I'm not sure about that Isabel.
I can only go off my experience with Spangler, because as yet Jasper hasn't needed his free yearly check up.  But, when I took Spangler along for his 'free health check' the vet asked if I knew of any problems :rolleyes: so if this is what a health check is then the insurance company can certainly trust the owners to take the dog to the vets if they are aware of a problem?

I think that is unusual Maria.  I would obviously expect the vet to ask me if I have anything to report but I would also expect him to examine the dog, noting any weight or parasitic issues to be discussed.  Check heart, temperature, probably a palpation of the abdomen, groin etc, examination of eyes, ears, teeth and gums, all things that can bring health issues of varying degrees of obscurity to an owners attention and could prevent any worsening of a treatable condition.  Some of these things, but not all, a knowlegable owner may well be able to observe themselves but many owners don't or can't.

Yes Isabel, what you describe is the basic annual health check that all dogs should receive.

Testicles!  I forgot testicles but then I have never had any of them :)

I should hope not if your name is Isabel! ;)

:D

So a pretty thorough examination then - thank goodness I changed vets!

Sometimes Isabel, early detected disorders does not mean fewer treatments costs.  In fact it may mean more; depends what the condition is, of course.   For an insurance company it could mean more claims and a longer duration of liability. 

For insurance companies, there is no value for a clause that a dog must have annual check-ups, apart from getting out of paying claims if a dog doesn't have one.  :rolleyes: But it may mean more early detected disorders,  more costs, more treatment and more claims.  In a dog where a condition is diagnosed late and treatment will not improve quality of life, it's kinder to PTS.

Certainly lifestyle changes to prevent an early detected condition becoming worse can reduce costs.   However, some insurance companies put clauses in where you have to inform them of a condition and submit a claim within a certain timeframe. 

Yes, I can see that early detection of some disease may lead to increased claim, heart medication perhaps but I feel the balance would be much more to the insurance companies benefit as I seem to see less and less the application of a do nothing policy when the condition is advanced.  With an insurance policy to claim on I seem to see a lot of speculative treatments being performed often very expensive operations not to mention all the work up, CT scans etc.

>However, some insurance companies put clauses in where you have to inform them of a condition and submit a claim within a certain timeframe. 

I think if my dog had a condition that was going to have a much improved outcome by early detection I would rather seek that than worry about blowing the chances of a later insurance claim and again this would amount to a benefit for the insurance company :)
Issues such as weight and parasite control are likely to be of no loss to the Ins.Co. when addressed at an early stage before disease has even occured and of course you have spotted the biggest incentive for them having a clause regarding regular vet checks ie

>apart from getting out of paying claims if a dog doesn't have one.

;)

>I feel the balance would be much more to the insurance companies benefit as I seem to see less and less the application of a do nothing policy when the condition is advanced.  With an insurance policy to claim on I seem to see a lot of speculative treatments being performed often very expensive operations not to mention all the work up, CT scans etc.

I agree there is a lot more expensive specialist treatment being performed.  However, in some cases, it depends if early detection would prevent a worsening of a particular condition.  Sometimes we have to balance the symptoms of treatment against the symptoms of disease at that particular time.  For example, chemo and cancer, a younger dog maybe, an older dog, is it fair?  If there are no other detectable symptoms apart from a growth, is it fair?  We all do what we think is best for our dogs taking into consideration their individuality.  As my vet always says, it's finding the balance.  We have to consider quality of life especially where treatment may be worse symptomatically for the dog at a particular moment in time than the disease.  Especially in older dogs.