Nice commentary. I agree it's pretty pedantic to look at hours rather than nights. And I have had claims where hours rather than nights have been used to determine payment of this benefit. My experience with this has been mixed, with some insurers considering discharge and readmission to be the same admission paying a contiguous claim. With others being a bit pedantic. Given my knowledge and history with product changes, I can only conclude that someone has complained about the definition(s) which have driven changes tightening the response. End of the day the insurers are under pressure with claims, and we have seen this benefit removed with Southern Cross and moved into an optional area with Partners Life. So it's no longer a given there will be a response from policies for this either.

That seems an awfully long-winded way to say FirstCape will be adopting its newly acquired Consilium FNZ platform. The’ve done the heavy lifting so why not acknowledge that. Or are they really going to start from scratch?

@Amused – I wouldn’t feel too bad about the use your comment was put to. And the fact Stobo wasn’t on the Indi board at the time of his resignation doesn’t make the conflict less problematic. I have no view on whether Stobo fell victim to a “witch hunt". I’m not sure that Barrass’ view represents a change, on her part, of how she viewed the Indi conflict. It is possible (as I am suggesting) that the FMA never had a proper view of the conflict in the first place. Liam Mason’s initial assessment that the conflict was unremarkable was flawed, in my opinion. "Good and effective management of conflicts of interest is particularly important for a Crown regulator. If conflicts are not recognised, acknowledged and managed appropriately, they can quickly undermine the integrity of officials, the organisation’s decisions, and public and business confidence in the integrity of the organisation." (Kirsty P McDonald ONZM QC, 2022) The identification and management of the Stobo/Indi conflict needs to be understood in the context of shortcomings identified in the report (cited above) following a 2022 independent review into the FMA’s management of the Rob Everett/Booster COI. There’s a theme emerging. I wonder what the Stobo/Indi Conflict Mitigation Record shows (if anything). There’s nothing in Aldred KC’s report that would suggest this was provided to her. Liam Mason emailed Stobo on 12th July 2025, expressing concern that Indi was using Stobo as a marketing prop. This suggests mitigation strategies were not put in place for this entirely foreseeable risk back at the time the conflict was first disclosed.