I took my male youngster for his annual booster/check up yesterday.  The vet asked about neutering and I said that I will be keeping him entire unless and until there were very good reasons for neutering.

To be fair, the vet although he seemed quite keen to neuter (preventing risk of testicular & prostate cancer etc. etc.), was not 'pushy' about it and clearly agreed that the decision is mine to make.

However, he did suggest I checked the small print of my insurance policy as he believes some policies state they will not pay for treatments for conditions which 'could have been prevented by neutering'.  I've checked my policy and could find no such exclusion.  Policy is due for renewal soon so I will double check.  My insurance is with Petplan.

I was interested to hear about this and I am wondering if anyone has had experience of such an exclusion?  Is it rare or common - or maybe something insurance companies will catch on to and add to their policies in future!

Has anyone come across this?  Thanks in advance for any comments you may have.

Hopefully "preventing risk of testicular & prostate cancer etc." were not your Vet's sole arguments for neutering, healthwise.  The risk of testicular cancer is very low in entire dogs and the risk of prostate cancer has been shown in studies to go up, not down, though it's still pretty low.  Other cancer risks go up with neuter, some go down.  There's a big, long list of articles on the subject HERE where you can find a good summary in the first article.

As to your question, yes, I have heard of that affecting your homeowners policy.  Depends on the company you insure with.  I think you meant your pet's health insurance though, but same thing, depends on the company.  Check your homeowners  or renters or whatever you have too because that's the policy that will cover you if your dog bites someone, maybe just on your own property or in your own residence, some will cover you off or outside as well.  And some will suppose your male entire dog is inherently more aggressive and won't cover him.

I wasn't clear above.  The risk of prostate cancer has been shown to be higher in neutered dogs than in entire dogs.

Thanks for your reply and the links Jetstone Jewel.

Yes, I'm aware of the research and have read up on the pros and cons of neutering, including a number of the papers on your list!  I'm clear that I want my boy to remain entire (unless there is a medical reason in the future for which castration would be beneficial), for the reasons you mention, amongst others.

It was the insurance issue I was particularly interested in and whether companies are now using owners' decisions to keep dogs entire as another exclusion opportunity regarding certain conditions!   I'm insured with Petplan (including third party) and there is nothing in the small print to say they would not pay for treatment which would not have been necessary had the dog been neutered.

I am just wondering how common it is for pet insurance companies to put in such exclusions, as the exclusion list seems to get longer and longer in some cases.

Don't know if its common but as you say its looking like just another reason not to pay out. where did this idea come that an entire male is more likely to be aggressive  AS for health problems what about increase in problems if you do neuter or are they ignoring that data

Well as Prostate caner is more common in castrated dogs they neutering would actually increase health risks, and on balance there are more negative health effects than positive, that would seem to be daft move..

Does make you wonder, doesn't it, furriefriends.

There is so much mis-information out there and all sorts of assumptions and half-truths.  I imagine it will take the insurance companies (and some vets - not all, I hasten to add!) a long time to catch up with the latest research - if they do at all.  In the case of insurance companies I suppose it is in their interest to go with some of the myths which might suit their policy small print!

Brainless - quite!  It's a bit of a mystery how the policy-setters minds are working on this!

It could, of course, be that my vet is mistaken and that it is not common for policies to have these exclusions.  I was just intrigued ...

I'd expect some of the policies run by the dog charities are anti breeding like the RSPCA.  I think several offer Insurance policies.

Ah!  Interesting point - that would make sense!

Insurance is based purely on statistics qms we all know what those are. Trouble is if they arnt looking at the right statistics you won't get the right answers

Same with people, say you have high blood pressure and they assume you have high cholesterol.

I've had dogs insured with M&S and Homebase (underwritten by Sun Alliance if I recall) and neither of those companies had that exclusion in their small print.

Honestly it sounds like a 'vet myth'.  In order for this to be in place then the insurance company is effectively saying that they recommend elective neutering which leads onto all sorts of claims IF a dog, or bitch, were to suffer as a consequence of this possibly unnecessary surgery.  As far as I am aware some insurance companies cover neutering only if it is medically necessary (as identified by the vet) but they all exclude elective surgery.

I'd be interested to see if anyone does find this exclusion in their policy: I wonder if it really is out there :)

Hi dogs a babe - yes, I agree it all sounds a bit strange which is why I asked if anyone had actually found this exclusion on their policy.  So far nobody has said they have ...

If it really is a myth then I am disappointed that it is one my vet believes in!  It is also annoying as it makes me wonder about his approach, although I have generally been pleased with his treatment so far.  My 'favourite' vet left the practice last year.  I miss him!

Pretty sure policies state they won't cover anything to do with breeding, could that have been what the vet was thinking about???

That's true, Cava.  Maybe it was!

I would say same as Cava, they won't pay out for any costs associated with breeding.  The way it's worded I wonder if the vet is confusing it with the exclusion that for those who don't vaccinate, if a medical condition/illness develops that would have been prevented by vaccinations then they won't pay out.

good point cava

Pretty sure policies state they won't cover anything to do with breeding, could that have been what the vet was thinking about???

Indeed.   Our males were all entire but we had to have a couple castrated in later life, suffering with prostate problems (not cancer).   We had no incidents of testicular cancer.  Fwiw.   I can't help you re insurance because with the numbers we had, we didn't insure.   I did take a couple of quotes now we are down to just two - you'd have thought I was trying to buy the companies!!!   And one of my breeds now isn't known to have loads of medical problems.    I continue to keep my money in my Bank account.

  However, he did suggest I checked the small print of my insurance policy as he believes some policies state they will not pay for treatments for conditions which 'could have been prevented by neutering'.

What about, I wonder, those conditions that can be CAUSED by neutering (too young?)!!!

Not common but does happen. Petplan are absolutely fine, they will pay if your dog has to be neutered in the future due to a medical condition. There are some insurance companies who refuse claims for conditions that can be prevented by neutering. Can't remember which ones, possibly E&L but we (I work at a vets) have had a couple of claims for pyometra refused and a couple for castration due to prostate problems refused. It would be in small print of the policy though.

Very interesting - thanks for clarifying, Kathryn.  Another good reason for checking all the small print in the insurance policies.  I am glad Petplan is not one of the 'few' who would refuse to pay!

pet plan paid for my bitch to be spayed as the behaviourist said it needed to be done to resolve the bitch - bitch aggression she was showing. How ever they refused to pay for the bitch that was being picked on to be spayed even though the behaviourist said it also had to be done. I had to pay for that myself as she wasnt insured. it did not stop the aggression :(

Re Petplan potentially covering spay/neuter in some situations

I was pleasantly surprised when my girl had two mammary tumours removed. As she wasn't going to be bred again, and mammary tumours can change with estrogen surges during seasons we had her spayed at the same time.  I was expecting to pay for the spay part of the surgery, and insurance cover the rest, but the vets applied for the full amount just in case, and we got everything minus the excess.  This was with Petplan

Similar situation 7 years ago with M&S and they wouldn't pay for the spay as they viewed it as preventative surgery rather than necessary.  Even though leaving her intact could have resulted in them paying for the removal of further mammary tumours down the line.

I have not heard of them refusing claims for "treatments of conditions which couldve been prevented by neutering" on standard policieis - but there are some exclusions that make issue of in-tact dogs since they relate to reproductive organs.  The standard exclusions on the petplan policies I have had and a policy with More Than all say the same thing:-

"1. We will not pay the cost of spaying and castration for the treatment of a behavioural illness."
"2. We will not pay the cost of spaying (including spaying following a false pregnancy) or castration, unless:
*   The procedure is carried out when your pet is suffering from an injury or illness and is essential to treat the injury or illness, or
*   The costs claimed are for the treatment of complications arising from this procedure. "
"3. We will not pay the cost of any treatment in connection with a retained testicle(s) if your pet was over the age of 12 weeks when full cover first started with us."
"4. We will not pay the cost of any treatment in connection with breeding, pregnancy and giving birth."

BUT the difficulty comes in a grey area created by their standard clauses where they refuse to pay on "pre-existing conditions" because they define that as being any condition, injury or illness that either happened or showed clinical signs prior to the cover starting or a condition, injury or illness that has the same diagnosis or clinical signs as an injury, illness or clinical sign your pet had prior to the date of first cover.

This is less of an issue if you insured your pet from 8 weeks on with the same insurer without any break in cover but becomes a major problem if you have ever changed your insurance provider since they could be buggers and refuse a claim indicating that if it relates to reproductive organs and is a disease or defect that wouldve been there from birth then it was an illness that happened prior to the date of your cover.

Petplan are generally okay when you have been with them all the time from 8 weeks on - they are particularly harsh if you have transferred your policy to them later in life or started cover later in life and tend to claim many diseases and illnesses were pre-existing making the policy pretty much useless unless an accident/injury or illness like cancer where it is clear it did not "happen" until recently.

Other than that they can be very sneaky by giving you insurance renewals and fresh certificates and all of a sudden slipping an exclusion in without clearly telling you so unless you check thoroughly each year they can catch you on the hop - a friend of mine told me that they had an exclusion put on hers relating to mammory glands and cancers relating to mammory glands of in-tact bitches with an indication given on the phone that the reason was that some disorders with mammory glands and cancers would not have been likely or possible with a spayed bitch.  Pretty unfair if you ask me to ever add an exclusion to a policy in that way.

They are sneaky. But I've not heard about them adding those strange exclusions in for in-tact males.. yet. The biggest problem with petplan is that they are entirely inconsistent - for example both my sister and her friend bought a cocker spaniel puppy each on the same day from the same breeder (a puppy farm) - both puppies had same eye condition and both required the same eye operation - both women got the same level of petplan cover on the same date - my sisters friend had all treatment paid for on her claim - my sister was refused her claim on the basis that they considered the operation preventative rather than necessary. Two appeals later and siting the disparity of the way their claims were dealt with my Sister still only had 1/4 of her claim paid by them. So where one person may have problems with a claim because their dog was in-tact another may not even if they have the same policy!!