My cats are with Pet Plan. I didn't know you could claim on line either. Thanks

Its fairly new well a couple of years and they are also developing a link called track my claim which eventually will be on the website but atm u have to Google separately.

I would have known all this if it wasn't for the bad patch we have been going through so
I hated the forms u had to fill in I could ever fit the info in those gaps and as for the microchip number it so long .no need for any of.that once u have an account its all done for you .

A friend had ins. with one firm E & L  and had a smallish claim one year, that condition was then excluded for renewal policy, and another I know of had claim for dogs left fore leg so they excluded anything on BOTH legs for future.

That's becoming common so I've heard  the other thing I've seen is cruciate excluded as part of terms and conditions not because u have had any claims for them
. I did have to argue with af about an injury one of mine had to her eye. They wanted to exclude both eyes incase it reoccurred

It was a cat scratch in one eye.an accident unlikely to reoccur . They did see reason eventually

Its interesting looking through the reviews sites with pet insurance.  All have some.complaints but it soon shows who is better

E&L are worth Googling

From people who have used them they don't seem too bad for horses but are total rubbish for dogs.

I've heard the same tatty head . As are emporium insurance part of e and l . Not good  reports at all

> if a vet knows the animal is insured, the cynic in me suggests he might (I say might because it may not be so) be inclined to up his charges which ultimately forces insurance companies to up their premiums.    With a non-insured animal, maybe their charges are more appropriate!!

Doing that would leave a vet open to charges of fraud and possibly losing his career. If they know a pet is insured they don't have to double-check everything before procedding with treatment.

>let's not forget that most Vets ask if you are Insured with a view to charging as much as possible to your account which in turn can affect YOUR premiums and is something a Vet wouldn't consider doing if you have been a Client, paying their own bills and supporting THEM for many years.

They will also ask how old the animal is, and whether its microchipped. It's all part of an animal's history. To suggest a vet asks this questions with a view to committing fraud is appalling. If you have so little faith in your vet's honesty and integrity you should perhaps do them a favour and change to another practice.

I agree jeangenie I have never had the impression that costs are linked to the fact mine are insured . It would certainly mean a vet could be investigated for fraud
Infact because they no mine are insured and that if needed I won't hesitate to have them referred it makes discussions much easier
It worries me that so many feel that is happening

OK it was 13 years ago but the vet who saw Zan who had a heart problem and then helped us say goodbye knew he wasn't insured did everything he could to help keep costs down - to the extent of coming in on his day off to do a scan to see what was happening - without charging - if it had been for the money he would have suggested a referral - and also rang one of his tutors from vet school for advice on combination and dose of meds.

I think there is a big difference between vets who help to keep costs down and accusations that they actually increase costs if they know u are insured .
Mine suggest prescription for example or its meds if appropriate to reduce my costs as their hands are tied to an extent I am told when prescribing from the vet

>Mine suggest prescription for example or its meds if appropriate to reduce my costs as their hands are tied to an extent I am told when prescribing from the vet

That's absolutely true. Vets are very tightly controlled as to what they can prescribe; they legally must prescribe a medication that's been licenced for use on animals if there is one, and unfortunately these are usually branded and so the drug company is still trying to get back the development costs. They can only prescribe cheaper unlicenced versions, even if it's a very similar formulation, if the licenced product is unsuitable. It's very frustrating sometimes!

Jeangenie: >> Mine suggest prescription for example or its meds if appropriate to reduce my costs as their hands are tied to an extent I am told when prescribing from the vet

You're right but as you describe, legislation/policies dictate working practices. I feel very lucky to have a Vet who is similar in trying to reduce costs for individuals. She's not a partner in the practice but a very caring individual for the animals and humans involved in the relationship. My beliefs/reponses to the original thread have been decided over many years under her directives.  There have been discussions on the Foum re 'human' medicine being used for dogs and not only for oral medication but products for eyes & ears which purchased in your local Pharmacy are often a quarter of the price for Veterinary Prescription Products.

>There have been discussions on the Foum re 'human' medicine being used for dogs and not only for oral medication but products for eyes & ears which purchased in your local Pharmacy are often a quarter of the price for Veterinary Prescription Products.

But if you tell the pharmacist that it's for an animal they will often refuse to sell it to you!

Jeangenie: Yes, you are right.  Why would you tell the Pharmacist it is for an animal?  I don't lie, I just don't discuss who, what & when. I wouldn't discuss why I want caster sugar to bake a cake in Tesco (other well known supermarkets are available). Our Pharmacists are thankfully very knowledgable and highly trained but they are not in a position to decide whether 'Tums for Calcium in Dogs' is required post Whelp or not.  A common practice by many Breeders. (just an eg)