It is. It is taken for "neuro"pathy. That is classified as a neurological disorder.
Anyone Using Uhl?
- Thread starter Jakel
- Start date
It is. It is taken for "neuro"pathy. That is classified as a neurological disorder.
Then what would it be if not a neurological disorder?
Maybe you're right? I see it as perhaps a neurological condition, not a disorder.
UHL is purported to be good for early diabetics. Almost all early diabetics have neuropothy. Not seeing how they are all that good for early diabetics.
They are only good for early diabetes in that many companies won't go down to age 25-49 on their immediate coverage SIWL programs for insulin dependent diabetics. However, they won't accept many of the complications that are associated with diabetes.
- 25,065
Guys what would you consider early diabetes?
Lee
Lee
Younger diabetics would be a better term when talking FE. Even that would be subjective but in my mind, that is diagnosis and insulin prior to age 50 since that seems the cut-off for many of the FE companies. Early diabetics brings to mind juvenile diabetics.
- 322
some of these companies should be more definitive and specific in their health questions------foresters asks " complications of diabetes"----- if others want to want to be more vague on some questions at least have a RX guide to take some of the guesswork out of field underwriting--UHL doesnt
I got a man who says he has been diagnosed with hep for years, is not on meds and he specifically said BUT IT HAS NOT GONE INTO MY LIVER------so im looking at questions on apps exactly as they are written------most carriers actually mention Hepatitis------------RNA doesn't but asks about "liver disease", maybe their intent is to not take anyone with hep and if so they should refile with more defined health questions------reading their app as written I don't feel that uncomfortable with writing the guy RNA with hep and no meds and his claim it hasn't gone into my liver ( I would alert him to 2 year contestability)----------carriers should have questions specific to their intent and not vague ones
any thoughts anyone on this hep prospect?
You should be good to go witj RNA
You do realize that Hepatitis is an infection of the liver? It may not have damaged his liver but it "has gone into" his liver.
- 322
of course I understand that and he says hes on no such meds / I agree it may be a bit of a headscratcher but im not a doctor who knows all the ins and outs of hep virus---there are many HIV positive without AIDs but they ask the question to include them both---------a carrier should ask the questions based on their intent, of course I wouldn't write him with a carrier than specifically asks about hep-------it may be grey area but we shouldn't have to try to interpret their intent based on a vague wording of a question--------I'm generally pretty conservative in field underwriting but if a carrier wants to protect themselves fully then ask the questions with more specificity the way their competitors do to cover themselves
Galt is thinking along my lines, rightly or wrongly---------elaborate Galt
Last edited:
Similar threads
