ANNUAL Travel Insurance

[Stella1250]

American Express Platinum card. 2.5 million medical, trip cancellation, evacuation etc. $550 per year.

[OlsSalt]

American Express Platinum card. 2.5 million medical, trip cancellation, evacuation etc. $550 per year.

 

United Explorer Card with Chase also offers some included travel insurance benefits, but not medical.

[cabinluvn]

American Express Platinum card. 2.5 million medical, trip cancellation, evacuation etc. $550 per year.

 

 

 

Visit the website insuremytrip.com. You can build your own policy by putting in only what you need and then viewing a list of companies that will give you what you want. Some of them offer policies that cover travel for a year

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Tampa Girl]

If your usual medical insurance, pays out of country, good b ut if not, you may wish to b ercertain to have adequate medical coverage in the unhappy even you might become ill or have an accident while traveling .

 

That is good advice, of course. We are fortunate that our BCBS Fed covers all medical expenses outside the U.S. and treats them as PPO's.

 

One thing about "adequate medical coverage" outside the U.S. that no seems to have considered is that we all are thinking in terms of U.S. health care costs. Fortunately, however, U.S. health care costs are among, if not the, highest in the world. What costs $100,000 here is probably a fraction of that in another country. That having been said, one can't count on becoming ill or injured in such a country. For my purposes, a policy like Med-Jet, is the most essential, next to a cancel for any reason on an expensive cruise.

[OlsSalt]

That is good advice, of course. We are fortunate that our BCBS Fed covers all medical expenses outside the U.S. and treats them as PPO's.

 

One thing about "adequate medical coverage" outside the U.S. that no seems to have considered is that we all are thinking in terms of U.S. health care costs. Fortunately, however, U.S. health care costs are among, if not the, highest in the world. What costs $100,000 here is probably a fraction of that in another country. That having been said, one can't count on becoming ill or injured in such a country. For my purposes, a policy like Med-Jet, is the most essential, next to a cancel for any reason on an expensive cruise.

 

Good point. Check out the Singapore website for their medical care options intended for tourists - about $60 a visit. Plus clinics all over for immediate care. US health care costs about twice as high as the nearest competitors around the world, except Switzerland which is closer to the US.

[Hlitner]

American Express Platinum card. 2.5 million medical, trip cancellation, evacuation etc. $550 per year.

 

Am wondering where you live :). That benefit does not seem to be offered on most US cards. We did look at the European policy and would have great concern with their pre-existing condition clause which is one of the most restrictive we have ever seen. In the definitions of pre-existing condition it seems to include any condition for which you see a physician on an annual (or more frequent basis) for merely a check-up. If they enforce this to the letter of the language. most seniors would have a big problem. For example, assume you have moderate hypertension that is easily controlled by drugs. Your physician sees you once or twice a year to check your blood pressure and adjust your meds (if necessary). Next week, on a trip you have a stroke or heart attack. The insurance company could argue that the medical issue is related to your high blood pressure and since you see your physician for that condition every year it is a pre existing condition and not covered. Would they do this? I am not sure because I do not know the laws of the EU. In the USA that definition would likely not be approved by many of our state insurance commissions (I sure would not have approved it when I worked for the government). On its face that definition is outrageous since, in theory, it might discourage some folks from having an annual check-up. ARGH.

 

Hank

[Stella1250]

I live in New York. Just got that card and all of those benefits are included. I called and spoke to someone to be sure before I applied. I just got tired of paying for ins. for each trip.

[Stella1250]

Who did you work for? I am CBP.

[Tampa Girl]

Am wondering where you live :). That benefit does not seem to be offered on most US cards. We did look at the European policy and would have great concern with their pre-existing condition clause which is one of the most restrictive we have ever seen. In the definitions of pre-existing condition it seems to include any condition for which you see a physician on an annual (or more frequent basis) for merely a check-up. If they enforce this to the letter of the language. most seniors would have a big problem. For example, assume you have moderate hypertension that is easily controlled by drugs. Your physician sees you once or twice a year to check your blood pressure and adjust your meds (if necessary). Next week, on a trip you have a stroke or heart attack. The insurance company could argue that the medical issue is related to your high blood pressure and since you see your physician for that condition every year it is a pre existing condition and not covered. Would they do this? I am not sure because I do not know the laws of the EU. In the USA that definition would likely not be approved by many of our state insurance commissions (I sure would not have approved it when I worked for the government). On its face that definition is outrageous since, in theory, it might discourage some folks from having an annual check-up. ARGH.

 

Hank

 

My fears exactly. I spoke with an Allianz rep a few weeks ago about the same situation: Blood pressure mediation, and he confirmed that it might be considered a pre-existing condition, as would my DH's heart medication (aspirin, cholesteral, etc.) I cancelled the Allianz policy. Hence, my preference for the CPP for an expensive cruise.

[DocJohnB]

Covering the ship's doctor is another area that can be fraught with high costs and insurance repayment complexities. Hope others can provide stories about using any of the ship's medical services. And how they got reimbursement; if any from either their regular medical plans or any additional travel medical plans.

 

On a very recent Panama Canal transit I developed a cough that worsened over a few days. At 7 days I visited the ship's medical facility. I was seen by the ship's doctor, diagnosed with acute bronchitis and given a Z-pac (antibiotic).

I have used TravelGuard (Gold) for the past few years and this would be my first experience in submitting a claim of any sort.

On 4/27 I electronically submitted a claim for reimbursement of the billed amount ($163.76) and e-signed a medical information release form. Unfortunately, when I went to scan my receipt, I discovered a malfunctioning printer. I submitted the claim anyway. On 4/29 after purchasing a new printer, I sent a copy of the receipt.

On 5/1 I received a message from my adjuster saying he requested payment (in full) but the claim was subject to audit and if approved I would have payment in 7-10 days. On 5/2 I received a 2nd message from the adjuster stating that a payment had been made along with an invoice showing the service. (In other words - "the check is in the mail").

I fully expect to receive the check within a week.

[Hlitner]

My fears exactly. I spoke with an Allianz rep a few weeks ago about the same situation: Blood pressure mediation, and he confirmed that it might be considered a pre-existing condition, as would my DH's heart medication (aspirin, cholesteral, etc.) I cancelled the Allianz policy. Hence, my preference for the CPP for an expensive cruise.

 

You are confusing two issues. Your CPP is all about getting back some or all of your trip cost. But the pre-existing condition issue that I am questioning has to do with travel medical policies that will not cover medical expenses related to a pre existing condition. Our "soap box" issue for many years has been about the virtually UNLIMITED liability folks can have for major medical issues when on a trip. It would be bad enough to lose the money you paid for a cruise...which obviously you could afford since you made the decision to pay for a cruise. But imagine being hospitalized somewhere in the world for a stroke...running up $150,000 in medical bills...and then finding your travel medical policy refuses to pay be cause of some fine print in the pre-exisiting condition definitions.

 

Hank

[iancal]

The challenge with some of the credit card coverage is that some cards limit coverage to those under a certain age or limit coverage to shorter trips.

 

We often travel for 6-15 weeks at a time. We have 60 day coverage through a pension plan but we purchase add on insurance for days past 60. We also spring for a larger deductable, often $5,000, in order to reduce the premium substantially. Our goal is to insure against the big ticket risks of hospital stays and evacuation.

 

I did in fact look at HAL's policy for my father a number of years ago. Other than cancel for any reason we thought that the medical coverage component, at that time, was pathetic. So we passed.

 

Our experience....the easier it is to buy the insurance, especially from a travel supplier or TA, the more expensive it is and the less risk that it covers either from a dollar or an occurance perspective.

[Hlitner]

I live in New York. Just got that card and all of those benefits are included. I called and spoke to someone to be sure before I applied. I just got tired of paying for ins. for each trip.

 

I want to tread carefully, but also alert you to the situation. I just got off the phone with AMEX's insurance folks. Your Platinum Card (we also have had a Platinum Card for some time) DOES NOT have any travel medical insurance included with the card. You can purchase trip insurance (for each trip) from AMEX which would include some medical (depending on what you purchase. AMEX Platinum does include medical evacuation coverage (if you meet their strict requirements)....but this coverage is related to only the transportation (like other evac policies) and does not cover the related medical expenses. So my friendly heads up is that unless you are purchasing trip policies (for each trip)...AMEX is not covering you for medical expenses.

 

AMEX used to sell an Annual Travel Medical Policy (we had it for several years) but stopped selling that policy about 3-4 years ago. According to their insurance folks (this morniing) they still do not have any annual travel medical policy.

 

I would reiterate that I am only talking about those who are US residents. The Platinum Card has some different benefits for Europeans.

 

Hank

[veryseasonedtraveler]

Thank you CC members for posting on this thread. We take numerous trips each year. We just signed up with GeoBlue after reading the testimonials. Only wish we did this sooner.

[DocJohnB]

As a follow-up to the above. The check for the full amount of the claim was in today's mail. That is 5 working days from (completed) submission to receipt of check. I will take that kind of service every time.

I realize this was a relatively small (minor) claim, but I did all they asked and provided all the required documentation and they provided quick service.

[Chrislynn55]

My fears exactly. I spoke with an Allianz rep a few weeks ago about the same situation: Blood pressure mediation, and he confirmed that it might be considered a pre-existing condition, as would my DH's heart medication (aspirin, cholesteral

 

I wish insurance companies would clearly spell out exactly what a pre-existing condition is. For example, DH (mid sixties) takes daily, low dose cholesterol which keeps his cholesterol readings well within the normal range. We are both healthy, fit, active, and have no medical issues. But does taking cholesterol mean that he has a pre-existing cardiac condition?

 

 

When researching annual medical plans and looking at their health questionnaires, none specifically ask about cholesterol. They ask about cardiac issues. No-one on the phone can interpret whether or not DH's cholesterol medication means that he has a pre-existing condition. And if we check the box that says no pre-existing conditions might that mean a claim could be denied, even if he trips and injures himself by falling, or experiences any other non cholesterol related event?

 

We book our annual out-of-country medical emergency plan through our Canadian bank and so far have never needed to claim anything in all of our land trips and cruises, but I always worry about the interpretation of that pre-existing conditions situation.....

[OlsSalt]

I wish insurance companies would clearly spell out exactly what a pre-existing condition is. For example, DH (mid sixties) takes daily, low dose cholesterol which keeps his cholesterol readings well within the normal range. We are both healthy, fit, active, and have no medical issues. But does taking cholesterol mean that he has a pre-existing cardiac condition?

 

 

When researching annual medical plans and looking at their health questionnaires, none specifically ask about cholesterol. They ask about cardiac issues. No-one on the phone can interpret whether or not DH's cholesterol medication means that he has a pre-existing condition. And if we check the box that says no pre-existing conditions might that mean a claim could be denied, even if he trips and injures himself by falling, or experiences any other non cholesterol related event?

 

We book our annual out-of-country medical emergency plan through our Canadian bank and so far have never needed to claim anything in all of our land trips and cruises, but I always worry about the interpretation of that pre-existing conditions situation.....

 

Your research about "cholesterol" is commendable. Makes you wonder if he even needs to be taking this medicine in the first place, since there is such a dearth of viable data about its use or benefit, let alone emerging drawback besides its overwhelming cost drain on health resources. Keep reading, but I'd recommend also adding a big dose of skepticism to your continuing enquiries.

 

Often "studies" don't really say what they are later marketed by the drug companies to say, or are intentionally misleading when they make percentage reduction claims. I have made it a rule to always read any foot-noted study in full first, before taking any advised medication. Your hospital may have a good medical library where you can do this first hand research and it is not hard to get the hang of reading these medical studies once you get past the smoke-screen gibberish.

 

Not intended to be "medical advice" in anyway shape or form, just guidelines for the curious who like to do their own medical research as an "informed consent" patient. But the role of treating "surrogate end points" remains a very disturbing detour in our present medical care delivery system.

 

Cholesterol was arbitrarily called a "risk factor" for heart disease - the validity of that first claim needs to be more fully explored. A "risk factor" is not necessarily an absolute disease marker. Aging is a clear "risk factor". Any cure or pill for that? First layer of skepticism.

 

The validity of any arbitrary optimum number or type of circulating blood fats next also needs to be independently corroborated. Where is the long term research. Where is the long term research on the targets particular age groups. Almost zero studies are even undertaken on those over 70 years for anything, because of too many other confounding co-factors.

 

They are not even long-term monitoring what happens to folks put on these drugs long-term for life. Though there are disturbing reports about some linkage to rates of increased Alzheimer or dementia due to the critical role one's own body cholesterol plays in healthy nerve system transmission. When is artificially lowering one's own body production of cholesterol "too much"? We don't have answers for this critical question.

 

Then delve into whether artificially lowering that arbitrary number with drugs has any correlation to any predicted outcomes, or if the stated outcomes are of any material advantage warranting the use of these artificial drugs in the first place. Are they playing games with percentage reductions that are virtually meaningless in the general population?

 

We have certainly been whip-sawed back and forth about dietary cholesterol to the point of incredulity about any claim that some foods are in fact "heart attacks on a plate". Yet this concept is now embedded in our popular culture. Eggs and butter are bad. Eggs and butter are good. Lobster in the MDR - forgot it, they are doing us a favor taking it away according to some dietary hype.

 

If we are ever going to reduce the costs of health care and drain on Medicare in the US, we all need to become far better medical consumers of what we might need and also what we might want to stay away from. This of course breaks the trust in the doctor patient relationships, but the current medical ethic is "informed consent" so this approach needs to be encouraged rather than seen as an attack on the now discredited medical paternalism ethic of times past - doctor knows best.

 

Tough call. Plus we now have a health care delivery system totally enamored with "metrics" and surrogate end point metrics. Yet no data to support many of those now arbitrary metric demands -- like cholesterol readings.

 

Okay - I vented.

[Stella1250]

I don't know which card you inquired about, but the paperwork with my card specifically includes $100,000 in medical benefits and 1 M in repatriation benefits, as well as a host of other things.

[Hlitner]

I don't know which card you inquired about, but the paperwork with my card specifically includes $100,000 in medical benefits and 1 M in repatriation benefits, as well as a host of other things.

 

Hi Stella,

I specifically inquired about the US issued AMEX Platinum Card. This is the personal Platinum...and not the Business Platinum (I have no clue as to the benefits on this card). I can only post what the AMEX person told me...as well as what I see when I log into my own AMEX Platinum Account. I actually told the AMEX rep about this CC discussion and he suggested I call you (LOL) and inform you that there are no Medical benefits included with the normal Platinum Card (unless you specifically purchase a trip policy). So, if you have a regular card offering those benefits...please tell me where to get it. I also looked at the AMEX web site and under Platinum Card Benefits it only mentions the evacuation benefit (this is probably the same as your "repatriation" but nothing about any medical benefit. The AMEX rep did tell me you can purchase up to $100,000 of medical benefits as part of their trip insurance (which can be purchased for each trip).

 

So please....if you have a card that gives you medical benefits I would appreciate if you could post a link to the web site which spells out these benefits... And there was some humor in my phone discussion with AMEX. I told the rep that if AMEX was covering me...I would give up my annual GeoBlue policy (which gives us $250,000 of medical). The AMEX rep just laughed and said, "don't give up your annual policy." I also asked if there was any talk about resuming sales of their annual travel med insurance (which they used to sell) and he said there are no such plans under discussion.

 

Hank

[SJSULIBRARIAN]

Ols Salt - your vent was wonderful. So many good questions/concerns.

[OlsSalt]

Ols Salt - your vent was wonderful. So many good questions/concerns.

 

Thank you. As a Librarian I can guess you too love digging into the underlying research that supports what we think of as "common knowledge".

 

I just double checked myself about the cholesterol drug-dementia question and found the lurid, very recent headlines that just the opposite has been found. Until -- as I always suggest - one drills down for the source of the headline, and it turns out is was only an "experiment" and not a study that supported the claim cholesterol drugs prevented "risks" for Alzheimers.

 

A double buzz word defense of an emerging and genuine medical concern about these whole sale, long term use poorly studied surrogate endpoint skewing medications. (I can out buzz word the best of them)

 

Who fronts the vast majority of "health articles" today anyway? Hint: someone with money to make and their crack PR communications team.

[Chrislynn55]

Your research about "cholesterol" is commendable. Makes you wonder if he even needs to be taking this medicine in the first place, since there is such a dearth of viable data about its use or benefit, let alone emerging drawback besides its overwhelming cost drain on health resources. Keep reading, but I'd recommend also adding a big dose of skepticism to your continuing enquiries.

 

Often "studies" don't really say what they are later marketed by the drug companies to say, or are intentionally misleading when they make percentage reduction claims. I have made it a rule to always read any foot-noted study in full first, before taking any advised medication. Your hospital may have a good medical library where you can do this first hand research and it is not hard to get the hang of reading these medical studies once you get past the smoke-screen gibberish.

 

Not intended to be "medical advice" in anyway shape or form, just guidelines for the curious who like to do their own medical research as an "informed consent" patient. But the role of treating "surrogate end points" remains a very disturbing detour in our present medical care delivery system.

 

Cholesterol was arbitrarily called a "risk factor" for heart disease - the validity of that first claim needs to be more fully explored. A "risk factor" is not necessarily an absolute disease marker. Aging is a clear "risk factor". Any cure or pill for that? First layer of skepticism.

 

The validity of any arbitrary optimum number or type of circulating blood fats next also needs to be independently corroborated. Where is the long term research. Where is the long term research on the targets particular age groups. Almost zero studies are even undertaken on those over 70 years for anything, because of too many other confounding co-factors.

 

They are not even long-term monitoring what happens to folks put on these drugs long-term for life. Though there are disturbing reports about some linkage to rates of increased Alzheimer or dementia due to the critical role one's own body cholesterol plays in healthy nerve system transmission. When is artificially lowering one's own body production of cholesterol "too much"? We don't have answers for this critical question.

 

Then delve into whether artificially lowering that arbitrary number with drugs has any correlation to any predicted outcomes, or if the stated outcomes are of any material advantage warranting the use of these artificial drugs in the first place. Are they playing games with percentage reductions that are virtually meaningless in the general population?

 

We have certainly been whip-sawed back and forth about dietary cholesterol to the point of incredulity about any claim that some foods are in fact "heart attacks on a plate". Yet this concept is now embedded in our popular culture. Eggs and butter are bad. Eggs and butter are good. Lobster in the MDR - forgot it, they are doing us a favor taking it away according to some dietary hype.

 

If we are ever going to reduce the costs of health care and drain on Medicare in the US, we all need to become far better medical consumers of what we might need and also what we might want to stay away from. This of course breaks the trust in the doctor patient relationships, but the current medical ethic is "informed consent" so this approach needs to be encouraged rather than seen as an attack on the now discredited medical paternalism ethic of times past - doctor knows best.

 

Tough call. Plus we now have a health care delivery system totally enamored with "metrics" and surrogate end point metrics. Yet no data to support many of those now arbitrary metric demands -- like cholesterol readings.

 

Okay - I vented.

 

What a pleasure to read such thorough, well reasoned, and intelligent discourse.

 

 

This is one of the reasons that I enjoy 'hanging out' on the HAL forum even though just one of my thirty-six cruises has been with HAL!

[Hlitner]

Thank you. As a Librarian I can guess you too love digging into the underlying research that supports what we think of as "common knowledge".

 

I just double checked myself about the cholesterol drug-dementia question and found the lurid, very recent headlines that just the opposite has been found. Until -- as I always suggest - one drills down for the source of the headline, and it turns out is was only an "experiment" and not a study that supported the claim cholesterol drugs prevented "risks" for Alzheimers.

 

A double buzz word defense of an emerging and genuine medical concern about these whole sale, long term use poorly studied surrogate endpoint skewing medications. (I can out buzz word the best of them)

 

Who fronts the vast majority of "health articles" today anyway? Hint: someone with money to make and their crack PR communications team.

 

Also enjoying your posts on this thread :). I can still recall being in a meeting (about 15 years ago) at work when the issue of whether high cholesterol is a "condition" or simply a "risk factor." I don't think we could ever come to an agreement on that issue :). Or better yet, at what level would it change from a risk factor to a condition? That is why I enjoyed my career. No two days were the same...and many of our decisions where made on a case by case basis. What is even more maddening are conditions such as hypertension and diabetes. These are clearly pre-existing conditions....but what if you are not even aware you have these conditions. Millions of folks are walking around with both of those conditions and do not have a clue. So, as far as the insurers are concerned, they don't really have those conditions (since they do not know). But once diagnosed....then it becomes a condition (and pre existing condition). So a person who is under good medical care and being treated for hypertension...is likely a good risk. Yet the insurer might screw this person....but have no recourse with the other person who is unaware of their condition. This creates the strange situation where a person who seek proper medical care (and follows medical advice) is penalized by insurers...when compared to a person who totally ignores any medical care. We recently read one European medical policy which actually penalized a person for seeing a physician on an annual (or more frequent basis)....but had no penalty for the person who never went to a physician...even if they were ill. Go figure.

 

Hank

[Tampa Girl]

You are confusing two issues. Your CPP is all about getting back some or all of your trip cost. But the pre-existing condition issue that I am questioning has to do with travel medical policies that will not cover medical expenses related to a pre existing condition. Our "soap box" issue for many years has been about the virtually UNLIMITED liability folks can have for major medical issues when on a trip. It would be bad enough to lose the money you paid for a cruise...which obviously you could afford since you made the decision to pay for a cruise. But imagine being hospitalized somewhere in the world for a stroke...running up $150,000 in medical bills...and then finding your travel medical policy refuses to pay be cause of some fine print in the pre-exisiting condition definitions.

 

Hank

 

No, I am not confusing the two. We don't need medical coverage because our present medical insurance covers us outside the U.S. Therefore, we prefer to spend our money on a cancellation policy and evacuation policy.

[OlsSalt]

What a pleasure to read such thorough, well reasoned, and intelligent discourse.

 

 

This is one of the reasons that I enjoy 'hanging out' on the HAL forum even though just one of my thirty-six cruises has been with HAL!

 

Thank you. I spent 20 years serving on our local hospital bio-ethics committees. We were tasked with both asking and trying to find answers to the many difficult questions our health care delivery system faces today. Starting way back when the biggest controversy was the "right to die" question and could a doctor be charged with homicide if he "pulled the plug".

 

Now the leading question is futility of treatment - when it too much treatment in fact too much, no matter who is asking or even paying for it. There were never easy answers, because that was the nature of this committee- where we were the ones charged with grappling with the many conflicting "ethics", yet decisions still needed to be made. It was humbling.

 

The best we could do sometimes is deep explore the competing issues and more often than not, time alone ultimately made its final decision. Allowing for the "hand of God", which used to be the guiding medical ethic before we became such mechanical interventionists - blessing or curse? Verdict still out.

 

Meanwhile may all our lives have nothing but fair seas and following winds. And we slip out in a pine box doing what we love to do most.