VHI "TINY BABIES" ad

evolving_doors

Something fishy about that ad
It's the one where the young mother talks about having endure complications in her pregnancy/having twins but she was relieved she had VHI!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpJYTV0FzuE

1. She says when she left hospital she just had to sign on the dotted line. Does this imply she didn't have to pay any excesses?
2. The kids in the ad are shown 'grown up' so the ad refers to a policy that is at least 4 years old (considering the ad is about 1 year old and the children look at least 3 in it).
3. Shouldn't VhI state what Policy she was on (way back then).
4. Wouldn't she have received the same care 'publicly' even if she wasn't on VHI.
5. Just a bit irked that children - especially 'tiny babies'!!! - are used in an ad to sell something, it's almost implying that you are putting your children's health at risk if you don't have health insurance.

I had a look through advertising standards authority website and couldn't find anything "wrong" with the way VHI advertises it but it just comes across a bit disingenuous?

Any opinions?

Cabaal

Valid points to be honest, misleading as it does suggest you don't pay any excess and again she would have got the same actual care (perhaps not the private room) had she gone public. As such it kinda suggests "alittle" that her life would have been endanger without VHI.

I'd agree they should have to state the policy she was on.

Just to add to the above that the advert is also somewhat sexist, while she is in the hospital with her babies it appears a husband cannot be trusted to either not burn the house or kitchen down while she's away based on the little animation they use.

fitzcoff

Had to laugh when I saw this thread, I was giving out about this ad last night.

I think myself that is misleading, especially as there is always an excess in relation to maternity care. The ad allows the viewer to assume that it was all covered.

I'm surprised that the ad was allowed as I think that it is very misleading

parsi

Armelodie wrote: »

Something fishy about that ad
It's the one where the young mother talks about having endure complications in her pregnancy/having twins but she was relieved she had VHI!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpJYTV0FzuE

1. She says when she left hospital she just had to sign on the dotted line. Does this imply she didn't have to pay any excesses?
2. The kids in the ad are shown 'grown up' so the ad refers to a policy that is at least 4 years old (considering the ad is about 1 year old and the children look at least 3 in it).
3. Shouldn't VhI state what Policy she was on (way back then).
4. Wouldn't she have received the same care 'publicly' even if she wasn't on VHI.
5. Just a bit irked that children - especially 'tiny babies'!!! - are used in an ad to sell something, it's almost implying that you are putting your children's health at risk if you don't have health insurance.

I had a look through advertising standards authority website and couldn't find anything "wrong" with the way VHI advertises it but it just comes across a bit disingenuous?

Any opinions?

Having been there I can confirm that in our case it was a case of signing on the dotted line. Junior was added to the policy and covered from birth free for the first year - no excesses for Junior's care which was medical and not maternity. Note that if it's a C-section then the maternity rules change as well and the cover becomes pretty full cover.

amdublin

I like point 4. That you raise!!!

I think you raise some valid points and it is worth you making a complaint to the BAI. They will investigate and at worst will reject your complaint.

daheff

parsi wrote: »

Having been there I can confirm that in our case it was a case of signing on the dotted line. Junior was added to the policy and covered from birth free for the first year - no excesses for Junior's care which was medical and not maternity. Note that if it's a C-section then the maternity rules change as well and the cover becomes pretty full cover.

Really? what hospital did u go to and what cover did you receive? Private ? semi private? public?

I ask because we have gone to Holles street semi private and had to pay about 800 Eur for each!! :mad:

it was not just a case of sign on the dotted line for us!

dudara

Moved to Banking & Insurance & Pensions

OP - If you find that the advertising is misleading, then you can quickly and easily make a complaint with the ASAI.

dudara

parsi

daheff wrote: »

Really? what hospital did u go to and what cover did you receive? Private ? semi private? public?

I ask because we have gone to Holles street semi private and had to pay about 800 Eur for each!! :mad:

it was not just a case of sign on the dotted line for us!

It was Semi-Private in a private hospital.

harr

parsi wrote: »

It was Semi-Private in a private hospital.

so you did not have to pay a penny to go semi-private in a private,i find this strange as we had our first semi-private in a private hospital and had to pay the guts of 900 euros in 2008....

parsi

harr wrote: »

so you did not have to pay a penny to go semi-private in a private,i find this strange as we had our first semi-private in a private hospital and had to pay the guts of 900 euros in 2008....

That's correct.

All fees related to junior were covered from birth.

I think you may be referring to a straightforward birth wherein you have to pay for consultant and whoever else happens to drop in.

harr

parsi wrote: »

That's correct.

All fees related to junior were covered from birth.

I think you may be referring to a straightforward birth wherein you have to pay for and whoever else happens to drop in.

I know the child is covered from birth but what did you have to pay the hospital to give birth there for the likes of scans and obstetricians fees?Did your vhi plan pay all of that?

parsi

harr wrote: »

I know the child is covered from birth but what did you have to pay the hospital to give birth there for the likes of scans and obstetricians fees?Did your vhi plan pay all of that?

The maternity cover was whatever was in force for the plan at the time i.e. get a "grant" from the VHI towards the costs with accomodation paid for if a c-section was necessary.

Those costs were all clear upfront (if lost in the mists of time now).

evolving_doors

parsi wrote: »

The maternity cover was whatever was in force for the plan at the time i.e. get a "grant" from the VHI towards the costs with accomodation paid for if a c-section was necessary.

Those costs were all clear upfront (if lost in the mists of time now).

Just wondering about that, in the case of costs related accommodation for the the woman in the ad ...

if the woman in the ad was in the hospital for "ten days" after the cesarian do the VHI provide full cover for ten days (in both a private room or a semi private or what)?

I.e. VHI imply in the add that she didn't have to pay any extra costs i.e. she just had to "sign at the bottom" (as opposed to signing "at the bottom" of a cheque).

Should the advertisement be stating exactly what excess if any she had to pay (in 2007!!!). And does this still apply.

evolving_doors

dudara wrote: »

Moved to Banking & Insurance & Pensions

OP - If you find that the advertising is misleading, then you can quickly and easily make a complaint with the ASAI.

dudara

Thanks will do,

I was just wondering before i do if anybody had a similar experience to the lady in the ad but 'had' (or has) to pay excesses rather than just 'signing at the bottom' without any mention of excess charges.

Also shouldn't they state if she received a gratuity from the VHI for making the ad like they do on the AIB adds or is that just an honest disclosure?

Trampas

maybe that is why the are losing money.

they just pay any invoice that comes in the door instead of checking to make sure the patient got what the hse are charging.

NuMarvel

Armelodie wrote: »

Just wondering about that, in the case of costs related accommodation for the the woman in the ad ...

if the woman in the ad was in the hospital for "ten days" after the cesarian do the VHI provide full cover for ten days (in both a private room or a semi private or what)?

I.e. VHI imply in the add that she didn't have to pay any extra costs i.e. she just had to "sign at the bottom" (as opposed to signing "at the bottom" of a cheque).

Should the advertisement be stating exactly what excess if any she had to pay (in 2007!!!). And does this still apply.

AFAIK, VHI's rules don't limit the number of days covered for c-sections (outside of the overall maximum of 180 days cover per year). So, once the member has the right plan for the hospital and accommodation used, has served applicable waiting periods, and the length of stay is medically necessary, then there won't be any hospital shortfalls. The obstetrician's bill is a completely different story of course!

That said, VHI's agreement with the hospital may be that it will only pay a fixed amount per c-section, regardless of the number of nights a patient is in hospital. But that has no direct impact on the patient, and wouldn't be a factor in the TV ad.

What I always laugh at in the ad is where she says she only had to sign a claim form and that was it. I worked in patient accounts years ago and the VHI would often send reminders around about making sure the patient completed as much of the claim form as possible, and to attach bills where possible. I guess things have changed since my day .

broker2008

Just back from 2 week holidays...........

VHI ad was made to try to appeal to young people because they dont claim as much as the old ones.Virtually all of the 200 odd health plans in Ireland cover 3 nights for a normal delivery in a public hospital. As to whether you are in a ward, semi private room or private room will depend on the plan and whether you have paid "extra" to go semi private or private. Unusual to get a private room unless you have paid gyny privately (very little of this would be refunded. The actual amount would be dependent on the plan chosen).

Armelodie - 1. She says when she left hospital she just had to sign on the dotted line. Does this imply she didn't have to pay any excesses?

yes - as excesses are usually waived for maternity

- Shouldn't VhI state what Policy she was on (way back then) - she would have been covered on all policies for the cover. The policy determines the room.

- Wouldn't she have received the same care 'publicly' even if she wasn't on VHI -yes but not necessarily the room. Now over €1,000 per night for health insurers for a private room !!!

- Just a bit irked that children - especially 'tiny babies'!!! - are used in an ad to sell something, it's almost implying that you are putting your children's health at risk if you don't have health insurance. - they are trying to give the impression of "how can you live without it" - like most products

fitzcoff - I think myself that is misleading, especially as there is always an excess in relation to maternity care. The ad allows the viewer to assume that it was all covered. - it is all covered without excess unless you engage the services of a gyny either semi privately or privately

parsi - Having been there I can confirm that in our case it was a case of signing on the dotted line. Junior was added to the policy and covered from birth free for the first year - no excesses for Junior's care which was medical and not maternity. Note that if it's a C-section then the maternity rules change as well and the cover becomes pretty full cover.- AVIVA will give child free until renewal and if under 1 at renewal , free again for another year. If C Section, the 3 days rule is replaced by medically necessary with full inpatient cover

harr - you did not have to pay a penny to go semi-private in a private,i find this strange as we had our first semi-private in a private hospital and had to pay the guts of 900 euros in 2008....- might have paid to see a gyny semi privately. The price is nearer the 1,000 euro mark now.

Armelodie - Just wondering about that, in the case of costs related accommodation for the the woman in the ad ...if the woman in the ad was in the hospital for "ten days" after the cesarian do the VHI provide full cover for ten days (in both a private room or a semi private or what)? - yes if medically necessarily to stay in hospital. Room is dependant on plan eg Plan A will only allow semi private room in a public but Aviva equivalent will cover private room (upto the hospital as to whether you get one though)

I.e. VHI imply in the add that she didn't have to pay any extra costs i.e. she just had to "sign at the bottom" (as opposed to signing "at the bottom" of a cheque).- this refers to claim form

Should the advertisement be stating exactly what excess if any she had to pay (in 2007!!!). And does this still apply. - she didn't have to pay an excess



All 3 insurers would be very similar cover but AVIVA Health's cover would be the best IMO - they give in addition: a cleaner for 3 days after the birth (and when the fella isnt in the house !), €100 for the fella for parking, accommodation or babysitting, money towards birthing partner, money off cord blood stem preservation. Good guide on Aviva website http://www.avivahealth.ie/vivas-files/docs/Maternity%20Benefits%20Guide

If you dont go to a public hospital, all the insurers will give money towards a "grant in aid" for a private hospital (mount carmel) or a home birth which is probably not enough to cover fees although these have come tumbling down in recent times.

Quinn will give money towards IVF and Aviva money off fertility products.

I've no real opinion about the ad, good or bad but I myself would not go without it (me or kids) unless system is tied up.

evolving_doors

That's grand so Broker2008
I just wanted check what were the ins and outs of maternity policies before complaining... although having gone through the mill with our first born (complications, baby icu, long stay etc) in retrospect we are ok with the fact that we chose to go public and how we were treated by the hospital .. I dont think we would have gotten any better treatment if we had gone private from the getgo..same staff same baby same treatment.

Maybe the add is all kosher so,, but I still feel they are playing on your feers by using newborn children as the hook..and in my book that stinks, it's as if to say you are putting your family at risk if you decide to go public..


just one more question (as colombo used to say)??? it's about the "medically necessary" comment below

broker2008 wrote: »

Armelodie - Just wondering about that, in the case of costs related accommodation for the the woman in the ad ...if the woman in the ad was in the hospital for "ten days" after the cesarian do the VHI provide full cover for ten days (in both a private room or a semi private or what)? - yes if medically necessarily to stay in hospital. Room is dependant on plan eg Plan A will only allow semi private room in a public but Aviva equivalent will cover private room (upto the hospital as to whether you get one though)

You say "if medically necessary to stay in hospital..." if a mother choses to breastfeed would it be medically necessary for her to stay in the hospital?

broker2008

Actually there was a complaint about this ad.

The complaint was not upheld.

http://www.asai.ie/complaint_view.asp?CID=847&BID=40

evolving_doors

broker2008 wrote: »

Actually there was a complaint about this ad.

The complaint was not upheld.

http://www.asai.ie/complaint_view.asp?CID=847&BID=40

Ok thanks a million for that, it's interesting to read the grounds cited also..



on other grounds though..
How about the stereotype of the husband at home not able to work the frying pan...

2.16
Marketing communications should respect the dignity of all persons and should avoid causing offence on grounds of gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the traveller community.

2.17
Marketing communications should respect the principle of the equality of men and women. They should avoid sex stereotyping and any exploitation or demeaning of men and women. Where appropriate, marketing communications should use generic terms that include both the masculine and feminine gender; for example, the term 'business executive' covers both men and women.


Also 2.22
Advertisers should not exploit the credulity, inexperience or lack of knowledge of consumers...

From the VHI website it states that ..."If the hospital you attend does not have a direct payment agreement with Vhi Healthcare you will be asked to settle your hospital bill when you are discharged and claim the money back from Vhi later."

So the woman in the add may have had to pay the costs upfront and then claim back later but it implies that she just had to "sign at the bottom"

broker2008

VHI and the other insurers are covering themselves. There is a list of hospitals that are covered on the websites of the 3 companies that have direct settlements.

evolving_doors

broker2008 wrote: »

VHI and the other insurers are covering themselves. There is a list of hospitals that are covered on the websites of the 3 companies that have direct settlements.

Yes, but it may be argued that they are exploiting the 'lack of knowledge' of the consumer (2.22), the implication is that she was fully covered and just had to sign at the bottom line which took care of any costs on discharge, ...whereas... in some cases the bill may have to paid by the insuree up front and then claimed back off of the insurer at a later date.(as outlined on the vhi website).
Shouldn't they state this in the add
No?

I think my main gripe is that there is no small print outlining what policy they were referring to and the circumstances of the woman's particular case in relation to her policy. Same as when they refer to a car insurance policy they have in the small print (based on comprehensive insurance of a person 25yrs of age living in xyz etc...)