If this data was collected by vets instead of pet insurance company would we see different reasons? Would we be seeing abuse appear anywhere on this list (or would they be hidden on the list anyway, classified under different categories, like being struck by an object?) I don't know for sure, but I would guess that people who buy pet insurance make up a specific demographic and the full range of different types of pet owners aren't represented in that small group.

I love the idea of pet insurance and I'm glad it's out there as an option, but unless there are family plans available (which I'm not aware of) it's just completely out of reach for me. At around $20/month for most basic plans, and soon to be caring for 8 (or more) cats, I'd much rather just put $160 into a savings account ever month to cover emergencies and vet care. It's been a rare year (maybe never?) that we've had more than $2000 worth of illness or injury care, and most years far, far less than that.

Anlina Sheng - abnormalloveofcats.com May 28th, 2009 09:59:10 AM

Most pet insurance companies do offer discounts for multiple pets.

However if you can save the money then that might be a better option. My problem is that I know I wouldn't keep my paws off it, at least at the moment, something would come up, my regular emergency fund would be drained by an emergency and then I'd have another emergency.

Pet insurance it is for me depsite the insecurity of questioning whether they will pay out if anything were to happen.

Sheyna May 28th, 2009 11:52:30 AM

@Anlina: I suspect you would see a difference. I can tell you that out of all the claims we've paid I've yet to see one for cruelty, at least as far as we've been able to tell. You hit the nail on the head when you said that the sort of person that abuses is unlikely to be the sort buying pet ins!

@Sheyna: For us mere mortals pet insurance can represent the difference between being able to afford emergencies, specialist care, or chronic conditions, and the E word that shall not be mentioned. We get calls from pet parents who decide to put what they would pay in premiums each month, say $30 or so, into a savings account. For some folks this works out but God forbid something nasty happens. As I like to say, your pet isn't going to wait until you've got enough saved up!

Alex from Embrace May 28th, 2009 12:12:23 PM

again the pet insurance. Since their restrictions outweight their benefits for me, they are not an option. And if I saved what I would pay for my mulit multi pets, I'd have quite the nest egg.

They need a better plan for people with more than 2 pets and those with breeds that are predetermined to exclude certain injuries.

The stats are useless IMHO unless they prevent even one person from letting their cat /dog out loose or loose in the car, back of a truck and any other idiotic unsupervised position.

In 25+ years of adult pet ownership, we had one broken leg on a kitten that was stepped on., thank goodness no other bones have ever been broken.

LorriM May 28th, 2009 12:45:37 PM

@Lorri: Since their restrictions outweigh their benefits... - can you be more specific? They need a better plan for [...] those with breeds that are predetermined to exclude certain injuries. Again, can you be more specific?

Alex from Embrace May 28th, 2009 04:37:31 PM

I can answer for Lorri -- most policies now exclude conditions like luxating patellas, cruciate ligament tears, juvenile cataracts -- a few examples of conditions common to specific groups of dog breeds. Another "trick" provision which renders the policy nearly useless is the "preexisting condition" clause. It's not like a human preexisting condition, where after a period of time the condition is covered, or where if the condition arose after the policy is in force, it IS covered. Instead, depending on the policy, a course of treatment might render the next flare-up of the condition a "pre-existing condition," or the existence of the condition in the previous policy year (during which the pet was covered) makes the condition excludable for the following year (or forever). So if my dog has chronic allergies, my policy may cover getting him diagnosed and his initial course of treatment...but that's it. How useful.

SusanR May 28th, 2009 06:21:34 PM

But Dr. K, if they tell you that, you'll be able to tell how much profit and overhead they make and that's a "trade secret" :)

Thanks for the giggle.

PJBoosinger May 28th, 2009 06:35:46 PM

Hi Dr. K,

VPI's reimbursement amounts are no secret. Our benefit schedules are accesible at: http://www.petinsurance.com/How-VPI-Works/Benefit-Schedules.aspx

Reimbursement differs according to the plan purchased (Standard or Superior), but based on the Superior Plan benefit schedule, the maximum reimbursement for the initial treatment of a broken leg requiring an orthopedic plate (fracture claim referenced above with average submitted fee of $1,500) is around $1,600, and the maximum reimbursement for the initial treatment of pelvis or vertebrae breaks requiring an orthopedic plate (fracture claim referenced above with average submitted fee of $2,600) is around $2,500. As you know, some claims will run less than these amounts, and some will be greater, depending on the geographical area and the extent of treatment required.

Grant at VPI May 28th, 2009 08:01:16 PM

@SusanR: Define "most policies". If by most you mean VPI, Pets Best, ASPCA, then you are correct, there is little to no coverage for genetic or hereditary conditions. If however by "most policies" you mean Embrace, Petplan, Trupanion, or Purina then you need to investigate these plans as they all cover hereditary and congenital conditions.

Also, the pre-existing condition "trick" you mention only applies to one plan on the market, the ASPCA's, and recently they've taken steps to rectify this with their continuing care endorsement. All the other pet insurance plans as far as I am aware ALL cover chronic & recurring conditions.

However the allergy example you raise does bring up the very real issue of per-incident limits. Many (not all) plans have these and they can cap payouts at levels that, in my opinion, are too low especially when you consider chronic conditions or emergency/specialist care.

I urge anyone here who has looked at pet insurance in the past to call around with your coverage questions. Much has changed.

Alex from Embrace May 28th, 2009 09:06:49 PM

Have a new account set up and have your work put part of your pay into that account each time you are paid. You are less likely to miss it, and less likely to spend it, because its not with your other money, and you don't have to discipline yourself to put money into it.

If not for pet emergencies, you can use it for christmas time, or for other times you need cash in a hurry for something important.

Also its a method of enforced saving, and in this climate we need to do that more imho. ymmv. Some banks will give you extra credit if you don't withdraw regularly too - might actually grow while its there apart from what you add.

In Australia at least, pet insurance companies go broke in double quick time, and are not around long enough for anyone to collect on their contributions.

The stats on broken imho are for fun more than anything else - cannot be a true picture because they do not include all pets in all circumstances - not even all vet visits (eg percentage of broken bones as against other injuries or diseases, broken down (excuse the pun) by type of break, location of break, age of patient, etc.

Robin May 29th, 2009 01:39:24 AM

Sorry Alex, but right on your own web page is reason #2 for me...

http://www.embracepetinsurance.com/Content/Compare/OurPolicy/embrace-pre-existing-guidelines.aspx

reason #1....COST....standard default coverage quote$5000.00 max benefit, $200.00 decductible) for my 4 dogs alone....not adding any of my cats.

Your Monthly Payment $110.15, that is over $1300.00 a year. IF I saved that every month I would have a substancial nest egg for any emergency that arose with my dogs. It is simply not cost effective for people with multiple pets.

if I had one dog maybe. But the multipet discount is really almost none existance and certainly I get more of a discount from my vet, which I might add he might not be inclined to give me if I was using pet insurance.

you're going to have to work a lot harder to get any of my pet funds....

LorriM May 29th, 2009 02:00:17 AM

LorriM: Most vets don't give discounts, though (esp. specialists and emergency vets). And most people won't save enough to cover HUGE stuff. When you consider the high cost of the major problems, pet insurance makes sense.

Again, my personal take on pet insurance is that it's for peace of mind...for catastrophic stuff. If you look into the high-deductible (catastrophic) plans you'll see that they make far more economic sense--especially for people who are unlikely to deplete their savings for one pet's brain tumor treatment or major HBC when the others suffer from chronic stuff they need their pet savings for.

IMO, the best bet is to use both methods: pet insurance for major catastrophies and your savings for your basics and ongoing chronic pet care. With the way veterinary medicine is going (a greater ability to treat major diseases through specialty work), I think this is going to make pet insurance of this sort invaluable--even to people like you. 

Dr. Patty Khuly May 29th, 2009 08:10:14 AM

Grant: Thank you for that. It does worry me that some specialists charge significantly more than that, depending on the kind of break. For a deeply comminuted fracture that requires multiple surgeries, how would you deal with it? Would it be one flat, maximum reimbursement based on the necessity of a plate and the kind of bone broken? Or would it differ according to the need for continued care? I'm happy to entertain answers from any pet insurance provider who wants to answer. 

btw, my intent wasn't to disparage pet insurance providers, just to point out that most people don't get how pet insurance works and that, in the end, whether a plan will "take care of them" in the end seems to be a big factor for most US pet owners. In the US, we seem to have a deep mistrust of insurance companies (not so much in the UK where 30% of pet owners are happy with their pet health insurance coverage).

I would like to help change that, sorry if my blogger's snark undermined that goal. It definitely takes an open dialogue to change hearts and minds. Thanks for participating. It helps. 

Dr. Patty Khuly May 29th, 2009 08:19:48 AM

@Anlina Sheng

Do you really own more than 8 cats?

As far as pet insurance goes it's a great idea, however way too expensive for me.  If you're someone living paycheck to paycheck it is going to be very difficult to do much for your pets anyways in the way of providing good food and other care products.  But VPI and others would not be doing this if there wasn't a profit.  Which means that it has to be costing you more money than if you could just save $30 a month in a "jus in case" fund.  They do have family plans for more than one pet but the discount is not much, as well for you USA people you're probably already paying for healthcare coverage every month, so add another $100+ a month for your multiple pets and it starts really add up.  My biggest issue with pet insurance is that there are too many different plans.  The first plan is not worth it at all, the second and third are barely worth it, and then the most expensive plan is what the coverage should be, however it is $80 a month.

Chuck May 29th, 2009 09:38:37 AM

@Chuck: Pet insurance companies in the US are returning around 60c of every premium dollar in the way of claim payouts. This is actually higher than auto insurance in the US. By way of your comment that VPI and others wouldn't be doing this if there wasn't a profit, what exactly is wrong with them making money? Coca Cola makes a profit, your doctor's office makes a profit, the company that makes breakfast cereal makes a profit. What is so wrong with an insurance company making money?

If you save $30/month of your own money then clearly this is all available for your use, immediately, without paying a middleman. However if you don't have enough saved up then you're going to have to either take out credit, choose a lower cost treatment, or euthanize. Credit can be more expensive than insurance if you can't pay down the principal, lower-cost treatments may not solve the underlying problem, and euthanasia is just horrible.

Alex from Embrace May 29th, 2009 10:04:08 AM

Patty:

it only makes sense with multi pets if you are going to only insure a few of them ...say in my case just the dogs. So how do you choose? it is easier to save the money then try and figure out who will get sick and who won't...

I agree that euthanisia because you can't afford to do something is a lousy option. And not one I'd choose, but the only benefit I see from the pet insurance is that someone else is taking your money and only giving it to you if you need it. SO it might be good for that few pet owner who doesn't have the self control to save the money themselves.

LorriM May 29th, 2009 11:43:35 AM

"returning around 60c of every premium dollar in the way of claim payouts"  That is the reason why, over the long term, one is better off with savings rather than insurance.  Straight up savings of 40%.

"For me, I would prefer a plan with no benefit for routine care, a high deductible - $1,000 to $2,500 and a substantial annual maximum."  I'd prefer a deductible of $5,000 but, it there are any policies like this out there with REASONABLE premiums, I'd like to know about them.  I disapprove of insurance for regular care but like it for catastrophic care.  However, these types of policies are difficult to get in the US for animals or humans at reasonable premium rates.

We distrust insurance in the US more than they do in the UK and for very good reasons.  The UK does a better job of regulating insurance and keeping their profit and overhead margins down unlike in the US where the companies are profit greedy.  40% for overhead and profit?  That's obscene!

PJBoosinger May 29th, 2009 10:13:04 PM

I'm sorry to say I inadvertently deleted one comment before I had a chance to read it (I was trying to get rid of all the spamming idiots and hit the wrong comment above the spam). Re-post, pls. And so sorry!!

Sadly, I think pet medicine will have to get somewhat more expensive before we'll see a huge up-tick in pet health insurance adoption. Along the same lines...I also find it interesting that equine insurance is so commonly adopted and yet the dog and cat version is still below a 5% adoption rate. The biggest difference? Horses are more expensive and their diseases are more expensive to treat. The 'property value' issue makes it easier for those who own them to invest in a financial product that helps mitigate the risk. 

Dr. Patty Khuly May 30th, 2009 07:48:17 AM

@Chuck

At the moment I have three cats. My mother has three we will be getting a house together soon. And because we will be moving to rural property & will have lots of space, we will be adopting at least two more cats who are long-term shelter residents who really need to get out of there and who don't appeal to most adopters. So very soon, we will have at least 8 cats, if not more. :)

Anlina Sheng - abnormalloveofcats.com May 30th, 2009 10:34:23 PM

Hi Dr. K,

We definitely understand the added expense of treatment from a specialist. VPI's plans are designed with additional specialist benefits, so for a complicated break requiring care from a specialist, the benefits for that diagnosis code essentially "reset" and a second set of allowance amounts is provided with no deductible. If multiple surgeries are required, those surgeries (as many as are needed) are reimbursed according to the secondary diagnosis benefit allowance (column E on the benefit schedule).

Though it's not common, it is possible that reimbursement for a severe fracture could reach our $4,500 per-incident maximum reimbursement.

Grant at VPI June 1st, 2009 11:40:05 AM