Fidelity: Deal good for advisers

Fidelity Life and nib are partnering to offer advisers the ability to cross-sell and bundle their life and health products to clients.

The partnership was announced today but Fidelity Life chief executive Milton Jennings said it was something his company had been working on for some time.

“Advisers have been saying they don’t give us life business because we don’t have health.”

It is the first time two major players in the industry have combined forces in this way.

Jennings said Fidelity did not want to get into health insurance itself but if it linked up with a health insurer, it would be able to provide something that was good for advisers.

He said Fidelity had spoken to a number of health insurers to see if it could find a provider that would complement its life business.

Advisers can submit a life and health insurance application as one application for two policies. “From an adviser’s point of view, the more products you have with a client, they more loyal they’ll be,” Jennings said.

“If you can offer a solution and make it nice and simple and quick, advisers will go with it.”

nib has made its name recently offering “everyday” policies but also has a range of adviser-only products, Ultimate Health and Ultimate Health Max.

Chief executive Rob Hennin said the move was a win for consumers and gave advisers an unprecedented array of options.

Comments from our readers

On 25 February 2014 at 3:35 pm Youngadviser said:

Another great Move by The Fidelity team, the only company around that seems to be moving ahead with time and technology. It's hard to believe in this day and age.

On 26 February 2014 at 9:09 am Wiseradviser said:

Yes but a good deal for clients is what matters. Can anyone explain the advice proposition for NIB's proactive option? It refunds 80% of screening costs to a max of $750 per year. But the option costs $515 per year in premiums. This means clients must spend around $725 to get a $750 benefit - EVERY YEAR! Pity a colonoscopy costs more like $1,500.

On 26 February 2014 at 12:04 pm billy the broker said:

@ youngadviser dont get to excited son, Milton and his boys aren't doing it for love, it's their profit margins and new biz premium they want and by the sound of it they have you sucked right in.

To be be honest these dollar swap type policies only cater to a kind of market where a doctors bill is a hefty cost. Those are the type of clients that I don't want. So yougadviser it's all your for the taking, good luck with your monthly unpaids report.

On 26 February 2014 at 2:17 pm Youngadviser said:

A colonoscopy would be coverd in the base cover under the major diagnostics benefit anyhow, the proactive add on is more appropriate for things like mole maps or breast screens. And is an optional add on.

On 26 February 2014 at 6:07 pm Wiseradviser said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a colonoscopy would only be covered under the base plan if it was medically necessary, ie. there are signs and symptoms that need investigating. The proactive add-on is meant to cover costs of preventative screening in the absence of any signs or symptoms but because of increased risk due to, for example, family history and it specifically includes bowel screening by the way. Again I ask, why would anyone add it on when it costs $42.90 per month ($514.80 per annum) and the benefit is only 80% of cost to a max of $750 per annum? Clients have to spend close to $750 every year (premium and 20% of cost not covered) just to get back $750. They are unlikely to have a screening test every year, the cost doesn't stack up. The only possibly sensible approach is to wait out the 6 month stand-down, immediately have a screening test and claim and then cancel the option! how is this sensible? What am I missing???

On 27 February 2014 at 8:45 am Oldadviser said:

A 5 yearly routine colonoscopy due to a family history of bowel cancer would not be covered under the major diagnostics benefit...

On 27 February 2014 at 7:11 pm Observer said:

Sorry Oldaviser. Section 1.2.f under exclusions in the base policy wordings specifically excludes screening procedures unless they are 6 months either side of a procedure.

On 20 March 2014 at 4:43 pm powershift said:

What would be good for us advisers is a white application that you can then issue to all companies you want to place your client with and see who comes back with the best underwriting.

On 21 March 2014 at 8:43 am Observer said:

@powershift – If an underwriter comes back to you with standard rates (because there is a pre-existing exclusion clause) do you place the business with them as the have the best terms even though your client has no idea what they are able to claim for until claim time? Even worse, does standard rates do away with the fact that without guaranteed wordings, your client again does not know until time of claim what they can actually claim.

The reality if there has been cases where insurers have changed medical policies on existing clients. Does best terms mean your client does not have access to the full range of treatment not funded publicly? And let’s not forget the latest round of media over breast reconstruction.

Let’s also not lose sight of the fact that as advisers, we are required to provide solutions that meet the needs of the client. I would have thought that if you sent an application to Sth X, AIA, Sovereign, Partners Life, Accuro, UniMed, OnePath, Nib, then you will be well versed in all the differences in the products to be able to explain your advice.

Fidelity: Deal good for advisers

A new partnership deal between two major insurers will allow advisers to bundle health and life insurance policies from each into one application.

Tuesday, February 25th 2014, 1:47PM 9 Comments

Comments from our readers

www.GoodReturns.co.nz