1Cover - requiring pre-payment / going hard on pre-existing conditions?

shuuy

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Posts
345
Qantas
Platinum 1
Virgin
Gold
Oneworld
Emerald
Star Alliance
Gold
Bit of a nightmare story here in the SMH... What do you think has happened here - pre-existing condition not claimed on the insurance?

---


Dr Steven Stenton was in an intensive care unit in Thailand, getting prepped for a second emergency surgery following a heart attack, when staff appeared at his bedside with a credit card machine. He couldn’t have the procedure until he paid for his prior treatment – almost $30,000.

Stenton, 57, had comprehensive travel insurance with 1Cover Travel Insurance, which knew about his claim. But as the second life-saving operation was pending it was refusing to pay out.

Katie Bennett-Stenton said her husband, an IT professional for a healthcare company, had no prior ill health, and had purchased the comprehensive travel insurance – which cost about $200 for a week – in good faith.

He had only used 1Cover because it had partnered with his AFL team. “They sponsor St Kilda, so he switched to them,” she said.

Bennett-Stenton said she had rushed to Bangkok last Monday when told her husband had suffered a heart attack after he had already had one life-saving procedure. Two days later, when a second procedure was about to take place outside visiting hours, Stenton called her in a panic from his sickbed.

“He was on his phone moving $30,000 off our mortgage … in the few minutes before his second procedure,” she said. “I was already so worried about him and whether he was going to live.”

‘It’s been a nightmare on top of the nightmare of my husband having a heart attack in a foreign country. I’m so livid.’

Katie Bennett-Stenton
She said 1Cover had known about Stenton’s heart attack since his admission to hospital on Sunday and should have been covering his costs. She stressed she understood the hospital’s need to seek payment, and that Stenton had received the best care, but she just expected the insurance to cover it.

“We paid for comprehensive medical insurance, which they describe on their website to be unlimited overseas medical assistance with 24/7 emergency medical assistance to assist you in stressful circumstances,” Bennett-Stenton said.


“I expect that they would have said to me, ‘don’t you worry about anything financial ... We will sort this out, you focus on your husband. We’ve got everything else.’”

Contacted by this masthead, a 1Cover manager declined to comment, then said: “I will be disconnecting this call,” and hung up.

On the day of the second procedure, Bennett-Stenton said 1Cover had agreed to pay, but insisted she sign a waiver.

“[1Cover] had me sign a disclaimer to say that they would cover the costs for the moment, but if it turned out to be a pre-existing condition, that we would repay it,” she said.

“But even though I’d signed that before the second procedure, we still had to shell out $30,000 [for the first procedure]. And the second procedure was a lot more complex than they envisaged. So for the next two days at his bedside in ICU, they [the hospital] were badgering us for another $50,000,” she said.

She said 1Cover had ultimately covered the second, $50,000 payment – pending a decision as to whether Stenton had a pre-existing condition. However, the insurance company said the couple would need to recoup the $30,000 from the hospital directly, which could take 30 business days.

“It’s been a nightmare on top of the nightmare of my husband having a heart attack in a foreign country. I’m so livid that we’ve been put through all this undue extra stress,” she said. The pressure had been “unconscionable”.

Bennett-Stenton said her husband had gone to Thailand “for, ironically, his Father’s Day treat from the kids and I for just a quiet, chill week”.

She said the couple had been forced to pull the $30,000 from their mortgage.

“That’s a hell of a lot of money, and so many people wouldn’t have access to that, and what would have happened then?”

Bennett-Stenton posted on Instagram that she was unhappy with 1Cover’s service. When a friend replied in support, they received a message from the 1Cover Travel Insurance Instagram account which said: “kindly refrain from commenting on situations you have very little insights on”.

“The initial post [made by Bennett-Stenton] is a far cry from reality, but that’s the joys of social media. Warm regards, Eva,” said another message.

An apology message arrived from the same account some time later saying the initial message had been “inadvertently sent”.

Bennett-Stenton said her husband usually used a different insurer, but 1Cover’s sponsorship of St Kilda had convinced him to change.

The club said in a statement at the time of the announcement: “1Cover will provide St Kilda’s players, staff, and members with exclusive offers, ensuring Saints fans can travel with cover they can count on.”

Stenton was released from hospital on Friday and the Port Melbourne couple hope to return to Australia to reunite with their children in a week’s time.

“There are lots of things about this that I’m grateful for,” Bennett-Stenton said.

“He’s alive, and my mum was able to come be with the kids, and that the treatment has been so great. The ambulance came really quickly. But you know, Aussie families trust when they do the right thing and buy comprehensive insurance that they’ll be looked after.”

1Cover, which has a “poor” rating of 2.7 on consumer review site Trustpilot, is 48 per cent owned by two Britain-based businessmen, according to company documents. Another 50 per cent is owned by a company registered in the tax haven of Jersey, and which appeared in the Panama Papers with notorious Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca as its adviser.

A spokesperson for the Insurance Council of Australia said each policy would offer different coverage and consumers should consider their needs carefully.

“If a policyholder of any insurance company is unhappy with the handling of their insurance claim, they can lodge a complaint with their insurer and ask the insurer to review its decision. If a customer is not satisfied with the outcome of the insurer’s review, the complaint can be escalated to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) which can issue rulings which are legally binding on insurers.”
 
Given the typical cost of Thailand's health system sounds like some serious US style billing going on as well
In the US it would probably be $300k not $30k!

Dunno what happened here, but the outcome is that the patient is alive, and was lucky to have the means to be able to pay.

Waiting 30 days for a refund from the hospital is probably the least of their worries. Or should be.
 
Waiting 30 days for a refund from the hospital is probably the least of their worries. Or should be.
I know we dont have both sides here, but on what ground did they initially refuse to pay for the second procedure. Any evidence of a pre-existing condition? Then they agree to pay with a waiver. Why? Surely the policy has a condition in the contract that negates the need to sign a waiver. Unless they have clear evidence they don't have to pay, they should pay and sue the policy holder later.
What happens to the next person who doesn't have means to come up with 30k on the spot or the mental capacity or relatives to deal with this type of situation.
 
Pure speculation but I think something from the initial Thai medical assessment to suggest a pre-existing condition is most likely. Then again could be a corporate stuff-up
 
I know we dont have both sides here, but on what ground did they initially refuse to pay for the second procedure. Any evidence of a pre-existing condition? Then they agree to pay with a waiver. Why? Surely the policy has a condition in the contract that negates the need to sign a waiver. Unless they have clear evidence they don't have to pay, they should pay and sue the policy holder later.
What happens to the next person who doesn't have means to come up with 30k on the spot or the mental capacity or relatives to deal with this type of situation.
lots of unanswered questions!

off the top of my head, suing the policy holder later could end up costing more than the procedure in this case.

And if it was in the US, not a good look for the insurance company to later sue and bankrupt the policy holder. Perhaps less damaging PR wise to let the policy holder make their own arrangements.
 
off the top of my head, suing the policy holder later could end up costing more than the procedure in this case.
I agree. My point is that unless they have clear (known) grounds not to pay then they should be obliged to pay. Even if the policy holder has withheld something, the insurance company usually wouldn't know that. The fact they agreed to pay in the end with some waiver sounds like an admission they messed up (or it could be social media damage control).
 
I know we dont have both sides here, but on what ground did they initially refuse to pay for the second procedure. Any evidence of a pre-existing condition? Then they agree to pay with a waiver. Why? Surely the policy has a condition in the contract that negates the need to sign a waiver. Unless they have clear evidence they don't have to pay, they should pay and sue the policy holder later.
What happens to the next person who doesn't have means to come up with 30k on the spot or the mental capacity or relatives to deal with this type of situation.
The wife was a guest on ABC Radio Melbourne’s drive program with Ali Moore on Friday. The insurance company requested the patients regular GP details (he hasn’t got one) and then Medicare records looking for a possible pre-existing condition.
 
From the 1Cover web site...

"High blood pressure (also called hypertension) is a common pre-existing medical condition. This doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t get travel insurance, but you need to disclose your condition when you’re booking your travel insurance"

Not saying that the policy holder had hypertension, but I am saying that I think that they are looking for a way out of the PR situation (crisis management - quick find someone to blame)
 
Bupa has this:
Hypertension Included


(High Blood Pressure)
Criteria

In the last 90 days, You haven’t had an operation for this condition.
You have no ongoing complications of this condition.
You have not been hospitalised for this condition in the last 2 years.
In the last 12 months, Your prescribed medication hasn’t changed.
 
I know we dont have both sides here, but on what ground did they initially refuse to pay for the second procedure. Any evidence of a pre-existing condition? Then they agree to pay with a waiver. Why? Surely the policy has a condition in the contract that negates the need to sign a waiver. Unless they have clear evidence they don't have to pay, they should pay and sue the policy holder later.
What happens to the next person who doesn't have means to come up with 30k on the spot or the mental capacity or relatives to deal with this type of situation.
How can we? They hung up on the journo when asked for it.

Only got themselves to blame if readers conclude that their TI policies are worthless and they're a terrible company to deal with.
 
last 12 months, Your prescribed medication hasn’t changed
But what if say person had say previously been viewed as high, maybe took some medication, then dropped it etc.

Many people fail to continue taking long-term medications
 
But what if say person had say previously been viewed as high, maybe took some medication, then dropped it etc.

Many people fail to continue taking long-term medications
Then that improvement would have been monitored by the GP and recorded as now being stable. And that's the report that the Insurance company will want to see. You give them that consent when signing up. But yes, I see your point. We advised BP and went on to further questions to answer.
 
Bit of a nightmare story here in the SMH... What do you think has happened here - pre-existing condition not claimed on the insurance?

---


Dr Steven Stenton was in an intensive care unit in Thailand, getting prepped for a second emergency surgery following a heart attack, when staff appeared at his bedside with a credit card machine. He couldn’t have the procedure until he paid for his prior treatment – almost $30,000.

Stenton, 57, had comprehensive travel insurance with 1Cover Travel Insurance, which knew about his claim. But as the second life-saving operation was pending it was refusing to pay out.

Katie Bennett-Stenton said her husband, an IT professional for a healthcare company, had no prior ill health, and had purchased the comprehensive travel insurance – which cost about $200 for a week – in good faith.

He had only used 1Cover because it had partnered with his AFL team. “They sponsor St Kilda, so he switched to them,” she said.

Bennett-Stenton said she had rushed to Bangkok last Monday when told her husband had suffered a heart attack after he had already had one life-saving procedure. Two days later, when a second procedure was about to take place outside visiting hours, Stenton called her in a panic from his sickbed.

“He was on his phone moving $30,000 off our mortgage … in the few minutes before his second procedure,” she said. “I was already so worried about him and whether he was going to live.”


She said 1Cover had known about Stenton’s heart attack since his admission to hospital on Sunday and should have been covering his costs. She stressed she understood the hospital’s need to seek payment, and that Stenton had received the best care, but she just expected the insurance to cover it.

“We paid for comprehensive medical insurance, which they describe on their website to be unlimited overseas medical assistance with 24/7 emergency medical assistance to assist you in stressful circumstances,” Bennett-Stenton said.


“I expect that they would have said to me, ‘don’t you worry about anything financial ... We will sort this out, you focus on your husband. We’ve got everything else.’”

Contacted by this masthead, a 1Cover manager declined to comment, then said: “I will be disconnecting this call,” and hung up.

On the day of the second procedure, Bennett-Stenton said 1Cover had agreed to pay, but insisted she sign a waiver.

“[1Cover] had me sign a disclaimer to say that they would cover the costs for the moment, but if it turned out to be a pre-existing condition, that we would repay it,” she said.

“But even though I’d signed that before the second procedure, we still had to shell out $30,000 [for the first procedure]. And the second procedure was a lot more complex than they envisaged. So for the next two days at his bedside in ICU, they [the hospital] were badgering us for another $50,000,” she said.

She said 1Cover had ultimately covered the second, $50,000 payment – pending a decision as to whether Stenton had a pre-existing condition. However, the insurance company said the couple would need to recoup the $30,000 from the hospital directly, which could take 30 business days.

“It’s been a nightmare on top of the nightmare of my husband having a heart attack in a foreign country. I’m so livid that we’ve been put through all this undue extra stress,” she said. The pressure had been “unconscionable”.

Bennett-Stenton said her husband had gone to Thailand “for, ironically, his Father’s Day treat from the kids and I for just a quiet, chill week”.

She said the couple had been forced to pull the $30,000 from their mortgage.

“That’s a hell of a lot of money, and so many people wouldn’t have access to that, and what would have happened then?”

Bennett-Stenton posted on Instagram that she was unhappy with 1Cover’s service. When a friend replied in support, they received a message from the 1Cover Travel Insurance Instagram account which said: “kindly refrain from commenting on situations you have very little insights on”.

“The initial post [made by Bennett-Stenton] is a far cry from reality, but that’s the joys of social media. Warm regards, Eva,” said another message.

An apology message arrived from the same account some time later saying the initial message had been “inadvertently sent”.

Bennett-Stenton said her husband usually used a different insurer, but 1Cover’s sponsorship of St Kilda had convinced him to change.

The club said in a statement at the time of the announcement: “1Cover will provide St Kilda’s players, staff, and members with exclusive offers, ensuring Saints fans can travel with cover they can count on.”

Stenton was released from hospital on Friday and the Port Melbourne couple hope to return to Australia to reunite with their children in a week’s time.

“There are lots of things about this that I’m grateful for,” Bennett-Stenton said.

“He’s alive, and my mum was able to come be with the kids, and that the treatment has been so great. The ambulance came really quickly. But you know, Aussie families trust when they do the right thing and buy comprehensive insurance that they’ll be looked after.”

1Cover, which has a “poor” rating of 2.7 on consumer review site Trustpilot, is 48 per cent owned by two Britain-based businessmen, according to company documents. Another 50 per cent is owned by a company registered in the tax haven of Jersey, and which appeared in the Panama Papers with notorious Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca as its adviser.

A spokesperson for the Insurance Council of Australia said each policy would offer different coverage and consumers should consider their needs carefully.

“If a policyholder of any insurance company is unhappy with the handling of their insurance claim, they can lodge a complaint with their insurer and ask the insurer to review its decision. If a customer is not satisfied with the outcome of the insurer’s review, the complaint can be escalated to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) which can issue rulings which are legally binding on insurers.”
I know we dont have both sides here, but on what ground did they initially refuse to pay for the second procedure. Any evidence of a pre-existing condition? Then they agree to pay with a waiver. Why? Surely the policy has a condition in the contract that negates the need to sign a waiver. Unless they have clear evidence they don't have to pay, they should pay and sue the policy holder later.
What happens to the next person who doesn't have means to come up with 30k on the spot or the mental capacity or relatives to deal with this type of situation.
I know we dont have both sides here, but on what ground did they initially refuse to pay for the second procedure. Any evidence of a pre-existing condition? Then they agree to pay with a waiver. Why? Surely the policy has a condition in the contract that negates the need to sign a waiver. Unless they have clear evidence they don't have to pay, they should pay and sue the policy holder later.
What happens to the next person who doesn't have means to come up with 30k on the spot or the mental capacity or relatives to deal with this type of situation.
Payment was never refused by the insurer. It is standard practice in emergencies for overseas hospitals to take a credit card until they have contacted the insurer for the guarantee of payment.

The imagine the journalist just didn’t do her research properly in order to do the typical slander of “big bad insurer”. The customer is not out-of-pocket and a guarantee of payment was likely provided directly to the hospital prior to discharge.

The title should read: Aussie relieved of $80,000 debt thanks to his insurer, 1Cover Travel Insurance.

But that won’t get clicks will it!?
 
Payment was never refused by the insurer
How do you know that? That's not what the article says.
Why 2 days after the first operation did the was the hospital chasing 30k for that operation while the insurer agreed to pay 50k for the second operation? Couldn't they sort both out?

The imagine the journalist just didn’t do her research properly
Looks like she tried to get the insurer's side but was hung up on.
 
The imagine the journalist just didn’t do her research properly in order to do the typical slander of “big bad insurer”.
Looks like you didn't read the article.

I note that you signed up to AFF today and this is your first post (welcome by the way).

You wouldn't happen to work for 1Cover by any chance?

The article reports that employees of 1Cover took to social media to discredit the claimant:

'When a friend replied in support, they received a message from the 1Cover Travel Insurance Instagram account which said: “kindly refrain from commenting on situations you have very little insights on”.

“The initial post [made by Bennett-Stenton] is a far cry from reality, but that’s the joys of social media. Warm regards, Eva,” said another message.'

Your post feels eerily similar.
 
Is that you, "Eva"?

You could spin it like that @LucyB70 but you would then be condoning their behaviour at the time of the emergency and subsequently, as posted by @markis10, as acceptable.

No reasonable person could suggest that a reputable insurer holding a paid customer's life to ransom is acceptable because that's the standard practice as you claim. I'm sure there'll be stories on this site where prepayment wasn't required by the insurer.

Sorry but you can't spin the insurer to be the hero and the patient didn't die because they had access to tens of thousands of dollars.
 
Payment was never refused by the insurer. It is standard practice in emergencies for overseas hospitals to take a credit card until they have contacted the insurer for the guarantee of payment.

The imagine the journalist just didn’t do her research properly in order to do the typical slander of “big bad insurer”. The customer is not out-of-pocket and a guarantee of payment was likely provided directly to the hospital prior to discharge.

The title should read: Aussie relieved of $80,000 debt thanks to his insurer, 1Cover Travel Insurance.

But that won’t get clicks will it!?
Hi Lucy, welcome to aff. As the journalist apparently may not have done her research properly, perhaps you could fill in the gaps.

- Since "Payment was never refused by the insurer" why did the hospital require, not just a cr card, but full payment, from the patient, a few days after the 1st op?
- Did the hospital require the patient to pay only after requesting but not receiving payment from 1cover?
- Why won't 1cover reimburse that expense?
- Is it normal ins practice that payment will (only) be made directly to the hospital "prior to discharge" (I presume that's normal requirement of overseas hospitals treating tourists) only if the patient signs a reimbursement waiver to the ins company?
 
Bit of a nightmare story here in the SMH... What do you think has happened here - pre-existing condition not claimed on the insurance?

---


Dr Steven Stenton was in an intensive care unit in Thailand, getting prepped for a second emergency surgery following a heart attack, when staff appeared at his bedside with a credit card machine. He couldn’t have the procedure until he paid for his prior treatment – almost $30,000.

<redacted>
 
Elevate your business spending to first-class rewards! Sign up today with code AFF10 and process over $10,000 in business expenses within your first 30 days to unlock 10,000 Bonus PayRewards Points.
Join 30,000+ savvy business owners who:

✅ Pay suppliers who don’t accept Amex
✅ Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
✅ Earn & transfer PayRewards Points to 10+ airline & hotel partners

Start earning today!
- Pay suppliers who don’t take Amex
- Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
- Earn & Transfer PayRewards Points to 8+ top airline & hotel partners

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

lots of unanswered questions!

off the top of my head, suing the policy holder later could end up costing more than the procedure in this case.

And if it was in the US, not a good look for the insurance company to later sue and bankrupt the policy holder. Perhaps less damaging PR wise to let the policy holder make their own arrangements.
Agree, a lot of answered questions.
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top