellent alternatives to this insurance, however.

Start eating healthily, exercise and find time to relax. Consider all aspects of your life. People working night shifts, for example, should be aware that their risk of heart attack or stroke is greatly increased. Rather than buying insurance to cover this risk, you might move back to day work.

You should also think about buying income protection insurance (not to be confused with payment protection insurance or PPI) as an alternative to heart attack and stroke insurance.

This insurance is far more comprehensive, covering every debilitating illness and, to the best of my ability to ascertain, it's cost-effective. Furthermore, you can get it even if you have high-blood pressure or other conditions, but watch out for the exclusions.

You can read more about the insurance in the article What's better than PPI?

If you're a breadwinner or home maker, or you otherwise care for someone, you should also think about life insurance to protect your loved ones, which is another product that seems to be a very good price for customers who shop around.

More on insurance:

100 days left for cheap life insurance

Make a successful claim on your critical illness insurance

The 10 most unusual personal injury claims

Private medical insurance: is it worth it?

When you should review your life insurance cover

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (3)

  • circularrobins
    Love rating 1
    circularrobins said

    Just to say first of all, I'm a big fan of Neil's writings here so thank you to him for another interesting article but I too am a bit confused by the figures (figures are not my strong suit). BobbyW appears to have a professional interest so I imagine also knows whereof he speaks.

    Many years ago when I was in my 20s, my (tiny) employer started a pension scheme and the trustees came to talk to us about it because we couldn't understand how we could expect to receive such wonderful benefits for such apparently modest contributions. They said that this was because, statistically, one-third of us would be dead before we could draw it. Just three of us were of similar age, the other 9 in their 40s; certainly 2 of those 9 died when in their 50s, both men, one of cancer and one of heart disease. Since then I have had many more male colleagues who suffered major heart attacks but survived, a couple of them in their late 20s, no women. Obviously this is a tiny sample in no way comparable to the study quoted by Neil but it may suggest that the many and various types of cancer are now better, earlier diagnosed and treated than heart disease and/or that we are now making healthier lifestyle choices as far as heart problems are concerned.

    Like BobbyW, I'm a bit suspicious of such a specialised (=limited) policy, and as a punter would instinctively go for a more general protection (because the chances of a claim would be greater with a wider selection of diseases to qualify). It does appear very evident from the list of exclusions that it might be quite hard to obtain a payout, particularly for a woman, since the ' "typical clinical symptoms" such as characteristic chest pain' are by no means typical for women.

    It has been commonly supposed for a long time that women are protected from heart disease by female hormones until the menopause, after which the incidence equalises with that for men. However, possibly because the symptoms do not manifest in the same way, heart attacks are less well diagnosed in women than in men, as has been reported in at least one study. Again, from my own acquaintance, stroke is more common in women than heart attack, which appears to be corroborated by Neil's first couple of paragraphs. Do the figures of 1.4% for men compared to 4.1% in the study quoted refer to the incidence of the diseases (as I should expect if you are quoting directly from the academic study) or to the claims made against insurance policies? Otherwise, could these figures just have been transposed?

    Report on 30 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Neil Faulkner
    Love rating 32
    Neil Faulkner said

    Thanks for your comments.

    Sorry that you didn't understand the figures.

    I'm trying to explain a point here that is complicated and deliberately hidden by most (or probably all) insurers, even from financial advisers. Next time I cover something similar I'll try to find a better way to explain myself.

    BobbyW, you said: "A little confused about the figures stating men 2 - 3 times more likely to claim yet the reperesentative figures show the opposite - 1.4% Men and 4.1% Women, is this an error?"

    There is no error. (Although I didn't write men are two to three times more likely to claim. I wrote they're two to three times more likely to suffer a heart attack. Some of those won't be allowed to claim and that statistic doesn't include strokes.)

    As shown in my article, 45-year-old men in perfect health have a lower chance of suffering a heart attack or stroke before they turn 80, at 1.4% versus 4.1% for women.

    However, the tables turn if the man is not in perfect health, and millions of men aren't. Most of them have a 50% chance of suffering a heart attack or stroke, compared to "just" 30% for women. That's why men suffer many more heart attacks.

    As for your comments on income protection insurance, we'll have to agree to disagree. I find this vastly superior to critical-illness insurance (sorry, I know that protection specialists sell a lot of critical-illness insurance) and, although I can't prove it, I have many very convincing reasons why income protection insurance is likely to be far more cost-effective, on average. Too many reasons to go into here, unfortunately. That's a whole article in itself.

    Thank you for your kind words, Circularrobins. The stats you refer to (1.4% for men and 4.1% for women) also refer to the chances of having a heart attack or stroke, rather than the chances of claiming against them. This is just one of the reasons why I could only estimate how cost-effective this policy is, rather than be more precise.

    Neil

    Report on 01 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).

Royal Bank of Scotland Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV4