There seems to be a misconception regarding how insurance companies evaluate risk. The key aspect insurers assess is the stability of the condition, including what treatment has been applied (e.g., stents), how long ago treatment occurred, and whether there has been any recurrence. The aim is to understand the current status and ongoing risk associated with the condition. For example, the timing of the stent placement (whether it was several years ago or more recent) and its success in managing the condition are crucial factors.
Insurers do not automatically apply a premium loading just because a treatment like a stent insertion has occurred. Other factors, such as the destination of travel (e.g., the US versus Europe), can influence the cost of the premium more significantly. It’s important not to assume that each question regarding past treatments automatically leads to higher premiums. In fact, there have been instances where premiums were notably low for individuals whose AD had been successfully treated, indicating effective risk management from the insurer’s perspective. Additionally, insurers might inquire about related issues like blood pressure medication to comprehensively assess health status, but this does not necessarily mean an increase in premium. It’s crucial to differentiate between the insurers’ need to understand the medical history and the assumption that this will lead to higher costs.