Non-pharmac focus part of Accuro’s adviser push
Accuro is to launch a campaign to market its SmartCare+ cover to advisers as part of company attempts to raise brand awareness.
Friday, June 22nd 2012, 7:21AM 
18 Comments
by Benn Bathgate
“What we find is not many people are aware of the brand, the end users, so we’re trying to get a little bit more brand awareness out there at the moment,” said sales and marketing general manager Kelleigh Aston.
She said SmartCare+ has been welcomed by advisers since its launch in November and Accuro wanted to market its enhancements to a wider adviser audience.
“People get so much information from all of the providers, you need to remind people you have these things,” she said.
Aston said one of the key elements to the enhanced SmartCare+ cover was the addition of a non-pharmac subsidised drug benefit, something she said was included in response to market changes after OnePath and Partners Life launched non-pharmac benefits, and more importantly, from adviser feedback.
“A lot of the enhancements that we make to products are from feedback from advisers. They’re our main source of information, they are the ones in touch with clients so you get a pool effect,” she said.
“If you get lots of people saying the same things we know something needs to change.”
Aston said there was a “very loud yell” from the advice sector about non-pharmac cover, and this was one of the key additions they wanted to push to advisers to get clients to upgrade from SmartCare.
Benn Bathgate is a business reporter for ASSET and Good Returns, email story ideas to benn@goodreturns.co.nz
| « Defining your own regulation | Why best products aren’t always best » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
On 22 June 2012 at 1:06 pm Phil said:
Without guaranteed wordings it is impossible to say to my clients that these options will be avaliable at claim time. On 22 June 2012 at 2:45 pm Amused said:
An excellent observation Phil. You clearly have your head switched on. All well and good for Accuro to offer this added benefit to policy holders now but as you say nothing to stop them removing it in the future when it becomes unaffordable. I’ll stick to a health insurer who offers non Pharmac drug cover AND guaranteed wordings i.e. Partners Life. On 22 June 2012 at 3:42 pm GetReal said:
Amused - Partners aren't the only to offer non-Pharmac cover AND guaranteed wordings. They certainly weren't the first.
It is all well and good for advisers to scream out for non-Pharmac cover, but we all know that its pricing will soon put it out of reach anyway.
On 22 June 2012 at 5:22 pm Observer said:
@GetReal. I assume you are talking about OnePath as the other company offering guaranteed wordings. This is true, but only if you take the medical extra. IN terms of the affordability, OnePath have had this feature for over a decade now, and their pricing is still competitive, therefore not sure where GetReal is coming from. Let's remember, if you don't ask your client the question about whether the benefit is something they want, then are you doing the right thing by the client. On 22 June 2012 at 5:45 pm Michael Lay said:
It's a great addition and at a great price. Accuro claims experience is second to none. It's an A+ all the way for me! On 22 June 2012 at 7:14 pm billy the broker said:
We should be amused at Amused with their choice of preferred provider, there is nothing to stop Partners from hiking their premiums when they get hit good and hard with claims after buying all this churned business..We will see who will be chuckling then:) On 23 June 2012 at 11:06 am Ron Flood said:
Advisers seem to be unaware of the downside of guaranteed policy wordings. As procedures and drugs become more expensive, companies who are unable to change policy wordings and restrict or remove benefits will have to increase the cost of cover. This will lead to healthy clients changing providers in order to save money.
This exodus of healthy clients will place further pressure on premiums and they will inevitably spiral upwards and eventually the companies will be forced to close these pools and start new ones to attract new clients and preserve market share.
You would think by now that the lessons of the past would stop companies entering the marketplace with guaranteed policy wordings. Obviously it hasn't.
Disclaimer: These views are personal and
not to be viewed as those of any of the Professional Bodies or Associations I am a member of.
On 25 June 2012 at 8:12 am Anon said:
GeatReal - yup, more than one. But Amused's and Phil's point remains: without guaranteed policy wordings this is just self-promotion and has little substance. Accuro offers something, which is already available elsewhere, but without the long-tail guarantee for customers. To say that this 'will soon put it out of reach anyway' is not the point: people want assurance at claim time and offering it now, when it can be removed later, defeats the planning that goes into the insurance process. On 25 June 2012 at 9:16 am Amused said:
I'm well aware of that fact GetReal. Whether non-Pharmac cover remains afforadable for the insurers in the future is irrelevant if the insurer does currently offer it today AND has guaranteed wordings. On 25 June 2012 at 11:57 am One said:
Insurance companies, like Accuro, have taken away benefits in the past and will do it again in the future. In the end it is up to the client to make an informed decision. I personally would prefer guaranteed wordings, compared with a mere assumption of 'lower prices' when they cut benefits. Side note: Taking a clause out in the policy wordings is generally not advertised, so creates false expectations down the line. These changes to the policy wording are also often not communicated to the adviser which is even worse.... So Mr Flood good luck selling it to your clients when they don't get reimbursed for a procedure that was covered in the past! On 25 June 2012 at 11:58 am King of Loss said:
Interesting speculation re: pricing on non-pharmac drugs considering the option has been around for well over a decade and has let to lead to the catastrophic price increases certain sectors have been claiming it will for well over a decade. On 25 June 2012 at 2:07 pm Two Cents said:
With OnePath you're now supposed to package other benefits with their medical product, so I would suggest this is a clear indication of pricing that no longer works (in fact they have admitted that). Partners is following the same (one)path... so will have the same issues down the line (they would know that too - but still a smart strategy to win early business). Agree with your comments Ron. On 25 June 2012 at 3:14 pm Kraken said:
Two cents, you should shouldn't take the word of the friendly BDMs so seriously. The costs of covering non-pharmac medication isn't what lead to OnePath changing their acquisition strategy, it is the fact that they are loosing business hand over fist to their competitors. Simple. On 25 June 2012 at 4:46 pm Raoul said:
The proverbial will hit the fan when the client's very expensive chemo treatment is not covered notwithstanding their payment of medical insurance premiums. BTW Mr Flood, I assume you do not sell Asteron's Trauma cover - great new heart attack definition and guaranteed wording. In fact seems to me there is not much you can sell that isn't guaranteed aside from a few medical insurance products. On 25 June 2012 at 5:35 pm Ron Flood said:
Raoul, my comment was made to highlight something that is sometimes forgotten when we look at guaranteed policy wordings. It was not a statement on the rights or wrongs, just something that needs to be considered when giving advice.
Disclaimer: These views are personal and
not to be viewed as those of any of the Professional Bodies or Associations I am a member of.
On 26 June 2012 at 12:41 pm Amused said:
Mr Flood - I'm sorry but you've dug yourself a hole with your earlier comments around insurers offering guaranteed wordings and clearly I’m not the only adviser who has taken issue with what you’ve said. Why on earth would an adviser view an insurer with guaranteed policy wordings in a negative light vs. an insurer who retrospectively can change a client’s policy to take away benefits from them? Yes, we can all appreciate that guaranteed wordings involves a cost to the insurer/s offering it (and ultimately their policy holders in time) but the pros far outweigh the cons of increased premiums if the escalating cost of health care in NZ are anything to go by!
Just as well you do have that disclaimer added.
On 26 June 2012 at 4:04 pm Ron Flood said:
Amused, my concerns are with Health Insurance policies, as the medical inflation rate is between 9% and 11% per year (Tower CEO, Fairfax NZ 16/04/12).
With rates this high, procedures will double in cost approx every 6.5 - 8 yrs.
It must therefore result in premiums doubling at the same rate. Clients who are well and have few, if any, ongoing medical issues will revert to the public system,or lower cost options, leaving the unhealthy clients behind.
This will result in premiums becoming out of reach of most elderly clients.
Disclaimer: These views are personal and not to be viewed as those of any of the Professional Bodies or Associations I am a member of.
On 27 June 2012 at 8:13 am Anon said:
Ron, and the people who lose their previous cover? They'll leave as well. If you look at HFANZ numbers, it's amazing how actual claims haven't been rising by 10% year-on-year (but insurers have been putting their premiums up by that). At some point, you'll get an equilibrium, probably when the 'not-for-profit' entities start being better run (or are taken over). But, in the meantime, by your simple logic they'll need to cut around half the benefits every 6.5 - 8 years to keep premiums flat, so what will the point be in having private cover then? Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
