Looking at my own options when I renew my dogs insurance policies, I have found an increasing number of companies are expecting owners to pay a certain percentage of the claim as well as a fixed excess. The amount of excess has risen greatly too.
I am at the point of wondering if I insure them both next year. They are both young, 3 and 4 and apart from a cut paw that needed stitching they havent needed treatment. With my previous two dogs, one did get her moneys worth as she had thyroid medication monthly plus hydrotherapy for her arthritis, treatment for an open wound when a grass seed exploded through her skin

but the other girl never had to claim. WHen they both got to 12 the premiums rose so dramatically (?100 a month for each dog) that I had to stop. If I hadnt insured them at all and had saved the money each month I would have had enough to pay for Marleys treatment.
I am a cautious person though and I like the security of knowing that if they ever needed it they could have the best treatment possible.
I do think todays vets rely too much on tests and technology. If it isnt obvious to the vet immediately, its straight to blood tests and further tests which often are inconclusive but cost the owner several hundred pounds. My old vet seemed to have more knowledge and he managed to diagnose most problems without having to do blood tests first. Most of his operations were 100 and before he retired I remember taking Marley as she had been bitten by another dog. The consultation, an antibiotic injection and a course of antibiotics cost 10! Just a consultation at my present vet costs 45 and they have a big markup on medication.
This past year my present dogs have been insured, they are young and premiums are lowish but I have also been putting money into an account for when I stop insuring them thus I will have a buffer fund if they do need treatment.
Just realized that for my new insure quotes I have been saying that my present dogs have no existing conditions and just read my previous posting about this

??-I started my quotes innocently stating they had no pre existing conditions to declare and all the quotes came out considerably cheaper than my renewal quote.
THEN I looked a little closer at the pre existing clause and it doesnt just mean on going health problems/conditions but accidents too

.
pre existing conditions could mean any illness or accident that your pet has been diagnosed with or received treatment for in the past, even if they have made a full recovery.
I was really surprised at this as my dogs havent needed to go to the vets for health problems but Ned did cut his paw badly as it went into the webbing so he needed to have stitches. Now I find that this comes under the pre existing conditions clause and if I had taken out a policy saying he didnt have any it could be seen as fraud. I am just amazed and quite angry really as accidents do happen. I also read that if you ask your vets advise about something it is noted on your records even if there is no treatment or follow up and could count against you.