Earlier this month, I wrote about the pet insurance bill that was approved by the California State Assembly. If passed, the bill would have required pet insurance companies to provide information on their websites about co-pays, lifetime benefit limits and restrictions based on pre-existing conditions. The bill went under review by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has since vetoed it.
In his veto message, Schwarzenegger said, “Existing law provides for the regulation of various types of insurance, by the Department of Insurance, including pet insurance, if there is a demonstrated need. As such, this bill is not necessary. For this reason I am unable to sign this bill.”
Unfortunately, we believe there is a need for a bill like this, as many pet insurance companies fail to clearly disclose certain elements of their policy plans. Because of this, pet owners sometimes do not receive all the information they need to make an informed decision on pet insurance.
Trupanion has always believed in being transparent about our policy plans, and policyholders are already receiving the benefits associated with the vetoed bill. For example, our pet insurance FAQ page lists exactly what is and is not covered, including information on pre-existing conditions. Our comparison chart lists the costs and benefits of Trupanion coverage side-by-side seven of our top competitors. We also answer all of the questions that the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) suggests pet owners ask pet insurance companies on our Provider and Policy Checklist page.
What do you think? Do you think a bill like this is necessary? Why or why not?