Is health insurance still fit-for-purpose? The debate over mental health cover

The article, written after what Consumer described as a “mystery-shop” of 14 insurers, was strongly critical of what it termed blanket exclusions for declared pre-existing mental health conditions at a time when mental health is “a widespread issue in Aotearoa”.

“There’s a disconnected between how the public views mental health and how insurance companies factor that into their policies,” the article stated. It also criticised insurers for taking differing approaches to mental health cover, with some imposing limits and exclusions while others, it said, “can accept you as is”.

But insurance industry players say while they commend Consumer for focusing on New Zealanders’ mental health, they don’t believe its report fairly represents the sector’s approach or the progress it has made in this area.

Richard Klipin, CEO of the Financial Services Council, says he’s disappointed that Consumer failed to test the providers’ products and go through the underwriting process or acknowledge the way underwriting has changed in recent years.

“There was a similar lack of consideration for the many wellness initiatives and actions our members have taken to address mental health, many of which are over and above what is captured in a policy document,” Klipin says.