Two years ago my medical insurance for my trip to USA for six weeks cost me $700 as I was over 70. Fortunately,I never needed any treatment but I will not be going that way again. A nice holiday in NZ will do me and the $700 will go a good way on expenses.

My advice is shop around. Don't just take the one the travel agent offers, but do listen their advice before making up your mind. Ib 2005 we did an around the world trip stopping in USA, London, and Ireland before returning by freighter (container-ship) 41 days at sea with stops en-route, and 62 days travel over all. Cost through Tower was $863.00 for two people plus $35.00 to cover pre existing conditions (I've had a heart attack and ulcer) which we thought reasonable when you take the cost of treatment in the USA into account. We had full world cover.

Has anyone else had problems with Auckland Nurses and the Medical Hotline for pre-existing conditions ? Here's our story:-
In 2005 we used SIS travel insurance and they referred us to the medical hotline to get cover for my husband's pre-existing condition. He has a stable brain injury for which he takes medication.
In May this year a month before travelling I rang SIS to arrange the same type of insurance, but they no longer do travel insurance, they suggested Vero, so I got in touch with them. No problem with the regular part and with my husband's condition being unchanged I thought the medical hotline would also go through ok. NO WAY ! Despite supplying a copy of their 2005 acceptance and letters from both our GP and the specialist, they declined to give him cover, and would not say why. I found them very slow and difficult to deal with, and am wondering how we can get cover for his pre-existing condition if we want to travel again. We haven't needed to make any claims, but like all insurance it would be reassuring to have. Are there any alternative companies insuring pre-existing conditions?

Last time I travelled overseas was an extended trip right around the world over a period of 62 days. We used Tower and I really couldn't say whether they use the same hot line as the phone number was different to the hotline number was different to that of another company we got a quote from. Anyway I have a pre-existing heart problem that I could not cover for 6 or 7 years ago, they covered me no problem at a cost of $35.00 over the Tower price. My suggestion is shop around before you decide. Ask your travel agent but price around before committing yourself.

Jenny
Try State Insurance or Southern Cross, they are both excellent.
My Husband has a pre exisiting condition (Heart problems) and he had no problems getting cover and it didn't cost the earth.
Good luck.

Whilst in Australia I questioned their officer at Social Welfare about what a Kiwi should do if they were ill whilst on holiday. She said DO NOT go to a doctor but to the nearest hospital where you will be treated free. We have a reciprocal agreement with them.

Re Travel/Health Insurance
Check with your Bank what your credit card entitles you to Insurance wise as some credit cards offer Insurance at no charge if you pay at least half of your travel expenses by credit card.
Its quite a saving, any pre medical condtions have to be reported to the Insurance Company involved but that is normally only a charge of around $35.00.
The Insurance that we have via our credit card is as extensive as any you will find, as soon as you pay your airfares etc your covered without having to pay for a policy.
I admit that our yearly fees for the credit card are dearer than most, but if you travel alot as we do because of close family living overseas, then the extra bank card fee is small compared to the cost of travel/medical insurance for myself and hubby.

My experience with Southern Cross on this has been ]very very bad. We have carried their working overseas insurance for several years without a claim until now. We took this out because we were aware of Southern Cross in New Zealand and had had normal medical insurance cover with them (without claim) for many years, and we thought they would be a good company to insure with when you are working overseas.
While we are for the present working overseas, mostly in the USA, we were in New Zealand recently when I renewed the annual contract prior to departing overseas again. We then traveled to the UK via the USA and my wife came down with pain and bleeding while in London. We returned to the US and sought medical advice, and it transpired that she needed an urgent radical hysterectomy due to the presence of cancer, and the surgeon involved gave a written report to this effect. We forwarded this to Southern Cross. The report also said that she was unable to travel. She was bleeding and had dangerously high blood pressure, so much so that they expressed a concern as to whether she could even undergo surgery.
Southern Cross would not approve the surgery, and tried to pretend that this was a "pre existing" condition, in spite of detailed and comprehensive evidence to the contrary. They were attempting to rely on a minor one word typo in a document prepared by a resident working for the surgeon. This was subsequently corrected by the resident concerned and copied to SC. The resident is also prepared to give an affidavit verifying the corrected typo.
Southern Cross made an offer of cabin class air travel to NZ and offered to pay for a CT scan, but said that my wife had to go through the public health system, with its waiting lists in NZ for surgery- in other words they were not even going to cover her in NZ ! They claimed to have advice (from someone who has never examined my wife) which said she could travel, but have not given that to me. Not being a medical doctor and not knowing what to do I sought independent medical advice on this from an Associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Medical School. This confirmed the original surgeon's advice that she was unable to travel, and this was given to Southern Cross.
Southern Cross still refused to cover the surgery, so I managed to make arrangements for it to be done anyway (it was after all an urgent matter). It is very expensive in my terms, probably about USD 55,000 !. Not only that but I have had to involve a barrister in NZ to try and get SC to honour their contract. Fortunately the surgery seems to have been successful, but there was spread of the cancer into the muscle and we will not know for a while if it is all OK. It is however obvious from the results of the surgery that any travel and delays such as SC were proposing could have been fatal.
The latest thing is that SC have again denied the claim, still on the spurious grounds of so called "pre existing condition", about which they must know they are flat out lying, and now they are also wanting evidence that we "at the time of renewal, currently resided in and that we intend to return to NZ on the completion of our travel". Fortunately we happened to be in NZ at the time of renewal. However I note that in the fine print you are in any event supposed to be allowed to enter into these policies when you are still overseas anyway, and you are also supposed to be covered while you are in NZ for short periods of time. So this too would just seem to be garbage.
So you can see that SC are trying any and all ploys to avoid honouring the contract. You can readily imagine that when your wife has cancer, your main interest is in having it dealt with forthwith, and the last thing you need is to be having to hassle with some insurance company.
It looks like SC are just making a practice of initially disallowing any claims from what I am hearing from others, which of course makes these very expensive policies effectively worthless. Obviously anyone can easily get an airfare back to NZ (if you don't already have return tickets), for much less money than the cost of this policy, so having these policies seems pointless. This would seem to be especially true if you are in the UK as there is a requirement in the fine print that you deal with the issue via the National Health. You have that right anyway due to the reciprocal agreement between the UK and NZ, so in effect SC are not offering anything.
Many years ago while traveling overseas on business I was insured by Comprehensive Travel Insurance and I suffered a serious accident which required 10 hours of surgery, a week in hospital and several months of recuperation. In contrast with SC, Comprehensive Travel could not have been more helpful. They covered all the costs without question and I believe the amount was around USD 250,000 all up.
I am wondering if SC has treated others in this manner ? If so I think this ought to be made public, as there is not much point in having a "Claytons" insurance policy.
John Fleming

I have created a forum where people can report their experiences with Southern Cross:
southerncrosssucks.com

Insurance shock to cancer patients
5:00AM Monday Oct 31, 2005
By Rebecca Walsh
Many cancer patients are facing an extra shock when they discover their health insurance goes nowhere near paying the full cost of private chemotherapy treatment.

About one in three New Zealanders are affected by cancer and doctors say some people with health insurance assume their policy will cover the cost of private chemotherapy, which can range from $5000 to $150,000.

Southern Cross, the country's biggest health insurer, provides $1300 towards chemotherapy treatment a year - and says it does not provide comprehensive cover for chemotherapy as it has traditionally been publicly funded.

Other companies have policies which provide up to $250,000 towards private chemotherapy treatment.

Doctors, the Consumers Institute and the Auckland Cancer Society are warning people to check what their policy offers and to ask questions first.

Dr Vernon Harvey, a medical oncologist who works in both the private and public system, said the cover offered by Southern Cross was "completely pathetic".

While some people only needed one course of treatment, those with recurring cancer might go through half a dozen courses of treatment over two to three years.

Patients with Southern Cross were often distressed to discover their policy did not cover more than $1300 worth of treatment.

"An awful lot of people go terribly pale when they discover what Southern Cross covers them for. At a time when you are more than a little bit devastated because you have discovered you have cancer and you need chemotherapy, that's the last thing you need on top."

Dr Harvey said he raised the issue with Southern Cross and while the policy was not dishonest it "ran very close to the wind".

"Why do they offer $1300 if they know chemotherapy costs $20,000? That's not reasonable. You wouldn't insure your car for $5000 if you knew it was going to cost you $100,000 to replace it, would you?"

Dr Harvey said some of the expensive chemotherapy drugs were available in the public system, but under "very, very defined criteria".

Another medical oncologist, Dr Paul Thompson, who also works in the public and private sector, said although the policy was spelt out in "black and white" many people did not study it closely.

" It's a little bit iniquitous because people don't know about the costs of treatment, although most people would realise $1000 isn't going to go anywhere with any prolonged treatment. Cancer drugs are exceedingly expensive."

Southern Cross Group chief executive Dr Ian McPherson said it did not pretend to provide a comprehensive cancer treatment service as chemotherapy was traditionally provided by the public system and expected by all New Zealanders.

Dr McPherson said the issue was topical and worldwide premiums were increasing because of the cost of chemotherapy. Average premiums could be driven up by as much as $200 a year if Southern Cross were to provide comprehensive funding.

"I would welcome a debate about it. I think it's irresponsible of them [other companies] to pass on to their customers something traditionally funded by the taxpayer."

Dr McPherson said the Government needed to re-issue a clear statement about what treatments were funded publicly to avoid any opportunity for scaremongering.

The Herald highlighted problems with chemotherapy waiting lists at Auckland City Hospital in August 2003 and again last February - some patients were waiting six to 10 weeks for treatment.

A hospital spokeswoman said people were now waiting two weeks from the time they saw a specialist to when they started treatment.

Insurance companies Sovereign and Tower pay for drugs on Pharmac's Schedule (drugs the Government has agreed to buy for public patients) and said the key for private patients was avoiding waiting lists.

Sovereign Insurance corporate affairs manager David Drillien said it would pay a maximum of $250,000 a year per person, but no one claimed that much. Claims for chemotherapy came in daily and a common amount paid out was about $40,000.

Grant Hill, head of health and life products at Tower, said people could claim up to $60,000 a year.

Policy payouts

* Southern Cross provides $1300 a year towards chemotherapy treatment.

* Other companies provide up to $250,000 towards private chemotherapy treatment.

You sure are not getting a fair deal. We were covered by SC for NZ some years ago and quickly became disillusioned with them with just the normal run of the mill Dr's visits etc and dropped them. In contrast, at a latter date my wife had coverage through her employer, and at a small cost it covered me as well, with "Unimed" and the difference was phenomenal.

My suggestion (If you don't mind the publicity that is) to put the whole thing into the hands of the "Fair GO" TV program as they have had some real "dust ups" with SC Insurance over the years and also SC have been heavily advertising their travel insurance lately and others will get sucked in.

I hope you wife's health improves!!!!!

ive got unimed insurance and had no problems with them for my operations, i make them aware its happening and they pay the bill.