occupational pension and AIDS tests

If that's the truth that's what you should tell them.

If you don't tell them the truth you never know when the truth may come out at an inconvenient time. You can't rely on your tame GP always being there and the questions going to him, and if he prevaricates or stonewalls the insurance company that in itself will raise suspicion. You would look a bit conspicuous if the pension company told your employers that you could not be included in the company life insurance scheme because they had not been able to obtain adequate answers to their standard questions. You could even find yourself blacklisted amongst all the life insurance companies.

Usually a pension scheme includes some element of life insurance, so the questions are to determine your state of health so they can rate you correctly. In particular people living a risky HIV lifestyle tend to get themselves HIV tested, therefore HIV testing in some circumstances is a pointer to a risky HIV lifestyle and AIDS risk, in that case they would want further information about your lifestyle.

You had a test done for another reason (a reason not at all uncommon nowadays) the test was negative and your current lifestyle would not flag up any risks. No reason to complicate it.

HTH

DG

This is now standard procedure for anyone wanting to take out life assurance. I take that as part of your salary package there is death in service benefit equivalent to between 1 and 4 years pay which is why they are asking you about your health. If it is purely pension they probably would not bother as to be blunt they want you to die as soon as possible after your retirement so that they can stop paying you. I would be totally honest about your test. One day if you have to claim before retirement this may come back to haunt you if you try to hide or fudge the issue.At the end of the day you were tested and got a clear result.Insurance/Pension companies have a way of finding things out and if you give them any reason not to pay out .........get my drift? Eric

What he should do is whatever is in his best interests. It's manifestly not in his best interests to tell the truth in this instance, due to the predjucice shown by insurance companies.

I see nothing wrong in having any sort of health test. Logically it means nothing to have had a test. Sure, statistically people who've had an AIDS test are possibly, as a group, more likely to have or contract the disease and therefore are less valuable as customers of an insurance company. But as an individual intent on paying as little as possible for insurance, and intent on having the widest range of insurers available to me, it is NOT in his interest to admit to having had such a test. If insurance companies are going to ask this sort of question, and draw conclusions from it, then they're just going to have to deal with people giving incorrect answers, aren't they.

He's stated they have no way of knowing if he lies, so presumably he's been tested at a private clinic and given a false name or something.

Except that companies don't care why you've had the test, just that you have. Surely until the situation arises that don't get treated differently for having had a test it's morally neutral to lie about it?

This was what I was thinking - it's not an issue for a pension.

Or not even reach retirement.

Daytona

questionnaire and

I would get your union to challenge this requirement in your case (and similar cases). It really has no rational basis in cases such as yours.

You do know the difference between STD and HIV/AIDS ?

"Rhoy the Bhoy" wrote

The basis you are missing is called "underwriting".

The pension scheme will have a generous death-in-service benefit - if they do not, then you are correct that there really wouldn't be any need for the underwriting. But that is unlikely to be the case.

You see, someone who deliberately didn't join a scheme when they could do so, but then later decides that they *do* want to join, may have a hidden reason for so doing. They could have just been diagnosed with a terminal disease - and joining the company scheme (which, after all, they didn't want to be a member of earlier) looks a cheap & easy way to get some life cover for when they soon die.

This underwriting is usually waived if the person joins the scheme at their first opportunity (end of the 2 year waiting period in the OP's case), because the timing has not been chosen by the member - and so is less at risk of the person joining just to get valuable life cover.

Eric

"Eric Jones" wrote

RhoyTB seems not to have noticed. Either that, or he didn't understand.

I hoped re-stating it would help him!

"Rhoy the Bhoy" wrote

Don't belong to a union and nor is this an issue I want to publicise, to be honest.

Yep, but medical SOP these days seems to be that, if you report possible exposure to any STD, they test you for the whole lot, regardless of whether you're in a high risk group.

The contact who told me she had a problem had NSU. I duly reported this to my GP and got sent off for the whole works including 2 HIV tests, one after

According to my GP, not only is there no register of who's had an HIV test, there isn't even a register of who's tested positive.

It's a conundrum, innit? I'm not in a high risk group, have never shagged anyone who was, and nor had she....but if I answer this question wrong, I could jeopardise my ability to provide for my and my family's retirement.

"Tim" wrote

I've got that anyway. It's not linked to membership of the pension scheme.

No doubt, but not in this case. The reason I didn't join was because I couldn't afford to (and barely can now). I haven't put into a pension for about 9 years (and did for about 9 before that). I need to redress this and the advantages of an occupational pension look too good to pass up. I am hoping to synchronise joining with my annual salary rise so the stoppage from pay hurts less.

"The Blue Max" wrote

Are you sure that includes the full level of benefit? Some schemes have, for instance, DIS benefit of 4 x salary for full scheme members, but only 1x or 2x salary for "life assurance only" members.

Ah well, you're on your own,so.

I knew that, but I do not consider such a programmatic approach to be rational.

EJ's post never appeared on my news-server

"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote

Would you rather the insurance costs are increased for everyone, to cover the increased risk?

Gosh, what a dilemma !

Ever hear of uberrima fides ?

"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote

Yes, so?

That doesn't escape the fact that more underwriting produces lower standard rates, and less underwriting will increase standard rates.

The point about uberrima fides is that anyone attempting to cheat is likely to be found out at claim time anyway.

Indeed, but the logical conclusion is to test everyone applying to enter the scheme.

"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote

But it is better for all (both proposer & insurer) if those applying for cover, actually do get the cover - rather than it being later disqualified.

"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote

Not so at all. The logical conclusion is to assess, from the answers to initial questions, whether :- (1) the extra risk gained by not testing is determined to be less expensive to the insurer than the cost of performing the test; or (2) the cost of performing the test is determined to be less expensive than the potential extra risk gained by not testing.

The point is that asking questions actually costs very little, whereas testing costs more - both financially for the insurer and in terms of both time & hassle for the proposer. Thus unless the reduction in risk warrants testing, the testing needn't occur.