Another Daft T2D Q from Quill! :)

[Drummer]

l suspect that there are variations between different clinics, maybe different regions and perhaps also timing.
I was diagnosed type 2 back in 2016 on only one test over 47, but with a number as high as 91 there was little doubt, and I was almost spherical back then too.

 

[dannybgoode]

you must declare it to insurance or it won’t be valid.

Declare it on which insurance?

 

[Lucyr]

Declare it on which insurance?

Any insurance that asks whether you have medical conditions eg travel insurance

 

[dannybgoode]

Any insurance that asks whether you have medical conditions eg travel insurance

It very much depends on the specific policy. My annual travel insurance doesn't require me to tell them about diabetes, it's in the list of conditions that are covered automatically

My car insurance doesn't even ask me to declare T1/insulin controlled diabetes. It just has the statement 'have you declared all relevant conditions to the DVLA and have they continued to issue you a licence'.

Absolutely, if asked you need to tell them. If they don't ask you don't need to tell them.

(Note I'm an insurance underwriter and have written training modules for very large insurance companies on disclosure under both CIDRA and the Insurance Act)

 

[Lucyr]

It very much depends on the specific policy. My annual travel insurance doesn't require me to tell them about diabetes, it's in the list of conditions that are covered automatically

Well the poster I was speaking to clearly has to declare theirs because they said it would save them money if they didn’t have to declare it on insurance!

 

[Lucyr]

In that case, according to the above I should not have a T2D diagnosis and do not need to declare it for insurance purposes etc? Is that correct? Can you point me towards anything official to confirm this ? Would save me a few quidd if you could!

@dannybgoode

 

[dannybgoode]

Well the poster I was speaking to clearly has to declare theirs because they said it would save them money if they didn’t have to declare it on insurance!

They might just think they need to declare it as a matter of course which used to be the case but under CIDRA this has changed and you only need to answer any questions asked.

If the insurer is not asking about it they do not need to declare it.

Yes, absolutely they need to read any relevant policies and see what they say about medical conditions and if unsure it's always better to check but to answer the question do they need to disclose it. It depends...

 

[helli]

My car insurance doesn't even ask me to declare T1/insulin controlled diabetes. It just has the statement 'have you declared all relevant conditions to the DVLA and have they continued to issue you a licence'.

I don't remember my car insurance asks about diabetes but they ask if I have a restricted driving license which I do because of diabetes.
However, my understanding is that due to DDA, they cannot charge any more because of it.

With regards to travel insurance, I choose to have more expensive insurance because it explicitly covers pre-existing conditions such as diabetes. I would hate to experience a complication of diabetes whilst away and find out that the insurance company try to wriggle out of paying.

 

[AndBreathe]

Don't think they ever say "cured" but "in remission." My late Dad in Law's neighbour lost weight and dropped from a diabetic reading to a normal one i.e.not even pre-diabetic. Her GP said she was in remission but was not cured. Not sure if other GPs would think differently.

I went pre-diabetic a few years ago, got back to a normal reading. My GP said as I had had two years of "normal" results she would cut down the frequency of the hba1c as they still needed to check it. I thought they would let it go completely as I had never been diabetic but they wouldn't. Not sure though if that is because I am older - 71 - and it is classed as an "ageing" disease i.e. you are more insulin resistant when you are older than when you are younger "in general." There are always exceptions.

I have read a US paper (which I neglected to save - sorry), where they categories post diagnosis status. From memory, after something like 5 or it might be 10 years of remission, they consider that person as achieving an "Operational Cure".

After more than 11 years in remission, I'd likely be categorised as "operationally cured", but frankly, it's just a label. OK, it might mean I have enhanced my chances of swerving diabetic complications and could be healthier now than at diagnosis, but even with that label, things can change. Other conditions and challenges come along that can side swipe diet, or change someone's inner workings.

I just go day-to-day, trying to live my best life - not full-time partying, but doing the day-to-day things I want to and staying in decent shape. As you likely know, I'm not a great fan of labels, when it comes to people.

 

[dannybgoode]

I don't remember my car insurance asks about diabetes but they ask if I have a restricted driving license which I do because of diabetes.
However, my understanding is that due to DDA, they cannot charge any more because of it.

With regards to travel insurance, I choose to have more expensive insurance because it explicitly covers pre-existing conditions such as diabetes. I would hate to experience a complication of diabetes whilst away and find out that the insurance company try to wriggle out of paying.

It is a grey area. Car insurance companies would struggle to justify charging more for diabetics as the condition does not really increase the risk of a claim. However, if a particular company's actuarial data showed that diabetics did have more claims then they could use this as a reason to increase premiums just like they do for young and old drivers.

For something like travel insurance or life insurance then diabetes may well increase the cost of cover as there is a higher chance of you making a claim under the policy and this increasing of premiums would not be covered by the DDA.

Home insurance would be an even weaker argument than car insurance for increasing the price.

Having reviewed the DUK FAQ's on insurance these are a little out of date as they still refer to having to declare material facts which has not been the case since CIDRA came into law in 2013. This replaced the concept of 'utmost good faith' and replaced it having to 'take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer' and placed the burden on insurers to ask all the questions they needed answers to and removed the burden of consumers to volunteer information.

 

[Dragonheart]

It doesn’t matter what’s supposed to happen, if your medical records say you have t2 then you must declare it to insurance or it won’t be valid.

Indeed. They will usually invalidate any claim that can be attributed to the omission and do have the ability in invalidate the entire policy even if that happens less often.

But that doesn’t stop you discussing it with the dr and have records amended if appropriate. I say this with experience as a family member was “diagnosed” with just one test and the most minor and vague non specific symptom (tired). I requested the second test as per policy, was scoffed at it wouldn’t change anything and indeed the second was below 48 and the records amended. I will admit the first wasn’t anywhere near 89 but the principal remains the same.

Had they followed the low fat, high ish carb, take these multiple medications immediately on diagnosis at a low ish level and expect it to get worse advice then they probably would have been right in their predictions. Instead a bit of weight was lost and carbs reduced to more moderate levels and 3 weeks (not months just weeks) later there was a noticeable difference.

 

[dannybgoode]

They will usually invalidate any claim that can be attributed to the omission and do have the ability in invalidate the entire policy even if that happens less often.

This is not true any more *if* you are not asked the question. If you are not asked the question, you do not have to volunteer the information.

If you are asked the question and lie then the remedies are much less punitive than they were prior to CIDRA but still best avoided.

It would be very difficult for them to void the policy these days for non-disclosing diabetes.

 

[198d]

Car insurance goes RIGHT over my head but called lovely GP to calm my anxiety/confusion and got this text through just now 🙂

Currently definitely Non-diabetic Hyperglycaemia (Pre-diabetes) but possibly full diabetic, which is why we are repeating. We repeat at 4 weeks to confirm diagnosis. It takes a good three months for any changes to have meaningful impact on the blood test, so this next test isn't to assess change it's to confirm the first test.

If it does confirm diabetes, then we would want to work on lifestyle changes - as it seems you have already done - as most people can reverse diabetes with dietary changes.

If you have any queries let me know.

Does seem to be the case that GP’s all do/see things differently.
Barely touched ‘carb carbs’ since December 27th so just have to keep it up see what happens when the results are back and hope I’ve put a proper good dent in it already.

Feel like I can breathe a bit now. Mood lifted somewhat.

 

[Leadinglights]

Car insurance goes RIGHT over my head but called lovely GP to calm my anxiety/confusion and got this text through just now 🙂



Does seem to be the case that GP’s all do/see things differently.
Barely touched ‘carb carbs’ since December 27th so just have to keep it up see what happens when the results are back and hope I’ve put a proper good dent in it already.

Feel like I can breathe a bit now. Mood lifted somewhat.

Pleased you are a bit more relaxed about it now and good to have a GP who is possitive and actually believes that people can achieve remission by lifestyle changes.

 

[Maz2]

I have read a US paper (which I neglected to save - sorry), where they categories post diagnosis status. From memory, after something like 5 or it might be 10 years of remission, they consider that person as achieving an "Operational Cure".

After more than 11 years in remission, I'd likely be categorised as "operationally cured", but frankly, it's just a label. OK, it might mean I have enhanced my chances of swerving diabetic complications and could be healthier now than at diagnosis, but even with that label, things can change. Other conditions and challenges come along that can side swipe diet, or change someone's inner workings.

I just go day-to-day, trying to live my best life - not full-time partying, but doing the day-to-day things I want to and staying in decent shape. As you likely know, I'm not a great fan of labels, when it comes to people.

Totally agree about labels. Wish my levels would come down like yours. Other than starving myself I don't know if I can cut out much more.

 

[AndBreathe]

Totally agree about labels. Wish my levels would come down like yours. Other than starving myself I don't know if I can cut out much more.

To be honest, I got lucky, I reckon.

 

[Drummer]

My husband was told that my having one high reading over 7 years ago which was the case at the last renewal wasn't worth mentioning - but it would be wise to check that your insurer is happy in your situation.

 

[harbottle]

So I had HBa1c of 89 in the summer. Nurse said not to bother with second test as it was so high. In the autumn had second test that came back at 30. In that case, according to the above I should not have a T2D diagnosis and do not need to declare it for insurance purposes etc? Is that correct? Can you point me towards anything official to confirm this ? Would save me a few quidd if you could!

Guidelines are to perform a second test if the patient is not showing symptoms.
A second test is considered 'sensible' but not required if there are symptoms of high blood sugar. The second test is supposed to be done quite shortly after the first.

Even if a second test comes back a negative, the guidelines are to monitor to patient for possible risks of developing diabetes.

If you get a hba1c < 48 without any medication then you can be marked as 'Diabetes (In remission)', which means for insurance purposes you don't need to specify you are diabetic. However, you'll still get annual tests and eye tests.

Certain conditions/medications can cause diabetes, but it may be temporary. In this case, when the cause has been removed, there's a diagnosis code 'Diabetes (Resolved)'. Examples are steroids and gestational diabetes.

(Mine was marked as 'In remission' last year.)

 

[AndBreathe]

Guidelines are to perform a second test if the patient is not showing symptoms.
A second test is considered 'sensible' but not required if there are symptoms of high blood sugar. The second test is supposed to be done quite shortly after the first.

Even if a second test comes back a negative, the guidelines are to monitor to patient for possible risks of developing diabetes.

If you get a hba1c < 48 without any medication then you can be marked as 'Diabetes (In remission)', which means for insurance purposes you don't need to specify you are diabetic. However, you'll still get annual tests and eye tests.

Certain conditions/medications can cause diabetes, but it may be temporary. In this case, when the cause has been removed, there's a diagnosis code 'Diabetes (Resolved)'. Examples are steroids and gestational diabetes.

(Mine was marked as 'In remission' last year.)

I was asymptomatic, with a single A1c of 73. The test was thrown in with a kidney function test, ordered after an elevated BP reading. The elevated BP was immediately after a very painful smear test (always hurts due to a post surgical anomaly with my innards).

 

[Winifreds child]

Cheers Doc!
Everything I’ve seen since I actually posted says yeah Diabetic over 48 (luckily mine was only 51) and that’s you for life so I think I was just kidding myself thinking I could get out of it before I got the Dx so to speak.

Bloods on Jan 31st so we shall see 🙂

Hi I was diagnosed just before Christmas at reading 49 so I am trying to go into remission with cutting carbs losing a bit of weight and I will be tested beginning of march …I was devastated…especially when it sunk in the life changes that would have to be made worst of all I had thought I was fitter than I had been in a long while how wrong could I be ….when you get over the shock and start creating a plan it gets better and you feel a bit more in control…but I don’t think life goes back to before this is the new normal being much more aware about what you consume and what you do ….this diabetes uk has been the biggest and best help and helped me to see with my numbers I’m lucky and got a chance to take control before complications come into it …..I hope you get on well with your next test keeping my fingers crossed for you