Insurance

Fidelity: Deal good for advisers

Tuesday 25th of February 2014

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 (2)
Steve Wright
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.
0 0
10 years ago

Steve Wright
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???
0 0
10 years ago

Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.