As a result of the considerable veterinary expenditure on my late pet, I've been researching pet health insurance. In the process I've come across an exclusions clause in the policy offered by the Australian Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA), which is of a a kind I think needs to be highlighted.
Of course, most people on this forum won't be in Australia, but everyone might want to check their pet health policy terms. The RPCA's policy document is here
https://www.rspcapetinsurance.org.au...et(102007).pdf
Exclusion 11 says
"11.diagnostic tests, unless they result in a diagnosis of a
Condition which is covered under Your policy;"
Whoa there! You mean if the vet does an expensive test, and it comes up negative, then you won't pay?
A difficult diagnosis can involve tests that successively rule out various diseases. Depending on interpretation, this exclusion may be denying payment for each test that is negative, or it may be denying payment for all the tests if the pet eventually dies without a real diagnosis (as mine did).
I've asked the RSPCA whether that's really what they intend, and haven't received an answer yet, but at the moment, I wouldn't touch their policy with a barge pole, nor any other with a similarly worded exclusion, at least not without a clear statement in writing as the the true intent of the exclusion.
Of course, most people on this forum won't be in Australia, but everyone might want to check their pet health policy terms. The RPCA's policy document is here
https://www.rspcapetinsurance.org.au...et(102007).pdf
Exclusion 11 says
"11.diagnostic tests, unless they result in a diagnosis of a
Condition which is covered under Your policy;"
Whoa there! You mean if the vet does an expensive test, and it comes up negative, then you won't pay?
A difficult diagnosis can involve tests that successively rule out various diseases. Depending on interpretation, this exclusion may be denying payment for each test that is negative, or it may be denying payment for all the tests if the pet eventually dies without a real diagnosis (as mine did).
I've asked the RSPCA whether that's really what they intend, and haven't received an answer yet, but at the moment, I wouldn't touch their policy with a barge pole, nor any other with a similarly worded exclusion, at least not without a clear statement in writing as the the true intent of the exclusion.