Insurance claims

especially for horse owners to ask advice, from farriers or from other owners, all welcome, also please post details of lost or stolen horses here
Dotti
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 6:34 am
Location: Scotland

Insurance claims

Postby Dotti » Sat Aug 10, 2002 10:38 am

I have heard recently of a couple of owners who have had lower leg related problems with their horses which resulted in insurance claims. The treatment continued until such time as the insurance ran out, at which time, apparently, the veterinary advice was to have the horse destroyed. Anyone else heard of anything like this or are they isolated cases?

PNBaker

Postby PNBaker » Tue Aug 13, 2002 4:11 am

Dotti

Its a bit sad, but one of the first questions that is asked when veterinary treatment is needed, "Do you have insurance"?. To have to pay for VET treatment today has become a prohibitive and a very expensive process. It is only when the insurance money runs out that the matter of cost of treatment is reviewed. If the animal has recovered by then thats OK, but if it hasn't and there are no funds left to pay for further treatment, I fear then some horses are in fact then destroyed.

PNB.

PS, Do we need a charity somthing like the RSPCA that in times of hardship could jump into the breech to save animals being unnecessarily destroyed due to financial constraints. Come to think of it I understood that was one of the purposes for which of the RSPCA was started.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Postby Giles » Tue Aug 13, 2002 4:39 am

Aaah wellll The RSPCA have another use for the donated funds recommended by the vegetarian management, its not animal welfare, its animal rights. They can't waste money on animals but they can on way out theories. Its a pity they can't make them take the tablets when they let them out. (the commitee that is)

Giles

Liz Waller
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 9:41 am
Location: Hampshire, UK
Contact:

Hi Dotti

Postby Liz Waller » Tue Aug 13, 2002 7:24 am

Sadly what you have heard is correct and not that uncommon now........

In addition to insurance running out (assuming you can get certain companies to pay up in the first place!) the other added problem is that the ******* won't re-insure the leg (legs) or feet either regardless of the cause/future cause and put exclusions on any renewals - even if a vet and/or farrier report is submitted to say exactly what the original problem was and that it was now 100% OK and purely as a result of an accident.

It has reached a point now where as an owner you really do have to think very hard about what comes out of your own pocket or is put in as a claim.

To make matters even worse is the fact that many insurers are pulling out of the horse market so there is becoming less choice too. Only the truly reputable ones offer cover for referals to specialists and/or alternative treatments. Even then you have to make very sure you read the small print!

I dread to think what will happen in the future if legislation and insurance companies go down the route suggested already of only higher qualified farriers doing "remedial work".

It sounds great in principal but not practice.

The other added factor these days in some instances, which is equally sad, is unfortunately the typical "throw-away" society attitude we have in this country which gets carried over into animal ownership.

Dotti
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 6:34 am
Location: Scotland

Postby Dotti » Tue Aug 13, 2002 7:37 am

I think you missed my point - it's not a decision taken by the horseowner but a change in prognosis

Liz Waller
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 9:41 am
Location: Hampshire, UK
Contact:

Dotti.......

Postby Liz Waller » Tue Aug 13, 2002 11:26 am

Dotti,

If you truely love and care for the horse in question, there is no really logical reason behind the change of decision, know the horse is a true survivor that want's to go that far too and you are determined enough then regardless of insurance situation you will always try to do the best by your horse.

This is regardless of a vet changing their minds or trying to influence the owner simply because insurance has all gone unless they are the sort of person that says "Oh, it's only a horse. I'll get another one tomorrow". Something that is happening more and more.

You only have to look around you at the number of "problem horses" being sold on the market or "older" horses that are just discarded by "owners" simply because they don't want the trouble, or more to the point the cost, of caring for them any more.

I know not everyone has money to burn so to speak, but as an owner you have a moral duty to do the best you can for that animal. If that means funding something out of your own pocket than so be it. That is all part of horse ownership in my book.

I know you can't let your heart rule your head either - if the horse is suffering and/or has lost the will to fight on then you do have to call it a day.

There are times when you have to make the inevitable choice, but it has to be for the right reasons in my opinion, not purely on finance grounds.

If ever I had any doubts in my mind about a decision of that kind then I would certainly want some very good explanations from the parties involved and want to explore every avenue possible before throwing in the towel and seek a second opinion (or even third) before making that kind of choice if necessary and not at all happy with answers provided.

Been there once, and even ended up seeking specialist help from the States, because no one was willing to try as hard as I was willing to in this country that was in a postion to help. Sadly, after a 6 week battle my horse made the decision for me in the end before help could be found by ending up with colic to add to the other complications and I knew the combined consequences of that were too great for her to overcome.

Add to that the problem with certain vet practices.

I know many vet practices are very, very good but you do also get those that rub their hands in glee at the mention of "insurance" and "horse".

One local practice in particluar springs to mind in my area. They charge almost double that of many other local vets (my own included) and get away with it because of "reputation" of one specific vet in the group and who on average charge around the £1000 mark for almost anything regardless if the horse has to be seen more than 2 or 3 times. - or £5000 if that is the limit of the policy and hospitalised regardless of time at the hospital and level of treatment/condition involved. Anything over and above that and typically this is the stance they take - euthanise! This is regardless of any progress being made that could return the horse to health with more time and treatment.

With regard to insurance companies, they too are less than helpful in some instances with the line they take on exclusions and referals.

A lot of people I know have been caught out by this with only very few managing to get the "exclusion" level narrowed down or removed after a year of not having to claim anything backed up by reports or specialist referals paid for that would benefit the outcome.

Therefore it is hardly suprising that any long term treatments and/or those that that coincide with a policy renewal the prognosis suddenly changes.

Dotti
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 6:34 am
Location: Scotland

Postby Dotti » Wed Aug 14, 2002 7:04 am

It's nothing to do with how we feel about our animals - hopefully horseowners in general want what is best for the animal whatever its value or use - its to do with the fact that if the prognosis on day one is hopeless, why spin it out - especially when the change comes at the point when the insurance runs out. Of course we can all afford to invest varying amounts of money in our animals - that's life - however if the additional pot (insurance) is being used just because its there, isn't that something that should be addressed? Is that in the best interests of the horse, or the owner? Have any of you horseshoeing people got any experience of this kind of thing?

Guest

Hi Dotti

Postby Guest » Sat Aug 17, 2002 12:15 pm

Sorry I did mis-interpret which side of the equation you were looking at based on what you have now added.

The latter part of my last post though about certain practices still stand as this is typically the type of one that causes the problem you are looking at.

If the horse has no chance or such a small chance then it is the moral (and dare I say legal) duty of the vet/specialist to fully explain to the owner the facts and percentages, offer the chance of a second opinion/referal if the owner is still unsure to clarify the situation.

Some owners may still cause a problem (hoping for a miracle) but the vast majority, myself included, should know in their hearts and minds when that ultimate decision should and/or has to be made so should question why any other party invovled wishes to still persist with treatment insured or otherwise. (The same should apply if the other way around too)

I guess at the end of the day a lot of this scenario comes down to each persons morals and ethics on both sides and owners knowledege of their horses.

spoon462
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:07 pm

Why

Postby spoon462 » Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:08 pm

And why the hell would one want to do something like that...please tell me....


Return to “horseowners discussion board”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest