Insurer discontinuing shield plans when not profitable to them?

[limster]

MOH asks AIA not to reduce payouts to policyholders

Imagine, you are 30 years old and paying for a private hospital plan. You don't fall sick now, but there are other older policyholders falling sick and claiming for private hospital fees and sucking up all your policy premiums. By the time you are older and have a need to go to private hospital, either the premiums are too expensive, insurer increases the copayment portion, or the insurer discontinues the plan because the losses are too large.

Myself, I will stick to a plan which covers admission to govt restructured hospitals on the assumption that the cost increase will not be as high as the cost increase to private plans.

 

[bigmice]

if you cover under 100% plan, no such worries. so rider is very important no matter private plan or gov B ward

 

[kebinu]

Buy fully covered lor.

Any insurer that reject claim base when all other insurers won't. And force to change plan etc should be considered carefully.

Saving premium when one has to worry in future is never nice.

 

[limster]

However, the claimable amount is pegged at 100 per cent for treatment cost incurred at public institutions, but only 70 per cent at private facilities under her new policy. Her original policy did not discriminate between the two.

From the above quote, I understood the article is saying that the policyholder's original policy covered 100% of all treatment cost. So I guess she purchased some sort rider to cover the co-pay portion.

However, the policyholder was told her policy was discontinued and the insurer replaced it with a policy that only covered 70% if private hospitals are used.

Medishield is supposed to be guaranteed renewable so obviously the main policy cannot be changed for the worse, but the article implies that riders that reduce the co-payment portion are not guaranteed renewable and can be discontinued?

 

[NiteX2]

From the above quote, I understood the article is saying that the policyholder's original policy covered 100% of all treatment cost. So I guess she purchased some sort rider to cover the co-pay portion.

However, the policyholder was told her policy was discontinued and the insurer replaced it with a policy that only covered 70% if private hospitals are used.

Medishield is supposed to be guaranteed renewable so obviously the main policy cannot be changed for the worse, but the article implies that riders that reduce the co-payment portion are not guaranteed renewable and can be discontinued?

The article is referring to policyholders being upgraded to more comprehensive coverage whereby everything is 'as charged'. However, in the person's case, the upgrade was done to cater to government hospitals only and because the person was seeking treatment in private sector, there's a pro-ration on the expenses covered. The previous plan did not discriminate as there was a limit to how much the person could claim for each and every procedure and thus will be covered as long as the amount did not go beyond what is covered.