Pet health insurance: Does it ‘pencil out’ for love or money?
By Gina Spadafori
April 1, 2008
Pet health insurance absolutely makes no sense if you’re one of those people who, when facing a veterinarian bill over, say, $300, tells himself “it’s just a pet” and then grumps that it’s cheaper to shoot the animal than have the veterinarian perform a humane euthanasia.
Fortunately, these kinds of pet-owners are fewer all the time.
For many of the rest of us, though, the time is here. Look at pet insurance. There have never been more choices, and the business is growing so there’ll be more. Personally, I honestly can’t imagine NOT having pet insurance. Seriously. And that has nothing to do with the fact that a major insurer is one of our banner sponsors. In fact, most of the bloggers at Pet Connection all have pet insurance, and we pay for policies from five different companies.
Why? Because we each have diffent kinds of pets of different ages, and we’re in different financial situations. So we all looked for what fit us best.
It’s pretty funny that whenever I write about adopting a new pet — as with Pip last year from German shepherd rescue and Ilario, the kitten coming later this month — I get a note from my pet-insurance company letting me know what the new premium would be, because the folks there read the blog. Would I like to add Pip and Ilario to my policy? Why, yes, thanks, I would! Swell!
On the Main Street site, there’s an article on pet health insurance. Headline: “How much do you love your pet?” which is unfortunate because, for me, it’s not about loving my pet at all. It’s about economics, and the advancement of veterinary medicine. When I started writing about pets more than 20 years ago, there just weren’t a whole lot of options for many pet illnesses. You had a very sick pet, and you ended their suffering. In many cases that was all you could do, and so you did it.
But now! Nearly all the options of human care are available in veterinary medicine. My pets aren’t on my HMO policy (gotta talk to HR about that!), so I have to pay for the choices I make. And since “economic euthanasia” — putting down a pet because you cannot afford available care — is not a decision I care to be making, I carry pet health insurance.
It’s not about “love,” it’s about “money.” And for me it’s about never walking away from a veterinary hospital with an empty collar in my hand knowing I could have done more … if I’d only had the money. Pet loss is hard enough without a pile ‘o guilt on top of it.
From the piece:
Given the emotional and monetary investment of being a pet owner, and with the breadth and cost of veterinary care increasing every year, pet insurance is an increasingly popular option. While still far from the norm, less than one-half of 1% of U.S. pet owners enrolled in some form of coverage, pet insurance is a growing industry. There are currently ten major companies offering pet insurance, and pet-food giant Purina is launching their own plan this spring. “When larger brands come into the space you know it’s gaining some traction,” says Laura Bennett, CEO of Embrace Pet Insurance.
But does pet insurance make sense for you? It all depends on the attitude you have towards your furry friend. “There’s a subset of pet owners who treat their pets like their children,” says Bennett. “If you’re the kind of person who would pay whatever it takes to make them better, pet insurance really is for you. If your pet’s disposable, then it’s not. You have to ask-are you a pet owner, or a pet parent?”
Bennett stresses that insurance is really intended for unexpected medical emergencies—the animal equivalent of “catastrophic coverage” for humans—and generally is not designed to cover routine check-ups or basic preventative care. For most pet owners, it makes more sense to pay out of pocket for these occasional visits. What becomes prohibitively expensive are the unexpected mishaps, like an infection or a broken limb. And as advanced treatments like CAT scans, prescription drugs, and specialized surgery are becoming more available for pets, it’s easy to rack up thousands of dollars in veterinary costs.
“It used to be if your dog got cancer, there wasn’t much you could do. Now there are all sorts of choices,” explains Bennett. This might be great news for your pet, but it can be catastrophic for your budget.
The Wall Street Journal took a look a couple weeks ago. If you’re a WSJ subscriber, you can get that article here.
I think there are still exceptions to a blanket statement of ‘get insurance’. Let alone the implication ‘only people who don’t love their pets don’t have insurance’
A few years back as a new immigrant I had no money and no credit. I couldn’t pay the big ticket money the insurance would refund me. Ergo it was useless to me.
After becoming much better paid and securing a helathy savings account and a credit card with a high limit I looked at the figures, got out my pencil—and still haven’t bought insurance which seems to me over-priced for routine costs and under-paying for unlikely worst case scenarios.
The sort of unlikely thing that my savings, card and earning couldn’t cover aren’t covered by the insurance either. Insurance simply doesn’t increase my overall chances of being able to provide emergency care and avoid the empty collar scene.
I made my choice based on loving my dog… and using my brain. Thank you.
Comment by emily — April 1, 2008 @ 9:47 am
I didn’t imply that at all. I said pet health insurance absolutely, positively DOES NOT make sense for people who think a pet is “just a [dog/cat, etc].” Nonetheless, since it’s never my intent to make anyone else feel guilty, I changed the wording a bit to make my point perfectly clear.
As far as underpaying for “routine expenses,” well, that’s my point about shopping around for the plan that fits you best. You may find that a plan with no “routine care” coverage and a high annual deductible will cover your butt in a situation that can cost thousands to treat … or rather, will pay you back for a high percentage of what YOU paid to cover a catastrophic situation.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 1, 2008 @ 9:51 am
If I recall, emily is in New Zealand. Perhaps the pet insurance situation is different there than in the US?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 1, 2008 @ 10:32 am
Which just means, Gina, that if you aren’t able to shell out the money upfront if you’re unfortunate enough to have one of those catastrophic scenarios hit, insurance still won’t help, and you will still be leaving the hospital with that empty collar.
I want premiums I can afford to pay, for coverage that will actually help if something really bad happens. So far, no offerings I’ve seen look good enough to make the real sacrifice of the additional monthly bill look like a real benefit to me and my pets.
I would feel a lot better if I could find affordable insurance that looked like it would really help, because my pets are my babies.
Comment by Lis — April 1, 2008 @ 10:35 am
Let me just dig myself in deeper …
Yes, I truly believe pet insurance is part of the solution, but it’s just part.
The other part is making sure you are using credit cards not for living expenses but rather for emergencies.
I am a recovering credit card addict. It’s true.
When I am done paying all these bloodsuckers off (which WILL BE THIS YEAR, dammit), I will have a line of credit that will cover the up-front cost of a massive veterinary emergency, and I will count on pet insurance to pay most of that bill off.
When I am really done with turning the finances around, I will pay for veterinary care out of a savings account that’s just for emergencies, built in large part from credit card payments I’m not making and credit card interest I’m not paying. And I will count on pet health insurance to put a big chunk of that money back in the kitty.
But all that is a little ways away and probably more than you need or care to know.
My point, again, is that it costs a LOT of money to choose top-notch veterinary options, and if you want to do that, you NEED to look at what pet health insurance options exist and which plan might work best for you.
OK, so now that we all know why I write a pet-care column instead of a financial-planning column …
My point still stands.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 1, 2008 @ 10:42 am
The cost-benefit analysis for pet insurance for our units’ search dogs didn’t add up. The possible payoffs just didn’t justify the staggering cost of premiums — never mind that no one would insure the two oldest dogs, healthy, still-working SAR dogs. What good would human health insurance do if it cut off when you hit 60?
Oh, and none of the insurance companies had any interest in donating insurance to any volunteer SAR dog — unless the owner claimed to have responded to 9-11. I know of glory-seekers who have cashed in big time by call-jumping seven years ago. The rest of us weren’t trendy enough.
That doesn’t mean that every one of those dogs hasn’t gotten all the medical care that was really for their benefit. Hemilaminectomy, cancer treatment, years of seizure management, to name a few of the spendier cases.
I am an animal owner, not ever a “pet parent.” I find it beyond insulting to be told by an insurance industry mouthpiece that if I’m not a “pet parent,” then my animal is “disposable.”
“If you wuuvvv your babeee, you will buy our overpriced policy and not ask any nosy questions about cost and coverage. If you don’t buy it, you are the kind of person who shoots puppies with broken legs.”
Spare me.
Show me a policy that will cover six animals, any age, any breed, without an encyclopedia of exclusions, that is within the budget of a normal middle-income household — much less a normal middle-income household that burns up a quarter of its income every year in volunteer work (yeah, it’s tax time, read it and weep), and I’ll have my checkbook out toot sweet.
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 1, 2008 @ 10:55 am
Funny you should mention “pet parent.” That phrase sets my teeth on edge more even than “Fluffy” and “Fido.”
Everyone who has ever written for me (except for Christie, who would never use “pet parents”) has had the experience of having me edit it out of their copy with a note that I will remove their fingers if they ever type it again.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 1, 2008 @ 11:00 am
“And since “economic euthanasia” — putting down a pet because you cannot afford available care — is not a decision I care to be making, I carry pet health insurance.”
Am I understanding this correctly? If one carries pet health insurance, one will never be faced with having to euthanize a pet due to the cost of veterinary care?
Comment by slt — April 1, 2008 @ 11:00 am
>If one carries pet health insurance, one will never be faced with having to euthanize a pet due to the cost of veterinary care?<
I’m going back to bed now. Thanks.
No, it doesn’t remove the possibility. It lessens it. And yes, you still have to pay up front and get a percentage of your costs reimbursed. And yes, there are all manner of age conditions, pre-existing conditions and more, depending on the company. (Heather and Drew are too old to be covered, for example.)
Pet health insurance companies are not in the business for the fun of it. Like all insurers, they are in it to make money.
My health insurance costs my employer $3,632 a year and costs me $1,632.00 a year. And that’s for a rock-bottom HMO.
I spend a little over $1,600 per year to carry health insurance on five pets, to help me cover a “worst-case” scenario. Yes, that’s a lot. So was the $3,700 I spent on a Heather’s splenectomy four years ago, and the more than $4,500 I spent over eight months on one damn foxtail in McKenzie’s hip that migrated inside. Most years I will pay more for premiums than I will get back. But in a year where I “win” and have a very sick pet, the insurance offers me some options and some choices.
All I’m saying … trying to say … is that the industry is changing, growing and offering more choices. And that you should check it out.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 1, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Whenever I do the math on pet health insurance, I just can’t get it to add up to savings of any kind. I have three dogs and a cat, and I’ve been a pet owner for over ten years.
I could get a policy for $75 that would cover two dogs and the cat for the health problems and accident-only coverage for the oldest dog. In the past five years, we’ve had one bad cold ($350), one back surgery for a slipped disc ($2900), one case of pancreatitis ($400), and one diagnosis of hypothyroidism ($350). It comes to a total of about $4000. Compare that to the $4500 that I would pay for pet health insurance, and then consider that they’d only be paying for the back surgery because the other three incidents were for my older dog who no longer qualifies.
If you can afford pet health insurance, I really think that you’re better off setting up a high interest savings account and putting an amount equal to the premiums there.
Comment by Jen (SLC) — April 1, 2008 @ 11:38 am
Just checked with your insurance-company sponsor.
They won’t insure my cat. He’s over ten years old. Guess Dave is SOL. They do know that cats live *forever* these days, right? Dave is certainly threatening to do so. He’s nearly 17 and has needed non-routine veterinary care exactly once in his life, 14 years ago. He looks like a five-year-old cat and acts like a cranky bridge troll.
The most basic insurance for the five dogs, if paid annually, would cost $826. The most premium insurance would cost $2732. (I had to compute this all myself, BTW — when doing a multi-pet policy, they helpfully don’t distract you with the big total.)
Well, $826 doesn’t sound too bad for five dogs, until you factor in:
Pip, age 8, will be ineligible for insurance in less than two years. Expected lifespan of a healthy English shepherd dog: 14-17 years. She could, doG willing, spend more than half her life “uninsurable.” As will her sons and daughter, in their turns. My GSDs have each spent about a third of their lives “uninsurable.”
Exclusions such as no ACL surgery. Owners of young Labradors take note: your emergency is an out-of-pocket one. Among others …
Looking over the coverage allowances (you have to dig deep to find the PDF of these), the amounts are far less than half, sometimes as little as a quarter, of what I have paid to treat these same conditions. I’m in a fairly cheap market for everything, including veterinary services, and my vet is by no means the spendiest in this area. Prices are much higher if one has to rush to the emergency clinic in the dead of night.
Some interesting details. If I have a skin tumor removed from my dog, and it proves malignant, they pay more than if it turned out to be benign. (Both things have happened to one of my dogs.) Know what? The cost for the surgery and lab work is the same regardless of the result. Shall we pray for cancer, then?
Between the $50 per-visit deductible, the exclusions, and the piddling allowances for various conditions, I have to wonder what I’d be getting for that $826 ($960 if you pay monthly — which those who don’t have a lot of up-front cash are going to need to do).
A really big veterinary catastrophe will *still* be a financial catastrophe, and in many cases won’t be mitigated by the insurance *at all* — in others, not enough to make a difference between going ahead with treatment or walking away with an empty collar. I do have a lot of concern for people who pay for the policy, go ahead with expensive treatment because of their confidence that “Buddy’s insured,” and find themselves in debt because the insurance didn’t cover the cost.
The insurance industry is going to have to do better if they want the business of people with multiple animals, a suspicious nature, and basic math skills.
Meanwhile, my savings account isn’t making much interest — but it’s still there if nothing bad happens.
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 1, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
“
Funny you should mention “pet parent.” That phrase sets my teeth on edge more even than “Fluffy” and “Fido.”
“
but you’re the one who mentioned - or at least quoted - it.
“
If you’re the kind of person who would pay whatever it takes to make them better, pet insurance really is for you. If your pet’s disposable, then it’s not. You have to ask-are you a pet owner, or a pet parent?
“
While this was a quote from Laura Bennett, the insurance CEO, I read it thinking you agreed with it, and can certainly see people getting offended at that statement. Phew, she isn’t pulling any punches with the guilt marketing on that one is she?
Personally, while I like insurance *in theory* I just don’t see enough things being covered yet to make it seriously soften any blows. Maybe that will be changing once more than .5% of pet owners have it and there’s a bigger pool. Savings account for me.
Comment by ellipsisknits — April 1, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Gina, the first time I encountered the phrase “pet parent,” was in the annual report of the PetsMart corporation. I believe they may have invented it. I didn’t see it anywhere else for maybe a year or so after reading it in that financial document.
They defined the “pet parent” as, (not in so many words), the core-customer suckers who would buy any fool thing at any fool price for their hapless child-substitutes. PetsMart was in favor of pet parenthood. Ya think?
My curmudgeonly friend Donald was once shocked when a lady referred to his sheepdog, Luke, as his “son.” (Somehow much weirder and more jarring than the terms “baby” or “granddog” or the corresponding “daddy” and “grandma” titles.)
He informed her that Luke was not his “son,” as he “didn’t boff dogs.”
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 1, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Aha, Gina!
You gave it away!
Ilario (I hope I spelled it right) is his name. I felt in my heart that would be the name but I was afraid to blog so because then you might resist that name (of course not in spite—you are not like that).
I named my son in the American version and he turned out O.K. so I am glad to hear the beautiful sounding name Ilario!
I do not think I can get insurance for Batman or Brandy—both about to be 15 years old—so I will let everybody else discuss the issue.
Good luck with Ilario—he looks just like an orange kitten I adopted many, many, many years ago who was named Oliver.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 1, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
Jen: To Gina’s list of what pet insurance is NOT for add “saving” money. According to Consumer Reports you will NOT save money with pet insurance (to be fair that article is about four years old but it mostly rings true today).
IMO the point of pet insurance is not to save money. It’s to give you options in horrible scenarios where death is your ony option should you not have any coverage.
PS: I’ll have to be careful about “pet parents,” too. I think I don’t use the phrase but I’m not so sure…
PPS: Good to know I’m not the only recovering CC addict in the room…
Comment by Dr. Patty Khuly — April 1, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
You know what I just realized I LOVE about the people who come here. NO ONE takes anything unquestioned. NO ONE. Geez, that makes me happy.
So I sit back in my chair and think a little more — this hurts, and I blame you all for it. :)
And I think, hey, it’s not my HEALTH insurance I should be comparing to my pet-health insurance, but rather my CAR insurance. After all, my insurance is mostly covered by my employer (as is true for many of us with employers) but my decisions regarding car insurance are mostly my own.
Putting aside the fact that I’m legally required to carry some degree of car insurance … I would carry it anyway.
But I’ve spent a lot of money to do so, over the last 30 years. And I’ve put in one small claim in all that time, for a parking-lot fender bender.
Investing those many thousands of dollars I’ve paid in premiums (which is actually, of course what insurance companies did) would have allowed me to more than pay to replace any of those insured cars if I’d totalled it, and perhaps pay for a certain amount of related claims.
But I didn’t “self-insure” my car and wouldn’t have even if it weren’t legally required that I purchase insurance.
It’s legalized gambling, of course. I’m betting that I’ll “get lucky” and get in a wreck, and they’re betting that I won’t.
With pet insurance, I’m betting that I’ll “get lucky” and have one of my insured pets rack up a $15K veterinary bill, and they’re betting that I won’t.
So … you figure what you have, what you wanna do and what level of risk you can live with, and you make your choices accordingly … by comparing if pet health insurance is right for you at all, and if so then from which company and with which plan.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 1, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
Equally important are the disease/procedures covered. My 6 year old dog Hanna was diagnosed with a liver shunt. Until 2 months before the operation she had had NO symptoms.
VPI said, so sorry, liver shunts are not covered you should have read your policy. I had not even heard of liver shunts until then.
I had already paid some $7000 for diagnostics and the operation. She did not pull through. Would I do it again. In a flash. But I do not trust insurance companies.
Eliza
Comment by Eliza Wingate — April 1, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 1, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
Thank you for sharing your research - how interesting!
This is all new to me since I really haven’t looked at pet insurance since I first came across it some time back. I don’t do the “annual shots” visit and I remember that was a main advertising point when I looked at it. I did not know (at least some of) the companies terminate the policy when the pet reaches 10 or so? That’s when you need veterinary care - when they get old and things start to fail. On the young ones, I did have a cruciate surgery a few years ago but I guess that’s excluded - rats.
Comment by slt — April 1, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
Up until about a month ago I had never considered pet insurance. I would classify myself as a below average pet educated consumer in that I’ve never had to pay a huge medical bill for my pet, I didn’t know that pet insurance was really available or worth it, etc. Then things changed…
I took a position at a pet insurance company and before you make the assumption that I’m just going to sell you on my particular company, think again. Here my eyes were opened to this relatively “new” concept (although it’s not new in the US, as it’s been here since 1982). I was forced to hear horror stories of families having to euthanize their pets because they couldn’t afford the bill, so on and so forth.
Unfortunately, companies in the past have failed to deliver a useful and worthy product, giving pet insurance a somewhat bad name. Many failed to see that the real problem is people bringing in pets with “pre-existing conditions” (that is conditions that are present or were present before date of enrollment) which, by the way, no insurance company will cover. This company I work for, which I might mention now is called Trupanion, is working to change the stigma around insurance. They will only enroll puppies and kittens under the age of one, but will cover them for life. That is, get a puppy or kitten when they are young and free of these pre-existing conditions, and later when they have a problem there is no question as to whether or not a claim should be paid.
Simply, Trupanion pays 90% of diagnostic tests, surgeries, and treatments if your pet becomes sick or injured. That’s it. We’re not trying to hide anything. We don’t pay the bill based on what the company has come up with as “reasonable amount”, or set different fee schedules, etc.
If you have any questions call us 1-800-569-7913. Ask the sneaky questions, ask the tricky questions, we want to hear them. I would also invite people to do the same for other insurance companies. Ask the questions that you think they don’t want to answer.
One would never let their child go uninsured, so why should your pets?
Comment by MMK — April 1, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
Patty, do you have any patients with insurance? And if so, what sort of difference has it made in their choices? I’m sure that people who carry insurance for their pets are already a higher caliber of pet owner on average.
Gina, car insurance is probably not the best comparison either. When you get into a car accident, you can hurt others very badly, and it’s really for that reason that we have it. I certainly had a few clunkers in college where I bypassed the collision coverage because it just wasn’t worth it. I’d compare pet insurance more to those Aflac policies that pay you some extra cash if you get hurt. You’re probably not going to win on those, but you might and it’s nice knowing that you have it.
It’s good to check up on pet insurance from time to time. But for now, I’m going to stick to maintaining a good relationship with my vet and making sure I have a savings cushion accessible for the next random pet-related health incident at my house.
Comment by Jen (SLC) — April 1, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Alternatives to insurance-
Here are some other ideas.
One time Idea: Take the Tax Rebate we are supposed to be getting and put it in a high interest savings account.
Another idea (for those who still can): Get a small equity line of credit that you can write checks on…Don’t use unless absolutely necessary.
Comment by glock — April 1, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
But, see, the important part of car insurance (that the state says you have to have) is the liability part.
My dog getting sick is not going to wipe out a family of five on the turnpike or turn a motorcyclist into a quadraplegic, nor does pet health insurance cover that eventuality. (Homeowner’s or renter’s liability coverage is what covers you for the actions of your animal.)
Unless your name is Barbaro, there are not a lot of multi-million dollar vet bills. (And what good did it do him, anyway?)
It’s that horrible financial liability that car insurance covers you for.
As for collision and comprehensive, those are meant to cover repairing or replacing a commodity of known value. Pet insurance will not “replace” any of my animals, not Dave the Cat (cash value $0) or Sophia the young operational SAR dog (cash value perhaps $30,000 or more). The “repair costs” on a pet will very often — most of the time — total more than the putative “replacement cost” for the animal. If pet health insurance were like car insurance, almost every semi-serious health issue would result in the company declaring your beast “totaled.”
I don’t think we wanna go there.
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 1, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
True that.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 1, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
I want to know how to describe my caretaker roll of my cats if I cannot use that awful phrase “pet parent”. (Forgive me for using the words, please.)
Would owner, caretaker, or cat guardian do? I really want to know what word or words are acceptable.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 1, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
This company I work for, which I might mention now is called Trupanion, is working to change the stigma around insurance. They will only enroll puppies and kittens under the age of one, but will cover them for life. That is, get a puppy or kitten when they are young and free of these pre-existing conditions, and later when they have a problem there is no question as to whether or not a claim should be paid.
So my dog, a healthy one-year-old when I got her, was uninsurable with your company the day I got her. So, most likely, was my older cat, four months old when I got her, but, though we didn’t have a clue what was wrong with her at that point (and it turned out to be primarily a food intolerance), no one would have claimed she was healthy. (She’s 14 1/2, now.)
If you have any questions call us 1-800-569-7913. Ask the sneaky questions, ask the tricky questions, we want to hear them. I would also invite people to do the same for other insurance companies. Ask the questions that you think they don’t want to answer.
Well, not much point in my calling Trupanion, right now. One two-year-old dog, one ten-year-old cat, one 14.5-year-old cat. For Trupanion, uninsurable! Way to change that stigma, for sure!
One would never let their child go uninsured, so why should your pets?
And, of course, guilt as a marketing tool. Very charming. My pets don’t have insurance because I haven’t found a product which appears likely to actually help me extend their lives, should something catastrophic happen.
Comment by Lis — April 1, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
Re: “pet parent.” Hey, I’m not the word police! (Unless you’re writing for me.) I’ve been known to drop “dog mom” and “cat mom” in reference to myself a time or two.
Although I can’t speak for Heather H. (who can indeed speak for herself quite well, heaven knows), what I don’t like about the phrase “pet parent” is that when it’s used by a big company it has a patronizing ring to it. Like they’re trying to sell me something. Which, um, they are.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 1, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
I want to know how to describe my caretaker roll of my cats if I cannot use that awful phrase “pet parent”. (Forgive me for using the words, please.)
Would owner, caretaker, or cat guardian do? I really want to know what word or words are acceptable.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 1, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
I plan to go on using “pet parent,” and if it pisses someone off, or causes them to hope that I’m a hapless victim of marketing, well, that’s their problem, not mine.
Comment by Lis — April 1, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
Lis, you write so sensibly about this issue.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 1, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Several points - Its so nice that Trupanion will insure your nice puppy or kitty even if you got it at a puppy or kitty mill. How does that help the millions of us that want to adopt from a shelter? I adopted two cats ages aproximately 1 1/2 years and just under a year. And since they were strays - no I can’t attest to anything about their prior lives. And what, heavens forbid, someone wanted to give an older animal a nice home for their remaining years? When I looked at pet insurance at the time of adoption because they were shelter strays, the cost was between $300-$400 per cat for pretty skimpy coverage.
I think everyone should have an emergency fund. It can be just for pets or for any emergency. Mine’s call an equity line of credit. If you don’t pull the equity out of your home to pay your bills you will actually build equity over time. That can be tapped in the case of an emergency by writing a check. And since most lines of credit are a lot cheaper than credit card interest, it far easier to pay off. And even with the downturn in the housing market, if you’ve owned your place for several years and not pulled the equity out - you probably have that $10k or so you might need in a dire emergency.
Comment by 2CatMom — April 1, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
BTW, how is Ilaro pronounced? This pet-Mom would like to know, LOL.
Comment by 2CatMom — April 1, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
Lis, the issue I say you write so sensibly about was meant to refer to discussion about Trupanion. How that company’s policies would discourage adoption of a little older pets! I adopted my two cats at about 2 yrs of age.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 1, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
I don’t like “pet parent” for the same reason Gina cites, but also, because it’s disrespectful of my animals.
My adult dogs are just that — adult dogs. They aren’t babies, and they aren’t funny-looking human children. I try to make sure they are recognized for the dignified beings they are.
I’m perfectly comfortable being their “owner” for legal matters and in general. The world doesn’t need to know who is Mommy’s Little Schnickelfritz. What is there to prove, and to whom?
To describe my relationship with the working dogs, “handler” and “partner” can both apply. My non-dog-handler teammates don’t regard the dogs as “people,” but they do, explicitly, regard them as team members.
Also, the more I’ve been with people whose adult lives have been defined by the tragedy of losing a child, the more careful I am not to equate pet ownership with parenthood.
And when a dog owner wails that the whole neighborhood is against her “furkid” just because he bolted across the street and bit a real kid in the face — well, I am not the dog trainer who is going to support that self-pity or that image of the dog as a misunderstood “child.”
Something to consider.
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 1, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
Gina, the thing is, I know Petsmart and PetCo are trying to sell me stuff; it’s not like they make a secret of it. There’s ads and flyers in the local paper, on tv, everything. Buy stuff from us!
But unlike the pet insurance companies, they may try to pander to me, but they don’t try to guilt me into anything, generally. For insurance, the Trupanion pitch here, while different in details, is actually pretty typical in general outline: laying on the guilt for not buying, suggesting you don’t really love your pets if you don’t have it, but the sting in the tail is that it either excludes my pets, or coverage payouts are too little to make a real, practical difference, if God forbid I ever actually need to collect on the policy.
I’d love to have insurance for my pets, to help out if a catastrophic event occurs. It just doesn’t exist yet.
Comment by Lis — April 1, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
CT, long ago, on an electronic bulletin board, before the Web entered our everyday lives, there was something called “hot chat” which was strongly discouraged by the entity that supplied the resources for the board. It didn’t refer to off-color content, or even emotional temperature, but to people posting actively and rapidly enough that an almost-live conversation was taking place. :)
Comment by Lis — April 1, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
“One would never let their child go uninsured, so why should your pets?”
Nice. I don’t have kids but *I* am uninsured so I guess you’re not marketing to me.
Comment by slt — April 1, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
I guess this is about love AND money for me. A number of years ago, I had a twelve year old dog diagnosed with an autoimmune blood disease. Over the course of the seven months I treated her, it cost about $10,000 (for constant vet visits, blood transfusions, and immune suppressant drugs). Sitting at the UCD vet clinic, I saw lots of owners (or pet parents, if you prefer!) in the same boat—there was lots of sophisticated care available, at great cost. After about 6-7 months, I felt pulled two ways. The money was mounting up, but emotionally I felt I needed to continue to treat my dog if there was any chance (and at a teaching vet hospital, they continue to treat and treat and treat very aggressively—they weren’t going to say it was time to let her go). My dog died (I didn’t euthanize her), but I didn’t want to face that dilemma again—and I’ve purchased VPI vet insurance for all my dogs since.
I don’t have routine care coverage—and I don’t submit claims for $300 incidents. So I’ve submitted claims for big end-of-the life issues—for a 12 year old with cancer (got about $1500 back) and a 13 year old with cancer (got $3000-$4000 for amputation and chemotherapy). I figure I got back about 80% of my costs—same as many health plans for people.
For my current two and five year old dogs (in excellent health), I pay about $30/month each. This isn’t entirely a financial decision—it is about peace of mind and about making vet decisions without financial considerations intruding at what is already a difficult time.
I think VPI covers older dogs if they were enrolled when young. And they cover my rescues—I obviously don’t know much about pre-existing conditions, but I fess up to what I do know (usually minor things like hot spots that result in exclusions of some skin issues).
Comment by Arlene — April 1, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Ilario
ee-LAHR-ee-oh
But you can just call him Larry. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 1, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
As a VPI employee I frequently get questions about pet insurance from my pet owning friends. It’s kind of uncomfortable because I don’t want to try to sell them on something that isn’t going to be useful and risk future awkwardness. So I’ve developed a few “screening” questions, from my experiences with happy (Yes, there are many!) and unhappy VPI policyholders:
Would you pay $1,000 to $3,000 for emergency surgery if your pet needed it?
Would paying $1,000 to $3,000 for emergency surgery be difficult financially?
This basically weeds out the people who serve to benefit from a VPI policy from those who don’t. You aren’t putting a whole lot into pet insurance (relative to human insurance, which, as Gina pointed out is usually subsidized by employers), so pet insurance isn’t going to completely take care of a $10,000 or $20,000 bill. However, many common surgeries or illnesses can easily run up a $1,000 bill and VPI policies reimburse well for a number of these procedures.
I also make sure that they know what’s not covered, and the reasoning for these exclusions. For example, we don’t cover hereditary/congenital conditions because we don’t want to provide an excuse for irresponsible breeding. We don’t believe that responsible breeders, or your average pet owner with a rescue mutt (I use the term endearingly, as it applied to my own dogs), should have to pay more in premiums to subsidize the increased health risks of inbred pets. This can be difficult to explain, and even sound cold, to someone without an insurance background, but the simple truth of it is that we are able to help many more pets for much less money by excluding hereditary/congenital conditions.
To the original point, pet insurance isn’t for everyone. But for those who want to manage the risk of an emergency surgery, complicated illness, or chronic condition, pet insurance has benefits that far outweigh the cost.
… Also, to correct some previously posted inaccuracies, VPI will cover pets indefinitely (10, 15, even 20 years of age) as long as they are enrolled before 10. You will find that this is a more generous age limit than most of our competitors… ACL surgeries are covered after the first year of coverage. There wasn’t always a one-year waiting period like this, but we found that some people would let a pet suffer with a torn ACL until they could sign up for pet insurance, hold out through the waiting period, then see their veterinarian. ACL injuries are funny like that. Pets can survive, but it’s far from a painless existence. So we decided a waiting period would force people with already injured pets to receive treatment as soon possible and not look to insurance as a way to save a buck while prolonging their pet’s suffering.
Comment by Grant at VPI — April 1, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
I didn’t have a problem with a company making a niche for itself by insuring only those animals enrolled before their first birthdays.
But Trupanion refuses to cover HBC injuries unless the animal was surgically sterilized before its first birthday. I guess ovaries and balls have heretofore unsuspected magnetic properties sufficient to suck cars towards them at speeds up to 70 mph.
Who knew?
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 1, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
I have 6 years of experience working at veterinary hospitals as a receptionist and a vet assistant. I can’t tell you how many times I went home at the end of day and shed a tear or two. When a pet owner has to face the horrible decision of having to euthanize their pet due to financial concerns, it’s not only heartbreaking for the vets and veterinary staff, it is absolutely devastating to the pet owner. The pain on the owner’s face, grown men bawling, the sadness in the pet’s eyes……… this could have been prevented, if the pet had only been insured.
Because of these experiences, I chose to work with a new company called Trupanion (Vetinsurance in Canada). I feel as though I can now help thousands of pets and pet owners.
Do your research, it may just save you from having to make a heartwrenching decision….
Comment by KB — April 1, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
I also make sure that they know what’s not covered, and the reasoning for these exclusions. For example, we don’t cover hereditary/congenital conditions because we don’t want to provide an excuse for irresponsible breeding. We don’t believe that responsible breeders, or your average pet owner with a rescue mutt (I use the term endearingly, as it applied to my own dogs), should have to pay more in premiums to subsidize the increased health risks of inbred pets. This can be difficult to explain, and even sound cold, to someone without an insurance background, but the simple truth of it is that we are able to help many more pets for much less money by excluding hereditary/congenital conditions.
Rescue mutts? What about rescue purebreds? Are they less worthy, or less loved?
What about carefully, responsibly bred animals who nevertheless still come up with the particular hereditary problems of their breed? Even the most careful breeding is not a guarantee.
Take a breed near and dear to my heart, Chinese Cresteds. They’re at increased risk for PRA. PRA sets in late enough that a dog can show, finish her championship, be bred twice, and be spayed, before she starts to go blind. BUT! Now there’s a DNA test for one version of the PRA gene. Responsible breeders use that test to screen their breeding stock. Great, problem solved, right?
Not right. There’s at least one other version of the gene, possibly two, that aren’t identified by the current test. So responsible breeders use the test, study pedigrees, CERF annually, make the best decisions they can, and hope real hard.
And they can still produce a pup who’s PRA-affected and will go blind—but not until after all critical decisions about that dog are made.
There’s no DNA test at all for lens luxation, which can also cause blindness, is very painful, and is very expensive to treat. So they CERF annually, study pedigrees, make the best decisions they can…
If you exclude the expensive conditions my dog is most at risk for, you drastically lower the value of the product for me. And it’s not the irresponsible you’re punishing, nor is it the responsible breeder or the responsible pet owner that you’re concerned about protecting. It’s your own bottom line.
Comment by Lis — April 1, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
Schnickelfritz - I love it!
Comment by 2CatMom — April 1, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
>And it’s not the irresponsible you’re punishing, nor is it the responsible breeder or the responsible pet owner that you’re concerned about protecting. It’s your own bottom line.
Hey, um, Lis … let’s remember that Grant came in here (into a pretty tough room) to make his case and answer questions. The folks from the other pet health insurance company, too, and Laura B from Embrace sent me a note that she’s going to jump in after she’s out of meetings.
So … let’s not jump down their throats, OK?
I know it’s a lot easier to be sharp with people on the Internet than it most of us would be in person. But let’s be just a little kinder, in hopes of getting questions answered and having intelligent discussion continue.
Beside, you never know … we might be able to influence companies to create a broader range of policies for us all.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 1, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Gina, in this very discussion I’ve been told that a)if I loved my pets, I’d have pet insurance, and b)if I were a responsible dog owner, I wouldn’t call myself a pet parent. It’s possible my tolerance is wearing a bit thin.
Especially with members of the industry that tells me that if I don’t buy their product, it proves I regard my pets as disposable.
Comment by Lis — April 1, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
I wanted to comment on behalf of Trupanion that I never claimed that our product is the end all answer to everyone’s situation. I wouldn’t say that we discourage people from adopting, but rather encourage people to cover their pets when they’re younger and get around the “pre-existing condition” issue. My question, “One would never let their child go uninsured, so why should your pets?” wasn’t meant to jab at anyone, but it was rather a question. And, interestingly, I didn’t get any answers.
“Beside, you never know … we might be able to influence companies to create a broader range of policies for us all.”
As a company we are always listening to consumers’ thoughts. This product, Trupanion, specifically is meant to insure puppies and kittens, but that’s not to say that we won’t have additional products down the road to adapt to the market place. If enough people are banging at our door asking to insure older pets, it’s pretty likely that we’ll roll something out.
Comment by MMK — April 1, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
A couple of ideas off the top of my head - not fully examined, but I’ll toss them out there:
1) As an alternative to the “We’ll insure anything under a year, and then the policy is good for life” - how about providing the same kind of coverage to an animal - of any age - who passes a “well-pet exam” by a veterinarian? (One troubling thought that occurs to me is that the age of a rescue is not always known. My older cat came to me from the rescue as a “two year old”, but at her first exam, my vet thought she might still be under a year.)
2) Lis’s point about the reality of Responsible Breeders not being able to absolutely exclude hereditary conditions is well-taken. Given the fact that there are more and more genetic screening tests becoming available for various of these conditions (and more being developed all the time) how about some sort of scheme that would cover an animal that developed a hereditary condition if it could be demonstrated that the breeder did a reasonable job of selecting against it through pedigree research, testing of parents, etc. (Like I said, this is just a half-baked notion and I can already see a lot of flaws in it. But maybe through discussion some sort of useful ideas might grow out of it.)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 1, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
At my day job — I’m a writer-editor for a municipal utility — we did an excruciatingly long series of focus groups with all kinds of customers. And some of the things they said to us, right to our faces, would have just made you want to cry. (Gosh, and we’re a J.D. Power top-rated utility, thanks to our customer-owners!)
But funny thing about those comments. After the sting wore off, what they said was really, really helpful. And now, months later, we’re well into changing some policies and procedures that we weren’t even aware were annoying people — until we gave them the chance to tell us.
Again, this is why I like blogging better than plain ol’ reporting. Sure, you’d get a call on a story now and then when I was working at The Sacramento Bee (and later, as a syndicated pet-care columnist before e-mail), and maybe now and then a letter. But really, you never knew. The story went out, and you went on with your life.
But with this, you know. And I love the give-and-take. It makes me better at my job, and more excited and committed about what we do here. (Pet Connection BFF Dr. Patty has said much the same over at her place today.)
A smart company would come in here, take the heat and walk away thankful for the feedback, even if it isn’t always glowing.
Honestly, the passion and intelligence brought to the discussions here is humbling and inspiring.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 1, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Lis,
You’re right. If your biggest medical concerns for your pets is hereditary conditions, our current products aren’t going to have much value for you. For those whose primary concern is accidents or illnesses, our products are helpful and affordable.
Comment by Grant at VPI — April 1, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
I’m finding this discussion quite useful—and people having storng opinions doesn’t bother me (but then I come from a big family and work in an environment in which people argue with each other all day!). Seems like there are some insurance people here, and I’m wondering if it would be useful to create a wish list. I’d like a policy with a big deductible—even $1000. Though it may be a bit painful, that kind of bill can be managed in my budget. I’d go for a bigger deductible and cheaper premiums than I’ve seen.
Comment by Arlene — April 1, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
My question, “One would never let their child go uninsured, so why should your pets?” wasn’t meant to jab at anyone, but it was rather a question. And, interestingly, I didn’t get any answers.
Yes, you did. The answer is, so far, I have not found an insurance product that would actually change the likelihood of my being forced to euthanize a pet, should something catastrophic happen. And that being the case, what exactly would I be paying for? “Peace of mind” ? Or the illusion of it, at a significant drain to my ability to put money aside for their care later, as they age?
Your company, right now, won’t even do business with me. Grant’s companhy wants to exclude from coverage exactly the things most likely to make me say, yes, it’s worth the premiums, what’s the worst that can happen, my pets don’t develop those conditions? (Like flood insurance; I don’t live in an area that’s a huge risk but what’s the worst that can happen, my house doesn’t get destroyed in a flood?)
I’d buy insurance if there were a product I could afford that I believed would actually benefit my pets in time of need.
Comment by Lis — April 1, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
“how about providing the same kind of coverage to an animal - of any age - who passes a “well-pet exam” by a veterinarian? “
Again responding for Trupanion, that’s actually a really valid point. As I have also had the experience where my family adopted a “senior dog” who, after much attention and love proved to just have been sick (he had a lot of allergies) and had scratched off most of his furr because of this, which gave the appearance that he was much older.
I would, though, like to point out that Trupanion doesn’t exclude congenital/hereditary conditions. Our bottom line is that we want to protect a responsible pet owner who has an unlucky pet. So, given that the owner takes vet recommended preventative measures, we would cover accidents and illness that arose in the pet’s lifetime.
I do really appreciate the suggestions, and would welcome anyone to do the same.
Comment by MMK — April 1, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
How are most of these companies on titers in lieu of vaccines? Or the growing popularity of the 3-year vaccination protocol v.s. the more traditional yearly vaccines?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 1, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Lis - I’d like your suggestions on what you think a pet insurance company should look like, keeping in mind that it is still a company who has to make money somehow.
If you haven’t yet seen a company you want to do business with, well then, what are you looking for? I would rather use this time, as well as everyone elses, to be constructive rather than critical.
Comment by MMK — April 1, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
“How are most of these companies on titers in lieu of vaccines? Or the growing popularity of the 3-year vaccination protocol v.s. the more traditional yearly vaccines?”
Trupanion won’t cover vaccines. The idea behind this being that any company is having to make money off of what they’re paying out, so if they are giving money back in the form of routine care, they will essentially charge you more in premiums. I think too many people are sucked into the notion that pet insurance should mimick human health insurance, but, in fact, people are willing to pay much more for human health insurance (or, as previously mentioned, costs are included as an employee benefit).
I would say bottom line, in general, you can’t compare pet insurance to human health insurance when you don’t think about them in the same way in the first place. (ie. if you’re only willing to pay $10 a month for your pet’s insurance, you’re not going to get much benefit out of it)
Comment by MMK — April 1, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
I’m pretty sure what Pat meant wasn’t coverage for vaccines but a question about what constituted veterinary-overseen well-pet care.
For example, if you as a pet-owner preferred titres or 3-year vaccines, would a dog getting distemper be covered?
In other words: Who sets the rules?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 1, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
Just did some comparisons between companies. I have a young, healthy purebred that would be covered by two of three companies. No pre-existing conditions or congenital issues. In this case, it may actually make sense. I talked to my car insurance agent who told me that if my dog were in an accident, the only thing they can cover is replacement cost on my dead dog. (There’s a $500.00, deductible, I paid $500.00 for her.)Well, my dog is more than just an inanimate object to me, regardless of what my insurance agent thinks. She’s also not my “child”. An accident or illness WILL put me in the position of making an economic decision that I’d rather not make. Food on the table for my kids, or health care for my dog. I can afford routine care no problem. A $6,000.00 vet bill will be a problem. At somewhere between $17.00-$24.00 a month, it’s most likely worth it. The insurance I carry for myself is high deductible/catastrophic. I put the basics in my monthly budget. I can certainly do that for my pet. It will be interesting to see how things go in the future. The bigger the pool of insured, the more coverage the companies should be able to provide. Thanks for prodding me to check into something I’d been thinking about.
Comment by C.L.H. — April 1, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
If you haven’t yet seen a company you want to do business with, well then, what are you looking for? I would rather use this time, as well as everyone elses, to be constructive rather than critical.
1. I should be able to get coverage at whatever age I adopt the pet, at the time of adoption or for a reasonable period of time thereafter (3 months? 6 months? If other provisions are reasonable, it surely would be reasonable for the company to say, it has to be with in the first year.) A well-pet exam is also a totally reasonable requirement for initial coverage. (Provided I can use a vet I don’t feel uncomfortable allowing to examine my pet.)
2. It should not exclude coverage for the things most likely to affect that animal if reasonable care is taken: That means hereditary conditions affecting that breed, but also reasonable sporting activities. Depending on what basic premiums actually are, I’d consider an additional premium for coverage of injuries incurred in serious competition (i.e., for the serious dog athlete rather than dog and owner tossing a frisbee around in the park or the backyard) not totally unreasonable.
On the hereditary conditions, I can see the point of wanting to exclude protection for irresponsible breeders. However, this shouldn’t be an excuse to exclude coverage for dogs bred by responsible breeders, or adopted from shelters and rescues. Implementing a distinction could be tricky, though; it’s easy to identify puppy and kitten mills, but trickier to set down clear rules distinguishing smaller-scale BYBs from responsible breeders. I don’t have clear solution for that, and I’d rather err on the side of offering protection to dogs whose owners are responsible enough to be trying to provide correctly for them, even if they got taken in by a BYB.
3. A high deductible is fine, $1000 or possibly even higher. I’m not looking for routine coverage. What isn’t okay is if, when that catastrophic event happens, actual coverage is a low percentage of the actual cost. “Reasonable and usual” rates that are a fraction of what any reliable vet anywhere in the area really charges, for instance, or coverage that 50% or less of total bills incurred for the “covered” event.
4. No “gotchas.” No requiring annual vaccination for things for which the current protocol is every three years, no requiring vaccinations that the particular animal doesn’t need (FeLV for strictly indoor cats, for instance). No rejecting coverage because the pet “didn’t receive standard veterinary care” based on lack of vaccinations, when in fact titers were done verifying continued protection.
I’m not sure that’s complete, and I’m not even sure I managed to be completely clear and coherent, but it’s a start, at least.
Comment by Lis — April 1, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
Okay, Lis, I’ll stop blogging for today. I got your point.
I am just worried about the cats over the age of one year old being passed over for those cute little kittens who are insurable.
End of my blogging for today, folks.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 1, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Um. CT, that was meant to be a joking comment about how active this comment thread had gotten, with several of us posting so fast that we weren’t seeing each others’ responses until we’d made more comments that might have been changed if…
On that ancient bulletin board, there was a rule against it because the bboard was using “spare” resources on a system that was mainly for the company’s main profit-making purposes. That consideration doesn’t really apply here. It’s just unusual to see people posting that rapidly in a blog comment thread, and it tickled my funnybone for a moment. Sorry.:(
Comment by Lis — April 1, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Yup - Gina got what I meant. The idea that if a person opted for something OTHER than the traditional yearly vaccinations, it might affect insurability.
Does it?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 1, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Lis, I don’t remember if you were with us during the rolling recalls. Believe me, there were MANY times when the threads were essentially “real time discussion”!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 1, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
My quick answer is that as long as your vet said that you were taking preventative measures, you’d be insured (whether you got shots every year or every third year). Granted, this is only if your pet were to get an illness related to whatever vacinne is in question. I will say, though, that I’m not a salesperson or customer service person, so I don’t have the ability to answer the “what if” questions. I would, however, welcome you to call around to different companies, including Trupanion, and ask that very question.
Comment by MMK — April 1, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Hi all,
It’s Karen from Trupanion. We base our coverage for preventable diseases on AAHA guidelines and the recommendations from the attending veterinarian. For example, if the vaccine is not recommended by AAHA or the attending veterinarian, we would look at covering the claim. This would include coverage for diseases that are only recommended to be vaccinated against every 3yrs. If the veterinarian recommended a certain vaccine and the pet owner decided not give the vaccine, we may not cover the claim based on the fact that the pet owner was not taking precautionary measures according to their veterinarians recommendation. I cannot guarantee coverage over the phone or over this blog for example because we look at each claim on an individual basis. We do realize that many vaccines are not recommended to be given every year and that some vaccines aren’t recommended at all. I hope this helps to clarify your question. You can download a copy of our policy on the website if you want to look at it in detail. Feel free to pick up the phone also to ask any questions you may have regarding coverage.
Comment by KB — April 1, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
Lis, I don’t remember if you were with us during the rolling recalls. Believe me, there were MANY times when the threads were essentially “real time discussion”!
I was and I do recall—but that was a time of high crisis and breaking news; this isn’t quite the same situation. Just a discussion of the general subject of pet health insurance.
Comment by Lis — April 1, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
This fantastic discussion has been so fast and furious Christie hasn’t been able to get a word in edgewise. I’m calling it a night, actually turning OFF the computer and taking the dogs out until dark.
Christie … the night shift starts earlier than usual. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 1, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
Lis: amen to that. I would seriously consider a policy like that.
I think the high deductible is key. The $1,000 problems I’m likely to see won’t break my bank. It’s when you start pushing that $15,000 that I’d question whether I could afford it.
And isn’t that what insurance is for? Not so you save money, but to save you from things you can’t afford.
If most of the covered events are going to be in the $1,000s range, there isn’t much gap between not being able to afford the procedures and not being able to afford the premium, and thus, very little target markey.
Comment by ellipsisknits — April 1, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
Wow, what a day to be off-line at all day meetings (surprisingly good meetings but they took me away from all the excitement!)
This has certainly been a fascinating discussion and I’m glad to at least be able to chime in while it’s still going on, although a lot has been said already.
Yes, I confess I use the term pet parent. Everyone is so different about how they like to describe their relationship with their pets, nothing satisfies everyone. I think of myself as a pet parent because my pets are part of my family and I am responsible for their welfare. Do they line up the same way as my two children? Well, no they don’t, but it doesn’t mean they don’t mean anything to me.
There was a lot of discussion about features above so just to clarify what Embrace Pet Insurance covers (skip this if pet insurance is not your cup of tea):
- we cover breed specific issues as long as there were no signs of them before the waiting period is up - premiums vary by breed
- our waiting period is 14 days for accidents and illness, except for cruciate ligament injuries, where it’s 6 months but you can bring it down to 14 days if you get your vet to examine your pet and give the cruciate ligaments the “all-clear”
- we issue policies to mixed breed dogs up to and incl. age 8, purebred dogs up to and incl. age 6, (add 2 years for corresponding cats - 10 and 8 correspondingly) and we will continue to insure them as they age beyond those years. I’d like to cover older pets and if we can make a good case to our underwriters (Lloyd’s of London), we might be able to do that one of these days. I like the idea of a comprehensive check up, that might help us persuade them. I believe VPI uses this approach.
(continued in next comment…)
Comment by Laura Bennett — April 1, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
- we have a $500 deductible per year for those that want catastrophic coverage. I like the idea of $1000 deductible - the price would be very low. We also have a $100 and $200 per year option too. The premium varies between those options (more expensive the lower the premium goes) so you pick what’s right for you. You can also vary the copay % and the annual max to suit your needs.
- our vaccination requirements in our terms and conditions are as follows:
“You must keep your dog vaccinated against canine parvovirus (CPV), canine distemper virus (CDV), canine adenovirus (CAV),
and rabies according to the current American Animal Hospital Association’s Canine Vaccine Guidelines. You must keep your
cat vaccinated against feline herpesvirus 1 (FHV1), feline calicivirus (FCV), feline panleukopenia virus (FPV), rabies, and feline
leukemia virus (FeLV) (for cats not restricted to a closed, indoor FeLV-negative environment) according to the current American
Association of Feline Practitioners Feline Vaccination Guidelines. If you do not keep your Pet vaccinated accordingly, we will not
pay any Claim that results from any Illness your Pet must be vaccinated against.”
- we do not cover routine care right now but are thinking of it for the future. If we do though, it will be an optional for those that want it.
Did I miss anything? [Or bore you to tears :)]
Comment by Laura Bennett — April 1, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
One last point…
- if you want to check out policyholder reviews on the different companies, go to http://www.petinsurancereview.com to see how all the companies are rated from a customer perspective.
Comment by Laura Bennett — April 1, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
Okay - just for the heck of it, I went to a few sites to see what kinds of quotes they’d give me on my 12 year old dog and my 9 month old kitten:
VPI: Wouldn’t quote for the dog, but would for the kitten. PetConnection did not appear on their dropdown list of “Where did you hear about us?” even though they advertise here.
Embrace: Kept telling me they couldn’t complete my quote until I typed in all the information, even though I re-typed it in three times . . . . .
PetPlan USA: Wouldn’t give me a quote unless I gave them my email address. Sorry, I don’t need any more SPAM, thank you.
Trupanion: Not offered in my state (yet).
Sigh . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 2, 2008 @ 6:09 am
And just to expand a bit: The 12 year old dog is a purebred from a Responsible Breeder and he has never had any significant health issues. The kitten is a mixed breed.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 2, 2008 @ 6:18 am
The most comparable insurance to what is offered for my dog is what my workplace offers for dental, that is they cover only routine procedures (not root canels, extractions etc) and charge more than those routine procedures cost. So I don’t have that either. I do save 25% of my income to cover these things. Then if i don’t use it, I still have the money.
Comment by emily — April 2, 2008 @ 6:42 am
VPI, as far as I can tell from their website, has—for the things they actually deign to cover—a set schedule of payments for each condition or incident, and never mind what these things actually cost in your area.
Embrace won’t give me a quote unless I ‘join the Embrace community.’ Way to go, guys; sorry, no, I don’t need your spam, and I don’t need my information sold when you change your terms & conditions to say you can sell it.
Pets Best also wants my email address. They also have limitations that would likely exclude lens luxation if Addy develops it, and excludes “pre-existing conditions” regardless of whether they manifested or were diagnosed before the policy was purchased.
PetCare wants my pets’ microchip numbers in order to give me a quote. This despite the fact that my microchip company is not 24HrPetwatch, for which they might give me a discount. They don’t need this information in order to generate a quote.
ASPCA Pet Health Insurance also requires my email address.
So, pet insurance execs, how about letting us actually have some information, before we expose ourselve to not only your marketing, but whoever you decide to sell our information to in the future? Or do we not love our pets, if we worry about things like that?
Comment by Lis — April 2, 2008 @ 7:32 am
Lis, I know, the community thing is a pain - totally agree. Our underwriters require it to get the quote for certain states. We do not use your email for anything if you get a quote (we don’t store it) but I don’t blame you for not believing that. I suspect if you try again, it would not be required to get the quote.
The Other Pat - the only website quote issues I know we have are on older versions of the Safari browser. If you have a few moments to email me your browser details, whatever they are, I’d be happy to look into it if you wanted. LB (at) embracepetinsurance.com
Laura
Laura
Comment by Laura Bennett — April 2, 2008 @ 9:24 am
On the Embrace/community thing: Doesn’t just typing in your ZIP code accomplish the same thing?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 2, 2008 @ 9:30 am
The Other Pat: the system checks your zip code and needs an email address (ANY email address) if you are in certain states. But if you’ve seen it before, it won’t ask again.
Comment by Laura Bennett — April 2, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Well, now, this time it did let me continue without joining.
And that’s very, very attractive. Just over $400 for all three of them, accident-only for the cats, because of their ages, unfortunately, but still much better than I expected.
But $174 prior to microchip discount for the dog, who’s only two, with $500 deductible, $10,000.00 annual coverage maximum, continuing care option, no dental or prescription drug coverage, 20% copay.
Okay, I need to do some more reading, see if there’s something I missed, but this really does look worth buying.
Comment by Lis — April 2, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Pet First has a simple table outlining the coverage details on their site at http://www.petfirsthealthcare.com/coverage.asp
Comment by Will C Mars — April 3, 2008 @ 6:49 am
I’m a huge proponent of vet insurance so it’s nice to know there is so much interest in it! I’ve been using vet insurance for 10 years now, for a total of 6 cats…didn’t have it for my first 2, though I wish I had. In total, I’ve personally paid close to $20,000 in vet bills since 1994, and vet insurance has paid around $20,000 since 1998. I do NOT make much money so all of the $$$ I’ve paid has been on credit…and I’ll be paying that off probably for the rest of my life(!).
I feel fortunate that I’ve been able to provide my cats with the best of veterinary care which has given them considerable comfort, relief, and a much higher quality of life for a longer period of time, which wouldn’t have been possible without the vet insurance.
I’m now insuring with better coverage (used to use VPI; now use Embrace when I can, or Pet’s Best when I have to). Embrace is the most expensive of the half-dozen or so companies I’ve tried, but it has the best coverage and the best customer service - it’s worth it. In the ‘real world’ (when you have a claim or even a question), they soar above the rest.
VPI has archaic coverage and very, very poor customer service. I would not buy a new policy with them again. Pet’s best has changed in the past year or so and has improved coverage, has friendly and helpful customer service, and is less expensive, but I haven’t filed a claim with them since the change so I don’t know how things would work in the ‘real world’.
Good luck to everyone looking to get vet insurance, and for those who aren’t interested in it, I wish you and your animals good luck with good health…some animals are blessed with good health for many, many years.
P.S. I saw ASPCA mentioned somewhere…read the fine print for all of the companies. ASPCA (and some others) won’t pay for ‘chronic’ conditions - if your cat develops a chronic condition you won’t get benefits beyond the first year, and at that point the condition is considered ‘pre-existing’ so you won’t be able to get it covered by any other company. ASPCA does provide ‘long-term coverage’ but it’s REALLY expensive.
Comment by mo — April 3, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Trupanion reps: Enough with the shilling. We get it: You believe in your product. Like everyone else who’s selling something.
Enough.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 7, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
Gina Spadafori: If you don’t want to read Trupanion’s posts, dont.
Comment by Jeff Stryker — May 5, 2008 @ 9:31 am
Jeff Stryker: Trupanion’s people were spamming us . We don’t tolerate that. So I told them to knock it off. Perhaps you missed a key point here: This is MY Web site.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 5, 2008 @ 10:00 am
VBG!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 5, 2008 @ 10:11 am
I am a veterinarian and thought I’d add a few comments because my perspective is a little different from most on this blog. Most of you commenting who don’t have pet health insurance and don’t think it would be worth it, don’t see the numbers of cases that I see where it really would make a difference for pet owners and their pets. Unfortunately, most people don’t have pet health insurance. Quite frankly there are a lot of veterinarians who aren’t sold on it yet either for various reasons — some because of bad experiences they have had or their clients have had in the past with some of the more established companies. The emergence of the newer companies I think will serve to change the pet insurance industry. I think it will force some of the older companies to change the way they do business in order to stay competitive.
For those who think that pet health insurance isn’t worth it, I hope you’ve got great credit or a large emergency fund because you never know when your pet could have a serious illness or accident and those can certainly run into the thousands of dollars. Just because in the past you haven’t had a catastrophic pet illness or injury doesn’t mean it won’t happen tomorrow.
And that is what we all purchase various types of insurance for. I, for one, am not a proponent of purchasing routine care coverage for your pets, but a good accident and illness coverage could be very helpful.
There are 10-12 companies offering pet health insurance in the US today and several more entering the market annually. There is no one company that is best for everyone. Companies have been criticized on this blog for their business model. Why? If Trupanion wants to insure puppies and kittens, that’s their business. It’s not like they are folks only option. I think it may turn out to be a good business model. Look at it this way, they are automatically decreasing the number of potential policyholders, but they did it anyway. They did this to decrease the chances of policyholder’s claims from being rejected because of “pre-existing” conditions. I also applaud their stance on spaying and neutering. If you are a breeder, there are other options available to you, but if you are not, I see no reason for a pet to not be spayed or neutered. Yes, believe it or not, if a pet has not been spayed or neutered, they are more likely to want to stray from home looking for a mate and therefore more likely to get hit by a car, etc. Of course, pet owners can usually prevent this from happening with a fence and/or leash, but I’ve seen dogs do some pretty imaginative things to get out of a fenced yard when they really want to. Spaying and neutering simply takes away one of their “want tos”.
There are a couple of companies that offer a design your own plan — Embrace and Petplan. For those complaining about not finding the “perfect” plan for their situation, give their quote calculators a try.
You cannot look at any type of insurance, much less pet health insurance with a year to year cost/benefit. As someone has already stated, it may take several years to get your money back if you ever do, but most of the time you eventually will. The reason, however, you should buy any type of insurance is because something could happen tomorrow that is catastrophic and you need it. If it doesn’t, that’s good right????
Believe me, I see often those catastrophic things that happen when people are least expecting it.
Comment by Dr. K — May 8, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
There are a couple of companies that offer a design your own plan — Embrace and Petplan. For those complaining about not finding the “perfect” plan for their situation, give their quote calculators a try.
Of the two, only Embrace is available in my state. That’s the other thing, just because there are 10 or 12 companies offering pet insurance in the US, doesn’t mean any given individual has that many choices. And of the choices that are available to me, most of them matched up well with my explanation of why I haven’t previously found pet insurance to be worth the expense: they excluded or minimized coverage for whichever expensive conditions are most likely to affect your particular breed, payouts are based on a schedule that’s a joke if you live in the northeast, and if some illness does arise that’s covered, if it has continuing effects, after the first year it becomes a “pre-existing condition.”
But, I must say that, when I looked at Embrace and its somewhat-customizable plan, it did make sense to buy it for my dog, who’s two and healthy. But, sadly, not for my cats, who are 10 and 15.
Comment by Lis — May 8, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
Just to clarify that last: For my cats, no illness insurance is available—only accident coverage, at almost as much money as full coverage for the dog. And at 10 and 15, and strictly indoor cats, illness is a lot more likely than accident.
Comment by Lis — May 8, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Embrace won’t give you a quote unless you “join the Embrace community”.
Just for a QUOTE???????????
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 8, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
I hit the same thing, complained about, and was told “try again.” And I did, and I got the quote without joining the “Embrace community.”
Comment by Lis — May 8, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
It worked for me on the second try, too.
Annoying that you have to go through the exercise twice to get the quote. (And I bet a lot of people don’t bother trying that second time.)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 8, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Liz,
I agree that trying to find insurance for an aged dog or cat can be problematic. That’s why people need to purchase coverage at an early age, preferably as a puppy or kitten.
We all run into the same problem with our human health coverage, pre-existing conditons aren’t usually covered and a fair number of people already have some health issues when they apply for coverage.
I agree that perhaps some of the rejected claims that pet owners get because of “pre-existing conditions is a stretch.
I agree with what someone else has already posted about the website petinsurancereview.com. This is the best website for reviews that I have found. You will get a sense for companies that tend to reject a lot of claims and those that are pretty lenient. If you read the reviews closely, most of the people that wrote negative reviews (and some even admit it) didn’t do good research before they purchased a policy.
Being a veterinarian, my advice if at all possible is to purchase a policy from a company that covers hereditary conditions because the list is usually a long one of conditions that aren’t covered. Also, purchase a policy that covers chronic conditions because every pet - if they live long enough will develop a chronic conditon eg. diabetes, kidney failure,etc. and will require ongoing treatment, sometimes for years and live a reasonably good quality of life with treatment.
Other advice:
Annual maximums and deductibles are preferred over per-incident maximums and deductibles. Per-incident is just another way to limit benefits to the pet owner.
Get as high annual maximum/per-incident maximum as you can afford.
Get as high of a deductible as you can afford. This way you can take on more of the risk and lower your premium, but…..
Get the lowest co-pay that you can afford because whereas the deductible is a known fixed amount, the copay is not (it’s a percentage of the total bill).
What I found educational whether you purchase a policy from Embrace of Petplan or not is to go to their websites and plug in different figures for the variables:
1)Maximums
2)Deductible
3)Co-pay
and see how changing each variable affects the premium.
Comment by Dr. K — May 8, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
From Embrace, I took the $500 deductible, but told them I’d take a $1000 deductible if I could get a higher maximum payout for it.
Comment by Lis — May 8, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
Liz and others,
AAHA (American Animal Hospital Association) recently came out with a program to “certify” plans (not companies) that offer a high deductible policy eg. $1000 in an effort to have some policies that are more affordable. I think Embrace offers the highest deductible available now at $500. I talked with Dr. Jack Stephens (who started VPI in 1982 and now heads up Pets Best) and he said it was something they would probably look at, but by far their most popular plan with pet owners is the $75 deductible, so he isn’t convinced there is a big market for it.
The question is this: Will a higher deductible give you the least out-of-pocket (including premium) cost? It won’t always. Pets Best $75 deductible actually gives the least out-of-pocket cost of all their 3 plans.
The only accurate way to compare out-of-pocket cost among companies is to compare the companies that pay according to the veterinarian’s invoice. You have to assume also that all procedures on the invoice are covered. If a company uses a benefit scedule (VPI) or a fee schedule (ASPCA and others), there may be some limitations to the amounts the company will pay for certain procedures and medications.
Comment by Dr. K — May 10, 2008 @ 4:43 am
If Pets Best’s $75 deductible plan is also the one that offers the best payouts/least out-of-pocket expenses, it’s not telling them anything about whether people would choose a higher-deductible plan if it offered lower, rather than higher, out-of-pocket expenses, or no worse, with a lower premium.
Pets’ Best also excludes “congenital” conditions, including specifically luxating patellas, which don’t necessarily present when the dog is a pup and new to your home and you’re looking for health insurance. Likely they’d take the same position on PRA or lens luxation. Since even the best, most careful breeding practices can’t guarantee that these things won’t happen, it’s a bit much to exclude coverage for them when they present in a previously healthy animal. Or rather, it’s just another example of the fact that the entire business model of insurance is built on collecting the premiums, but not paying out the benefits if at all avoidable.
Pets First ($75-deductible plan): $415.68. This plan offers almost as good coverage as the Embrace plan I bought, but of course excludes congenital conditions (which I hope Addy will never develop, but if she does, I want to be able to treat them.) It also costs almost twice what the Embrace plan costs.
Pets Basic ($100 deductible, significantly less coverage): $269.40. With less coverage, it still costs about $50 more per year.
They’ve also got a significantly lower customer satisfaction rating on the pet insurance review website, although obviously that’s not totally reliable because the reviewers are self-selected from the customers of any of the companies who happen to find their way there.
I’ll stick with my position, that I’ll take a higher deductible in exchange for either higher coverage limits and payouts, or lower premiums.
Comment by Lis — May 10, 2008 @ 6:17 am
Liz, I would never fault anyone for opting for a higher deductible in order to lower the premium. That’s what I’ve had to do over the years with my own family health insurance and what we’ve done with our auto insurance since I at one time had 6 cars (my wife and I and 4 kids that drove, had jobs, etc.) For someone like yourself that is knowledgable about insurance and knows that they are taking on more responsibility and mainly interested in coverage for very large bills, that’s great. I just hope that someone not so knowledgable will opt for a lower premium and not understand this.
Of course, if the out-of-pocket expense is close when comparing a lower and higher deductible, you’ll come out better with the higher deductible (assuming there is a significant difference in premium) if your pet stays healthy. That’s why when contemplating which plan to get, I recommend plugging in different possible invoice amounts and seeing what the out-of-pocket with each eg. $250/yr vs. $5000/yr and all in between too. For some people it may be easier to pay the higher monthly premium than to save up a significant emergency fund.
You are correct that there is significant variation in premiums from company to company for seemingly similar coverage, but often there are differences like one may cover hereditary conditons or chronic conditions and the other won’t as well as one may have annual deductibles and the other per-incident deductibles.
When a person has a negative experience with pet health insurance, most of the time - they either don’t fully understand it, didn’t research enough before buying a policy, or in the past didn’t have the choices they have today with the newer companies.
Pets Best does have a list I think of hereditary conditions they don’t cover, so if it isn’t on the list they will cover it. It is a limited list compared to some of the other companies. Some of the companies will also cover congenital conditions (meaning born with it, which can be different from hereditary) if it isn’t known about before the policy is purchased and the waiting period is up.
For example, if a client brings in a new puppy for it’s first visit and I hear a congenital heart murmur and then they purchase a policy the next week. That won’t be covered. But, if a client brings in a puppy and everything looks fine and they purchase a policy and at 4 months old the puppy starts acting lethargic, drunk, seizures, etc. and a liver shunt is diagnosed, that would be covered because symptoms didn’t manifest until after the policy was purchased and it wasn’t diagnosed til later.
All of this to say, regardless of how knowledgable you are about insurance, research-research-research.
I am just finished writing a book on “How To Save Money On Your Pet’s Healthcare (just sent it to a publisher yesterday for review) and it has a whole section on pet health insurance. I spent countless hours on the phone, e-mails, looking a websites, etc. to learn information I needed to write the book. The book has charts showing which companies cover wellness, hereditary, chronic diseases,etc. It has worksheets to help pet owners narrow down their choices to one company and then a worksheet to calculate which plan offers the least out-of-pocket costs.
I sent in claims to all the companies and over half of them sent me a benefit statement on how they would have paid on the claim. I learned a lot by doing this — things I didn’t learn from visiting their website or by phone calls, e-mails, etc.
I do not, however, recommend one company over another. That decision is up to the pet owner. I simple give them the information to make an informed decision.
Comment by Dr. K — May 10, 2008 @ 11:06 am
Hey Dr. K,
I think that’s so great that you would take the time to research pet insurance yourself and write about it. When do you think we can expect your book to hit the shelves?
Comment by Melissa at Trupanion — May 12, 2008 @ 9:45 am
I first intended to self-publish, but I sent it to a traditonal publisher first. Althought the manuscript is completed, it may be a couple of months or more before it is actually published. In reading this blog and reviews, I think it will be helpful in understanding pet health insurance. But, that’s only Part 2 of the book. Part 1 will literally save pet owners thousands of dollars on their pet’s healthcare if they will heed the advice given.
Thanks
Comment by Dr. K — May 12, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Dr. K,
I am a private business partner who has chosen to team with Trupanion Pet Insurance. Your insights on the issues related to insuring pets will provide needed clarification to pet owners. Thanks for your work on behalf of these pets!
Comment by jflare — May 13, 2008 @ 9:35 am
Again … Trupanion folks. Knock it off. You’re not adding to the discussion. You’re shilling.
If you have something to add besides the name of your product, please do. Otherwise, your comments are getting deleted.
Last warning on this. I am done asking for your cooperation.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 13, 2008 @ 9:45 am
We have had nothing but trouble with Trupanion reps passing themselves off as “customers making an endorsement.”
Christie removed yet another such comment this morning. This, after we asked many times privately and publicly for this crap to stop.
At this point, I think you can believe with a pretty good chance of likelihood that any endorsement you find on the Internet from a “happy Trupanion customer” is a ham-fisted effort at marketing from one of this company’s reps. We are removing every such misrepresentation we find.
Let that factor into your decision-making process.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 18, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
That various factions of the pet industry use this, and other, forums to deceive and do “ham fisted marketing” is about what can be expected now.
This post on itchmo forums shows how a poster on many pet forums was actually working for a pet food company, it really is pathetic.
Shills, spies and liars, oh my!
Posted by Menusux on this thread
http://itchmoforums.com/news-r.....4.300.html
Comment by JuliaMartin — May 19, 2008 @ 5:28 am
Gina - I have ASPCA pet insurance for my 13.5 year old cat. Over the holidays, she became really sick and we found out through xrays and test that she had a tumor. I incurred about $4k in bills for the hospital stay and treatment which I’ve submitted to ASPCA. My vet told me today that they called her to ask for all the records and other details - I’m sure that since this is a big bill, it’s been flagged and they’re going to try to find a way to either not pay for it or pay for little of it. My cat did not have a pre-existing condition that we knew of when we got the insurance 2 years ago. I’m am skeptical because for any past vet appointments, they have always found ways to not pay me the full amount, like by saying the bills were more than the averages in my area. However, they’ve given me the same excuse when I lived in other cities, so anyway, I would not be surprised if they are trying to find ways to not pay for this big bill.
This insurance costs me over $700 per year which I pay upfront, so it’s not cheap. I choose ASPCA because they seemed to have more comprehensive coverage, even though they were more expensive. I have the Premier Plan. Here a question: my cat died last week. ASPCA does not know this yet as I haven’t informed them. But would it make a difference if they knew regarding reimbursing me for the $4k previous bill? Would they be more likely to reimburse me if they thought, “Hey, the cat is gone, we won’t have to pay for anything in the future.” Or would they be more like, “The cat is gone, why should we bother trying to cover for a dead cat?”
Thanks,
Maria
Comment by Maria — February 19, 2009 @ 9:24 am