Health agreement ‘catch-all solution’

In January of this year your paper carried a headline ‘UK health cover in place soon’, although the article went on to state that the Employment & Social Security committee had been in discussions with an insurance provider since 2017, and a policy letter was due at the end of March. The article further stated it was unlikely that matters would be concluded before the end of 2018. At the time of the original report I wrote to [ESS president] Deputy Le Clerc and received, what I will term, a fair response indicating that progress was being made. As an insurance professional, I can assure you that arrangement of an insurance scheme does not take a year and I am at a loss as to why matters have not now been concluded. Deputy Prow raised questions on the matter in June but, since then, there appears to have been silence on a matter that is critical not only to islanders but also to visitors.

Following publication of your report in January, in which it was stated that the Employment & Social Security committee was preparing a paper in relation to the provision of health care insurance protection for islanders travelling to the United Kingdom and was working with an insurance provider in doing so, I discussed this matter with a number of other senior members of the island’s insurance community (none of whom declared any conflict of interest).

However, I did not believe then, and do not believe now, that anything short of re-establishment of the full reciprocal health agreement will deliver islanders and visitors appropriate protection.

There are a multiplicity of travel and medical insurance policies available but few address all of the insurance issues faced by islanders when travelling to the United Kingdom. The January statement said that ‘The intention of the scheme will be to target those who would struggle to obtain medical insurance for travel in the UK due to prohibitively high costs’. ‘Prohibitively high costs’ is a relative term to an individual’s wealth and is inappropriate to such an important issue.

The issue of accident and medical insurance between the island and the UK is a two-way matter and affects islanders and visitors alike. From the standpoint of islanders travelling to the UK, there will be three basic categories of traveller: those who have insurance; those who do not have insurance; and those who believe they have insurance but are not protected for the journey they are undertaking (such as Mrs de Carteret). From the standpoint of visitors to the island, there is a sub-category introduced and that is those who simply fail to appreciate that the island is a different jurisdiction from the United Kingdom and consequently have given no consideration to insurance protection (a friend, a leading London-based insurance lawyer, was alarmed to discover he had travelled here without appropriate insurance protection). It is not an issue, as originally stated by Employment & Social Security, restricted to ‘prohibitively high costs’ but for society as a whole.

The plight of Mrs de Carteret is well identified in your report on Saturday and, I dare say, there are many others who have faced similar situations, albeit with lesser sums involved. That any of this should occur is poor enough, but all that is required is for a visitor to the island to take seriously ill and face the costs of medical evacuation to the UK, without responding insurance protection, whether through absence of knowledge or failure to adhere to terms and conditions, and it is the island as a whole that will suffer. Visit Guernsey makes much of the island’s attractiveness to all ages, but particularly those with young children and the more senior in society.

Both are sectors where medical attention may be more likely and there can be no doubt the absence of insurance protection would swiftly be picked up in the national press.

Travel insurance can and does deliver a response and for many travellers it does so cost-effectively and fairly. However, with the island’s proximity to the UK and failure on the part of many to consider the island’s status (when travelling), there is very real financial and reputational risk presented by the unwilling and, in many cases, the unknowing through not purchasing appropriate insurance to the specific needs of the island resident or visitor.

The reality of the position is that full reinstatement of the reciprocal health care agreement with the United Kingdom as enjoyed previously is the only catch-all solution. It must not be restricted solely to protect those deemed more vulnerable but must be available automatically and to all in our society.

Anything short of the above is a disservice to islanders and visitors alike, and the present situation presents ethical, commercial and reputational risk to the island.

CALLUM BEATON FCII, Chartered Insurer,

Le Moigne,

Val au Bourg,

St Martin’s,

GY4 6EP.