Term Life Qualifications

Is there any leeway in term life status qualifications? I received a preferred rate of $383.28 For 200K of term life. Everything was fine except my cholesterol ration is not where they want it. My total cholesterol is 217 which is in the acceptable range but my ratio is 5.9 which is out of their range.
Dropping me down to the next status raises the rate by 26%. I find this unacceptable and will probably not get the insurance. I was just wondering if the insurance companies ever wave any of their guidelines.
I already have 2 other term policies in force and I am comfortable with the amount of coverage they provide. This was just extra…well you know, insurance.

jims,

I use dozens of companies based on personal fit. I also have my favorites for cholesterol. There isn't one of them that offer a 217 with 5.9 their best rating. Most have 5.0 as their best rating WITH a 210 or less to accompany it.

Second tier cholesterol ratings begin at 6.0, so you barely made that one! Just so you can have an objective viewpoint, your particular cholesterol level is quite high and the ratio is comparably higher than I usually see.

Most applicants at those levels would be issued a third-tier policy, although if I feel that the underwriters are "playing it safe", I can challenge them based on their own underwriting guidelines. However, in this case I wouldn't have a leg to stand on because you were made an offer comforming to written guidelines.

You can take the policy "just in case" the condition worsens. If it improves, most compnaies will let you retry a bloodtest every year to get your rating upgraded (you can never go down). If you have the cholesterol under control and retest for a better rating, your policy will be priced at the original rate and age you were seeking.

Try not to get angry about the offer, it's not personal and it's also reasonable. Noone wants to feel that their health has gone from first to second tier, but it is a fact of life for most everyone on the planet. For perspective, cholesterol and hypertension are the number one reasons that people miss the coveted "Best" rating, with body build (height/weight) a close second. For some real life comparison, I've had people test high on their PSA and subsequently find that they have prostate cancer. They were expecting a best rating too.

BTW, a "Preferred" rating is just that...preferred.

Good Morning Price,
First, thank you for taking the time to respond. I really value your insight. I still lurk here a good bit but haven’t posted much lately. Seems like the amount of meaningful discussions have dwindled since the market meltdown.
The reason I was looking to add additional term was to cover market losses in my portfolio. I am not as “self” insured as I was 18 months ago. The original offer was borderline acceptable to me, if the original offer had been what is on the table now I would not have even started the process. So the question I posse to myself is do I take the offer because I have already taken the time to go through all the qualifying steps or do I pass because it was not the offer I wanted. I am not angry at the rating. I am not leaning towards rejection do to emotion but rather trying to ensure I do not accept out of emotion.
The company is ING. The cholesterol ratio dropped me to the 3rd rating not the 2nd. I take Lisinopril for hypertension which had already knocked my off the first tier. BP was 116/60 on the exam. From a health standpoint my weight is where it should be and my family already eats very well. The only way to alter the cholesterol would be a vigorous exercise program, which honestly is not likely. Would taking medication for the cholesterol fix my problem (insurance wise) or would the fact that I am taking a medication for it still drop me down a level?
You bring up a great point about grabbing that rate while I can in case things do get worse. I need to chew on the cost versus the benefit for a little longer. I have had a 20 year term policy in place with Genworth for 6 years now. Is it possible just to add to that plan? Or would I have to go through the same qualifying procedure with them? I did not consider them this time because I was trying to hedge my bets by spreading my coverage with different companies.

Jims,


These are INGs guidelines for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd tier:

1: Cholesterol/HDL ratio: Max 220 ratio not >5.0 or Max 240 not >4.5.

2: Cholesterol/HDL ratio: Max 240 ratio not >5.5 or Max 260 not >5.0

3: Cholesterol/HDL ratio: Max 250 ratio not >6.5 or Max 270 not >6.0

These guidelines are for treated OR non-treated. In other words, the medication regiment itself doesn't matter. In fact, with some statis drugs that are taken over a period of over 1 year and provide a stable history of cholesterol recordings will help your chances of a better rating and should not preclude you from the top tier pricing.

Modifying your Genworth policy would require full underwriting and they will have to price the entire policy with the new rating, thus putting your "best" rating at risk should you decide to go that way.

One way to perhaps achieve your goal and lock in some insurability would be to decrease your term period to the next lower term policy (20YT to 15YT). This may be the compromise you are looking for and it can be done via your broker without any new underwriting PRIOR to you accepting the policy should decide to move ahead. I am saying this because you are primarily insuring your portfolio, so it may be quite reasonable to assume that much of the recovery will have occurred by the 10th or 15th year.

Should you decide to underwrite with someone else, I might recommend Prudential. They are a go-to for cholesterol and have a second tier guideline of cholesterol under 250, HDL <6.0, treated or untreated. However, you would have to get their pricing for your age at Preferred Non-Tobacco to see if you would save any money in the first place. Your broker should be able to provide this information to you.




Hope this helps!

Good Afternoon Price,
I just wanted to let you know that I decided to go ahead and get the 20 year term at the higher rate that I was balking at in my first post. It really had not occurred to me that if at some point down the line I get to where I feel I no longer need this policy that I could just cancel it. I guess the old school in me just reasons that if you sign a 20 year contract then you pay 20 years. So now I will just forget about the extra dough that this cost me and concentrate on the fact that I can run the coverage out for 20 years if I want to.
It was very helpful to get some educated advice from someone who had nothing to gain or lose on my choice…I should get my broker to mail you half his commission…hahaha.
If SADALE still posted here he would be telling me “I told you so”. He and I had a few discussions on how much insurance one should carry. Here I am getting more later in life when it’s more expensive. It’s all a learning process.
Thanks again.

Glad to help jims, and thank you for the follow-up. It's good to hear how things end up turning out...no matter which they go!