Hi anon, Whether or not the older terms are better than the newer terms can be a subjective one, but we can first address these concerns by examining the current definition vs. the new definitions. Let's take a look at them: 1) Major Cancers: "Major Cancer diagnosed on the basis of finding tumour cells and/or tumour-associated molecules in blood, saliva, faeces, urine or any other bodily fluid in the absence of further definitive and clinically verifiable evidence does not meet the above definition" has been added. I'm no actuary, but it would seem that the requirement for confirming a major cancer is stricter now that you cannot use blood or bodily fluids to positively diagnose cancer. It will probably mean that a biopsy from the suspected cancer site is required. "Skin confined primary cutaneous lymphoma and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans" is specifically excluded now. The rationale was that it was easy to treat and does not fulfil the intent of severe stage coverage. In other words, if you happen to be diagnosed with this, it will not be claimable as opposed to now. "All bone marrow malignancies which do not require recurrent blood transfusions, chemotherapy, targeted cancer therapies, bone marrow transplant, haematopoietic stem cell transplant or other major interventionist treatment; " are now excluded Same as above, more exclusions My opinion: Getting more specific and hence stricter on the claims. Well, you can definitely say that with fewer grey areas, a positive diagnosis would either lead to a claim or not, instead of having to debate back and forth with the insurer's doctors. 2) Heart Attack The new addition of "Death of heart muscle due to ischaemia" The old wording was "due to obstruction of blood flow". Again, getting more specific here. MyocardiaInfraction type 1 and 2 would be covered very specifically. The term "obstruction of blood flow" is rather vague if you look at it. 3) Stroke "With persisting clinical symptoms" has been removed from the definition. Rationale was that after surgery, a cut out tumour could be bleeding, but this is often as a result of the surgery, rather than the stroke. So it's more specific now. “Secondary haemorrhage within a pre-existing cerebral lesion” added as an exclusion. Hence, slightly lesser things to claim on. 4) Aplastic Anaemia "Irreversible" has been added. Although I'm no doctor, it would seem that it is harder to claim now. Previously, the older definition would mean that although the anaemia due to bone marrow failure is chronic, you could just make a claim once you've proven it's chronic. Now you need to prove it is both chronic and irreversible. 5) Coma "Medically induced coma" now excluded. 6) Deafness (Loss of Hearing) It now has to be "irreversible" to a very specific definition of “cannot be reasonably restored to at least 40 decibels by medical treatment, hearing aid and/or surgical procedures consistent with the current standard of the medical services available in Singapore after a period of 6 months from the date of intervention ”. So if you lost hearing above 80 decibels permanently but could be restored to at least 60 decibels, you won't qualify under the new definition. Stricter in my opinion and harder to claim. 7) HIV Due to Blood Transfusion and Occupationally Acquired HIV " The insured does not suffer from Thalassaemia Major or Haemophilia" has been removed . An improvement , surprisingly. Previously, if you had Thalassaemia Major or Haemophilia, you would be excluded from this even if you had gotten HIV due to blood transfusion. However, Thalassaemia Major usually limited your life expectancy to 30 years unless you are one of the lucky few who can get a marrow transplant. Haemophilia (poor blood clotting) would limit your lifespan too. But at least these people have recourse now, should a blood transfusion cause them to get HIV. An improvement in my view. 8) Benign Brain Tumour 3 exclusions added (Abscess, Angioma, tumors of skull base). Stricter. 9) Viral Encephalitis Well. What a surprise. The older version required "viral infection" as a cause, but now all causes can allow a claim. An improvement. However, they added the requirement of "confirmatory diagnostic tests", which is layman for saying that they need to do more tests on you to confirm the condition. 10) Blindness Added a very specific (and stricter line) "The blindness must not be correctable by surgical procedures, implants or any other means." It's almost future-proofing the definition in case bionic implants are invented in future. Well, we can't do what Thor did in Avengers: Infinity War any more (I hope you watched the movie). Thor would have qualified under the old definition, assuming he lost both eyes to Hela and Rocket Racoon had 2 implants available. 11) Progressive Scleroderma You now need "equivalent confirmatory tests" but you would need it anyway, since under the old definition you needed a biopsy, and you can't do that on your heart or lungs. Another criterion is “confirmed by a consultant rheumatologist”, which would just be a minor issue, although stricter (you specifically need to find a rheumatologist now) 12) Apallic Syndrome It's now called "Persistent Vegetative State". Nothing's changed. Kind of like how Kentucky Fried Chicken (which used the full name previously) rebranded as "KFC". The chicken is still the same 11 herbs and spices. 13) Systemic Lupus Erythematosus with Lupus Nephritis You now need "clinical and laboratory evidence" so it's slightly harder and probably more troublesome? They changed the classification of Lupus from using WHO to RPS/ISN since RPS/ISN is the more relevant body to classify Lupus. It's like benchmarking Singapore's SMRT to Hong Kong's MTR, you probably want to benchmark it to Japan's JR group since they are the gold standard for train service in most people's eyes. 14) Other Serious Coronary Artery Disease Instead of "coronary angiography", you now need "invasive coronary angiography" to confirm it. So that rules out CT or MRI. It's stricter. "The branches of the above coronary arteries are excluded." just means less ambiguity. 15) Poliomyelitis You now need a diagnosis by "a consultant neurologist or specialist in the relevant medical field." Just slightly more requirements but not a major impact. TLDR; A slight negative in my view, stricter conditions make it slightly harder to claim, but clearer definitions make it a definitive yes/no when it comes to claiming. So now, the big question: Should you get a plan now or wait? I would say that you should get a CI plan not because of the definitions becoming stricter, but rather because you need one. If you don't need one because you already have sufficient coverage, that's ok. But if you have not reviewed your CI cover for a while, and you don't have sufficient coverage upon a review, you will want to get additional cover. Between now and 2020, you cannot say for certain that nothing will happen to you in terms of CI, and there's usually a 90 day waiting period for CI claims. You want to ensure that (touchwood) should you ever claim, your policy has already been in force more than 90 days. CI can strike without warning, my own aunt was ok until she had persistent stomach pains for a month in 2017, and then she was diagnosed with stage 4 stomach cancer and passed on in 6 months (she was 80+ and did not have CI cover, so the last 6 months was a bit of a stretch financially as we tried to make things more comfortable for her) In the end, more people are diagnosed with cancer each day in Singapore than people who perish in a car accident (though traffic accidents tend to make the news). Critical illness, especially the big three (Cancer, Stroke, Heart Attack), is really a silent killer, and for those who survive, the funds they have to burn through can be substantial. I'd like to think that everyone has a plan when CI strikes; it's either a plan by default or a plan by design . By default meaning that you live life as normal, should CI strike, you burn through your resources, and have to turn to your loved ones for financial aid. By design meaning you design a strategy and take the right steps to mitigate risk by passing it on to the insurer, and should CI strike, your payout provides you funding and eliminates financial stress on you and your loved ones, and you retain your dignity. Would you prefer a plan by default or a plan by design? I'm sorry if the answer is rather lengthy, but I just felt I needed to put my viewpoint forth in full.