Hi anon,
The standard list of 36 critical illness as defined by the LIA ( https://www.lia.org.sg/media/1463/lia-ci-framew... ) is standard across all insurers. When the definitions change in Aug 2020 ( https://www.lia.org.sg/media/2160/mu5819-part-2... ) older plans will still follow their original definitions, while I expect that insurers will launch newer plans that will follow the new definitions.
However, for early CI plans, there is currently no standardized definition. While the definitions are very similar, there are very minor differences which may potentially make the difference between a claim or no claim.
For example, under "Major Cancers", for early cancer, company A allows a claim on
"Gastro-intestinal Stromal Cancer"
With the definition of
"All Gastro-intestinal Stromal Tumours histologically classified as T1N0M0 (TNM Classification) or below and with mitotic count of less than or equal to 5/50 HPFs which are treated with surgery or chemotherapy as recommended by an oncologist. " (Emphasis mine)
Company B allows the claim of
"Gastro-Intestinal Stromal tumours"
With the definition of
"All GastroIntestinal Stromal tumours histologically classified as T1N0M0 (TNM Classification) with tumour diameter less than two (2) cm and with mitotic count of more than 5/50 HPFs. " (Emphasis mine)
See the difference? For company B, your tumour diameter needs to be lesser than 2cm. Company A did not specify any size criteria at all. But going by the wording, company B requires you to get treated surgery or chemotherapy first, whereas it would seem that Company A would pay out upon positive diagnosis without you having undergone surgery yet.
Let's take a look at another one, "Heart attack of Specified Severity", for early stage
Company A has a claim allowed on
Pericardectomy
Which is defined as
"The undergoing of a pericardectomy or undergoing of any surgical procedure requiring keyhole cardiac surgery as a result of pericardial disease. Both these surgical procedures must be certified to be absolutely necessary by a consultant cardiologist. "
Company B's definition:
"The undergoing of a pericardectomy or undergoing of any surgical procedure requiring keyhole cardiac surgery as a result of pericardial disease. Both these surgical procedures must be certified to be medically necessary by a consultant cardiologist. Only needle drainage of pericardial effusion or needle biopsy of the pericardium is specifically excluded."
The difference here is that one company allows the claim if it is absolutely necessary, but another allows it if it is medically necessary. Now, I'm no underwriter, so there might possibly be very minor differences between what's medically necessary, and what is absolutely necessary, but the real issue you need to take note is that company B specifically excludes claims if it only involves "needle drainage of pericardial effusion or needle biopsy of the pericardium". That makes it stricter than company A.
Let's take a look at one last example, "Stroke" (you'll notice I specifically covered the big 3)
Company A, on early CI, has the definition for
Carotid Artery Surgery
"The actual undergoing of Endarterectomy of the carotid artery which has been necessitated as a result of at least 80% narrowing of the carotid artery as diagnosed by an arteriography or any other appropriate diagnostic test that is available. Endarterectomy of blood vessels other than the carotid artery are specifically excluded. Percutaneous carotid angioplasty excluded."
and Company B's is as follows:
"The actual undergoing of Endarterectomy of the carotid artery which has been necessitated as a result of at least eighty percent (80%) narrowing of the carotid artery as diagnosed by an arteriography or any other appropriate diagnostic test that is available. Endarterectomy of blood vessels other than the carotid artery are specifically excluded."
Did you spot the difference? Now it's stricter for Company A. Percutaneous carotid angioplasty (whatever that is) is specifically excluded, whereas company B doesn't exclude it specifically.
(I'm not medically trained like a doctor, but if anyone who has the professional qualifications to point out if I have made an error with respect to the definitions, please do comment below)
The TLDR is that yes, there are differences in the criteria to claim.
So, having said that, will it make a difference to you? Very likely not. Firstly, short of pre-dispositing factors like family history or pre-existing conditions, there's very little chance anyone will know whether they will get CI, or early CI in their entire life, or just be blessed with longevity and a peaceful exit from this world. And if an early CI does strike, which one will it be? Statistically cancer is first, but then again, it could just as easily be heart attack or stroke. Or any of the other CIs as well.
So get your coverage because you need it to financially protect yourself, or your loved ones, and not saddle them with a mountain of piling debts.
On the part about more conditions, some are practically never seen in Singapore. I asked some doctor clients about Ebola, and they've never heard of an Ebola case in Singapore. So what's more important is that you are at least covered for CI/early CI, at a reasonable cost, and if it so happens that in your policy there are 10 more illness covered compared to the alternative you didn't take up, then that's just a bonus for you. I'm not ruling out that Ebola won't ever happen in Singapore, but it's very likely someone would have to travel to the Congo or something, and bring it back, before it arrives on our shores.
Hi anon,
The standard list of 36 critical illness as defined by the LIA ( https://www.lia.org.sg/media/1463/lia-ci-framew... ) is standard across all insurers. When the definitions change in Aug 2020 ( https://www.lia.org.sg/media/2160/mu5819-part-2... ) older plans will still follow their original definitions, while I expect that insurers will launch newer plans that will follow the new definitions.
However, for early CI plans, there is currently no standardized definition. While the definitions are very similar, there are very minor differences which may potentially make the difference between a claim or no claim.
For example, under "Major Cancers", for early cancer, company A allows a claim on
"Gastro-intestinal Stromal Cancer"
With the definition of
"All Gastro-intestinal Stromal Tumours histologically classified as T1N0M0 (TNM Classification) or below and with mitotic count of less than or equal to 5/50 HPFs which are treated with surgery or chemotherapy as recommended by an oncologist. " (Emphasis mine)
Company B allows the claim of
"Gastro-Intestinal Stromal tumours"
With the definition of
"All GastroIntestinal Stromal tumours histologically classified as T1N0M0 (TNM Classification) with tumour diameter less than two (2) cm and with mitotic count of more than 5/50 HPFs. " (Emphasis mine)
See the difference? For company B, your tumour diameter needs to be lesser than 2cm. Company A did not specify any size criteria at all. But going by the wording, company B requires you to get treated surgery or chemotherapy first, whereas it would seem that Company A would pay out upon positive diagnosis without you having undergone surgery yet.
Let's take a look at another one, "Heart attack of Specified Severity", for early stage
Company A has a claim allowed on
Pericardectomy
Which is defined as
"The undergoing of a pericardectomy or undergoing of any surgical procedure requiring keyhole cardiac surgery as a result of pericardial disease. Both these surgical procedures must be certified to be absolutely necessary by a consultant cardiologist. "
Company B's definition:
"The undergoing of a pericardectomy or undergoing of any surgical procedure requiring keyhole cardiac surgery as a result of pericardial disease. Both these surgical procedures must be certified to be medically necessary by a consultant cardiologist. Only needle drainage of pericardial effusion or needle biopsy of the pericardium is specifically excluded."
The difference here is that one company allows the claim if it is absolutely necessary, but another allows it if it is medically necessary. Now, I'm no underwriter, so there might possibly be very minor differences between what's medically necessary, and what is absolutely necessary, but the real issue you need to take note is that company B specifically excludes claims if it only involves "needle drainage of pericardial effusion or needle biopsy of the pericardium". That makes it stricter than company A.
Let's take a look at one last example, "Stroke" (you'll notice I specifically covered the big 3)
Company A, on early CI, has the definition for
Carotid Artery Surgery
"The actual undergoing of Endarterectomy of the carotid artery which has been necessitated as a result of at least 80% narrowing of the carotid artery as diagnosed by an arteriography or any other appropriate diagnostic test that is available. Endarterectomy of blood vessels other than the carotid artery are specifically excluded. Percutaneous carotid angioplasty excluded."
and Company B's is as follows:
"The actual undergoing of Endarterectomy of the carotid artery which has been necessitated as a result of at least eighty percent (80%) narrowing of the carotid artery as diagnosed by an arteriography or any other appropriate diagnostic test that is available. Endarterectomy of blood vessels other than the carotid artery are specifically excluded."
Did you spot the difference? Now it's stricter for Company A. Percutaneous carotid angioplasty (whatever that is) is specifically excluded, whereas company B doesn't exclude it specifically.
(I'm not medically trained like a doctor, but if anyone who has the professional qualifications to point out if I have made an error with respect to the definitions, please do comment below)
The TLDR is that yes, there are differences in the criteria to claim.
So, having said that, will it make a difference to you? Very likely not. Firstly, short of pre-dispositing factors like family history or pre-existing conditions, there's very little chance anyone will know whether they will get CI, or early CI in their entire life, or just be blessed with longevity and a peaceful exit from this world. And if an early CI does strike, which one will it be? Statistically cancer is first, but then again, it could just as easily be heart attack or stroke. Or any of the other CIs as well.
So get your coverage because you need it to financially protect yourself, or your loved ones, and not saddle them with a mountain of piling debts.
On the part about more conditions, some are practically never seen in Singapore. I asked some doctor clients about Ebola, and they've never heard of an Ebola case in Singapore. So what's more important is that you are at least covered for CI/early CI, at a reasonable cost, and if it so happens that in your policy there are 10 more illness covered compared to the alternative you didn't take up, then that's just a bonus for you. I'm not ruling out that Ebola won't ever happen in Singapore, but it's very likely someone would have to travel to the Congo or something, and bring it back, before it arrives on our shores.