BT Financial Group chief executive Brad Cooper says any comparisons in the ASIC report released last week would be misleading and would not provide accurate information to consumers, particularly when comparing policies.
“ASIC said at its recent appearance at the House of Representatives Economics Committee that the data that has been provided by industry participants is not consistent,” Mr Cooper said.
“In BTFG’s case, for example, the data includes some claims which were lodged by people who were not insured with us at the time of their injury or illness, and some claims by customers who were paid under other parts of their policy such as income protection.”
Mr Cooper said that if this was taken into consideration, the number of rejected claims would be much lower.
“The facts are that BTFG declined 58 TPD claims in 2015,” he said.
“During the same period BTFG paid $225 million in life insurance claims to 2640 beneficiaries.”
Mr Cooper said the industry needed to improve the consistency of data to enable consumers to make valid comparison of products.
“We strongly support the need for standardised reporting to allow consumers to make meaningful comparison,” he said.
“We will have a further look at each of the 58 declined claims to ensure that our processes are robust and fair.”
Wow data from thousands of claims is “flawed” yet the data taken from a small number of advisers wasn’t when it was used to try and say all advisers were churning even though lapse rates from advised risk have remained consistent and good.
Unbelievable hypocrisy from another FSC member.
Is the answer now reduce all insurance company execs and employees dealing with claims by 50%???
This whole debate is meaningless unless there is a clear and unambiguous definition of churn ,lapse and any other indicator of adviser behavior
If it is available can someone please advise
Clearly,any movement of one policy to another has to be in the clients best interest
How would an insurance company know why the insurance product was changed unless they received a copy of the SOA
I have never been asked to provide one
An adviser with a high lapse rate might actually be doing what he is paid to do and give advice
I am quite happy to sit down with any insurance company and explain why I moved their product to another company
I have offered to give feedback but they are not really interested
Standardised reporting….you mean like client policies being cancelled as a result of expiry or a policy being paid out as a claim NOT being classed as an adviser churn???
Gee, now there’s a novel idea!
I don’t know if its just me but I’m finally starting to sense some of the underhanded tactics being adopted by the insurers to well and truly shaft advisers starting to turn back on them and isn’t it nice.
The unfair scrutiny we’ve copped the last 2 years has been nothing short of shameful. We told ASIC adviser churn rates were extremely exaggerated, we also told ASIC that its the direct insurance market that’s eroding consumer confidence and we’ve told the regulators the LIF reforms will damage the industry.
Will ASIC gets its crystal ball out in 5 years time and tell us in hindsight once again that the reforms have done that and that insurance companies manipulated data for their own financial benefit? Only time will tell…