ManyPets – concerns about the handling of my cat’s insurance claim
I am sharing my experience with ManyPets because I am extremely concerned about how my cat’s current claim is being handled, and I would be interested to hear from other ManyPets customers who have experienced something similar.
There are two separate issues with ManyPets’ current position, as well as concerns about how the basis for rejecting the claim has developed.
My cat previously had a short-lived episode of bloody diarrhoea shortly after moving into my home. My vet considered this likely to have been related to the stress of moving. It was self-limiting, resolved without ongoing treatment, and his blood tests at the time were normal.
He has now developed a very different illness involving diarrhoea, vomiting and constipation as well as some anomalies on his blood work (mildly raised white blood count, and very mildly raised T4 (thyroid) levels).
How the claim rejection developed
ManyPets initially rejected the claim because my cat had experienced bloody diarrhoea previously, and therefore considered his current illness to be pre-existing.
I challenged this and provided a letter from my vet specifically confirming that they did not believe that the previous episode of diarrhoea and his current illness are related.
Despite receiving that veterinary evidence, ManyPets came back with the same response, maintaining that the current illness was pre-existing because of the previous episode of diarrhoea.
It was only after this response that I raised a formal grievance.
In their response to my formal grievance, ManyPets introduced another basis for their position: his thyroid history.
1. They are classifying his thyroid issue as pre-existing
His T4 had previously been towards the higher end of the normal range on his initial blood work, and had been identified for monitoring.
Importantly, the previous result was within the normal reference range. He did not have a diagnosis of thyroid disease at that time (in fact he still doesn’t); it was simply something that was being monitored.
ManyPets are nevertheless saying that the thyroid issue is pre-existing because it had previously been identified for monitoring.
2. They are also attributing his current illness to his thyroid
This is a separate issue.
ManyPets are not simply saying that the thyroid issue is pre-existing. They are also treating his current illness as being related to that thyroid issue.
However, my vet does not believe that his current illness is related to his thyroid levels.
His current illness is also clinically different from the previous episode, involving diarrhoea, vomiting and constipation (albeit the vet didn’t directly use the word ‘constipation’ in the letter they sent to ManyPets. But the clinical notes state 72 hours without passing a stool which I highlighted to them in my formal grievance). His current blood tests have shown different findings, including mildly raised white blood cell markers and a mildly elevated T4.
Most importantly, the cause of his current illness has not actually been established.
My vets want to carry out further investigations and testing to establish what is causing his symptoms. Unfortunately, because ManyPets have rejected the claim, I cannot currently afford to fund those investigations myself.
This leaves me in the extremely difficult position of having an insurer say that they know what is causing my cat’s illness, while the vets treating him are saying that they do not believe it is related to his thyroid and want to carry out further testing to establish the actual cause.
The questions this raises
Firstly, can a thyroid condition reasonably be considered pre-existing simply because a blood result that was within the normal range had previously been identified for monitoring, when there was no diagnosis at the time?
Secondly, what evidence is ManyPets using to establish that it is the thyroid that actually is the cause of his current illness when the treating vet does not believe there is a connection?
And thirdly, how can the cause of the current illness be confidently attributed to the thyroid when my vets are still trying to establish what is actually causing his symptoms and want further investigations to do so?
I completely understand that pet insurers need to apply their policy terms and that genuinely pre-existing conditions may be excluded.
What concerns me is both the basis on which the claim is being rejected and the way that basis has developed.
The claim was initially rejected because of previous diarrhoea. I provided specific veterinary evidence confirming that the previous episode and the current illness were unrelated. ManyPets maintained the same decision despite that evidence.
I then raised a formal grievance, and it was in their response to that grievance that they relied on the previously monitored T4 and attributed the current illness to his thyroid.
Meanwhile, the vets treating my cat want to investigate further to establish the actual cause of his illness — investigations I cannot currently afford without the insurance cover I believed I had.
I would genuinely like to hear from other ManyPets customers, particularly cat owners, who have experienced something similar.
Have you had a claim where an insurer maintained an initial pre-existing-condition decision despite veterinary evidence, and then relied on another historical issue when you formally challenged it?
Have you had a previously monitored but normal test result subsequently treated as evidence of a pre-existing condition? Or had a current illness attributed to a historical finding despite your vet disagreeing that there is a connection?
I am sharing this because I think prospective pet insurance customers should understand not just what their policy says is covered, but how decisions about “pre-existing conditions” are actually applied when a claim is made.