Final Expense Comparison Sheet

[digfesales105]

You can do it. Just take a day...sit down and do your own spreadsheet? I've done it a few times and the time is worth it. So take each carrier and do let's say...$8 or $10K. Then compare Immediate...ROP...Graded...Modified etc... Then...tobacco and nontobacco and then GI.

Won't be "perfect" but easy enough to help you in the field for quick results. Once you sit down and start it...it will go fast. Just have to sit down and do it.

 

[TDFnCali]

Here is what I do that helped me as a rookie to FE that might help others. I cut out the health questions for each carrier and taped them to a sheet of paper, one carrier on each sheet. Then I coppied it onto card stock paper which I punched holes in and put in the back of my presentation binder. On the top of each page I have the carrier name, my agent number and the POS number if that's required. At the bottom I have details about that carrier's plans, age, amounts, weight chart kind of stuff. I have a note page with health condition and which carriers are the ones to look at. Also who takes credit cards, monthly billing etc. I started it out with notes I picked up on this forum from JD & others. (big thanks by the way). Like COPD look at Monumental Immed. On the back of that page I have the weight charts for those carriers that have them.

This makes it much easier to look for the best carrier for a person's situation. No pulling out a bunch of ap's. I get their health conditions, run fexquotes and see which is the cheapest plan they qualify for.

I dont think u really need to do all that, heres what I do...

I ask Smoker or Non...

Diabetic or no (if yes, any complications/hopitalizations, etc)

Any of the 3 "majors"- Heart Attack, Stroke or cancer? (Again, if yes, when & what happened?)

Any major illnesses (i throw out a 5-6 for examples)

Any major surgeries (mainly on organs)

By asking those, 85-90% of the time I know where I can take them & what they qualify for. The other 10-15% I have to dig deeper or actually bring out on app to make sure..


Maybe that helps....

 

[rousemark]

You can do it. Just take a day...sit down and do your own spreadsheet? I've done it a few times and the time is worth it. So take each carrier and do let's say...$8 or $10K. Then compare Immediate...ROP...Graded...Modified etc... Then...tobacco and nontobacco and then GI.

Won't be "perfect" but easy enough to help you in the field for quick results. Once you sit down and start it...it will go fast. Just have to sit down and do it.

If you subscribe to FEXquote, you won't have to do the rates for comparison. I use the browser on my phone to pull up the rates for all the cos I represent right in the house. The only thing I have to keep up with is which carrier is friendliest for whatever condition the prospect has.

 

[0b1kanobee]

I have one started that we could use as a template and once we get the major health red flags completed, it would be easy to add new carriers...I'm looking for details like what do you sell a preferred smoker over 70, or CHF without MIB screen...etc...all the little details could be solved with an interactive chart.

Who wants to join this project with me? PM me and I'll start an email chain to get this going.

I was asking for this very same thing almost one year ago today and my thread turned into a discussion on Forethought. See here: F.E. Cheat Sheet And/or Health Questionaire

There are a bunch of folks who will tell you what you are asking for won't work but I disagree. I think it could be accurate 90% of the time or real close to it. The other times to get better accuracy is the "sixth sense" that has been brought up and all that really is field experience coming into play. For someone like JD that sixth sense of his is going to be unattainable for most but that's not what is needed. It would be great to have but one doesn't need it to make sales.

With that said, a comparrison sheet or cheat sheet as I call it has also been dismissed because I've been told "things change" meaning today one company who accepts a particular drug might tomorow have that drug be a decline. I can think of plenty other excuses as to why the sheet was dismissed. I on the other hand feel the opposite and am of the opinion that for those exact reasons a cheat sheet should exist and it would also pretty much be a living and breathing document if you will. This is why JD is up every morning looking on the computer over all his carrier websites because no matter how great his "sixth sense" is, it doesn't mean a thing if something has changed and I know he does this daily because he says that is what his routine involves daily.

Now coming from a different industry we had these type of sheets which were known as 'Industry Guidelines'. If you built a certain something you had to refer to these guidelines. Sometimes they are also referred to as 'code'. They are also living and breathing and its not uncommon to see new code books and industry guidelines yearly and through the course if the year as new products come out.

I personally think its a lot for one guy to handle. JD has said he keeps up with carriers daily pretty much before he starts his day. I'm not that disciplined. You can put me in the group to help with the cheat sheet, comparison sheet or whatever you want to call it and I'll be happy to contribute to a real living, breathing guideline. In fact I've already got something going. The companies I want are Americo, Monumental, UHL and Foresters (in that order) but I'd be happy to have some others as well.

In order for this to work it would have to be contiuously updated as needed as carriers make changes. Without doing so it could be antiquated within a week or within only a few months as carriers are constantly changing things. I'd be onboard if say 5 other people wanted to participate and each took on 2 carriers (as an example) or 3 with two carriers each.

I also see further potential here as well. There's a lot if agents out there who would want access to this if done correctly as well as IMOs handing out contracts. You can go to all these Final Expense learning sites and none of them have this information up to date (it's antiquated). Newby has the only site I've seen that comes close but at the same time is a ways off what I'm proposing.

 

[Newby]

I was asking for this very same thing almost one year ago today and my thread turned into a discussion on Forethought. See here: F.E. Cheat Sheet And/or Health Questionaire

There are a bunch of folks who will tell you what you are asking for won't work but I disagree. I think it could be accurate 90% of the time or real close to it. The other times to get better accuracy is the "sixth sense" that has been brought up and all that really is field experience coming into play. For someone like JD that sixth sense of his is going to be unattainable for most but that's not what is needed. It would be great to have but one doesn't need it to make sales.

With that said, a comparrison sheet or cheat sheet as I call it has also been dismissed because I've been told "things change" meaning today one company who accepts a particular drug might tomorow have that drug be a decline. I can think of plenty other excuses as to why the sheet was dismissed. I on the other hand feel the opposite and am of the opinion that for those exact reasons a cheat sheet should exist and it would also pretty much be a living and breathing document if you will. This is why JD is up every morning looking on the computer over all his carrier websites because no matter how great his "sixth sense" is, it doesn't mean a thing if something has changed and I know he does this daily because he says that is what his routine involves daily.

Now coming from a different industry we had these type of sheets which were known as 'Industry Guidelines'. If you built a certain something you had to refer to these guidelines. Sometimes they are also referred to as 'code'. They are also living and breathing and its not uncommon to see new code books and industry guidelines yearly and through the course if the year as new products come out.

I personally think its a lot for one guy to handle. JD has said he keeps up with carriers daily pretty much before he starts his day. I'm not that disciplined. You can put me in the group to help with the cheat sheet, comparison sheet or whatever you want to call it and I'll be happy to contribute to a real living, breathing guideline. In fact I've already got something going. The companies I want are Americo, Monumental, UHL and Foresters (in that order) but I'd be happy to have some others as well.

In order for this to work it would have to be contiuously updated as needed as carriers make changes. Without doing so it could be antiquated within a week or within only a few months as carriers are constantly changing things. I'd be onboard if say 5 other people wanted to participate and each took on 2 carriers (as an example) or 3 with two carriers each.

I also see further potential here as well. There's a lot if agents out there who would want access to this if done correctly as well as IMOs handing out contracts. You can go to all these Final Expense learning sites and none of them have this information up to date (it's antiquated). Newby has the only site I've seen that comes close but at the same time is a ways off what I'm proposing.

Beyond what I have on my site which takes each major health condition and tells how each company will look at it and highlights the best choices, it would take a pretty complicated program to go further. The reason is people have multiple health conditions. Also each company has different underwriting methods.

For example the most strict FE companies (LaFayette, ForeThought, Assurity, etc.) are going to surprise you with rate ups and declines no matter how well you screen their applications. The least strict companies (American Continental, 5-Star, Lincoln Heritage, etc.) are NEVER going to surprise you and basically depend on the agent to do proper health screening on the application. Most of the other companies fall in the middle and those are the ones that the agent has a short learning curve to make their underwriting fully predictible. It doesn't take long IF you make certain you don't try to add too many companies at once.

My opinion, if an agent contracts under someone who KNOWS the underwriting and is accessible AND has cheat sheets and briefing from your upline from the beginning AND access to a web tool such as my site has for the quick lookup on the fly, it's the best way to quickly ramp up and learn it quickly and have it in your brain which should be the end goal for everyone.

If software was available that you type in ages and conditions and it spit out companies, it would be handy for brand new agents BUT I don't think those agents would ever develop the detailed knowledge of underwriting that you get by learning it one piece at a time. It would be similar to someone who ONLY knew how to get places by using a GPS but had no knowledge of how his territory looked on a map.

 

[jdeasy]

Cheat sheets would probably be helpful for a new agent as long as they didn't depend on it too heavily. There are just too many variables.

One is one meds. Say a person takes 5 or 6 meds and none of them are listed with a particular company as a knock out but a combination of those meds will knock them out. You may know that over time as an agent but you couldn't put all of that on a cheat sheet. And many companies are consistant in being inconsistant.

And it changes all the time. I have one company right now giving me a problem on the division of assets for the contingent beneficiaries. There are 3 children and I put "100%" in the box. I used to write "equally" when there were more than one and they told me to stop doing that because the agent guide said it was divided equally is not specified differently. Now I'm getting emails saying I need to put equally on there and it will now cause an amendment.

I've been having a discussion with Monumental now about the numorous phone interviews. They claim they do them only 15% of the time. You couldn't put that on a cheat sheet for an agent to rely on because it's just simply not how it is out in the field.

Then you have cases that will be approved this week and the almost exact case declined next week. RNA used to approve people that were on furosemide and then they put it on the decline list. It's not back to being accepted again as long as they are not taking it for CHF.

Foresters was taking people 2 years ago that they will decline today.

Changes on the fly are the norm instead of aberations.

 

[rousemark]

Cheat sheets would probably be helpful for a new agent as long as they didn't depend on it too heavily. There are just too many variables.

One is one meds. Say a person takes 5 or 6 meds and none of them are listed with a particular company as a knock out but a combination of those meds will knock them out. You may know that over time as an agent but you couldn't put all of that on a cheat sheet. And many companies are consistant in being inconsistant.

And it changes all the time. I have one company right now giving me a problem on the division of assets for the contingent beneficiaries. There are 3 children and I put "100%" in the box. I used to write "equally" when there were more than one and they told me to stop doing that because the agent guide said it was divided equally is not specified differently. Now I'm getting emails saying I need to put equally on there and it will now cause an amendment.

I've been having a discussion with Monumental now about the numorous phone interviews. They claim they do them only 15% of the time. You couldn't put that on a cheat sheet for an agent to rely on because it's just simply not how it is out in the field.

Then you have cases that will be approved this week and the almost exact case declined next week. RNA used to approve people that were on furosemide and then they put it on the decline list. It's not back to being accepted again as long as they are not taking it for CHF.

Foresters was taking people 2 years ago that they will decline today.

Changes on the fly are the norm instead of aberations.

JD: A statement that I use for beneficiary designations that the company can't really object to is "Share and share alike, all to the survivor(s)." This not only indicates that they share equally, it prevents the heirs of a deceased beneficiary from bringing suit claiming that the insured meant for the distribution be made "per stripes" which would entitle them to a share of the proceeds. This protects the company and the agent from being caught up in a long drawn out hassle before a claim can be settled.

 

[jdeasy]

JD: A statement that I use for beneficiary designations that the company can't really object to is "Share and share alike, all to the survivor(s)." This not only indicates that they share equally, it prevents the heirs of a deceased beneficiary from bringing suit claiming that the insured meant for the distribution be made "per stripes" which would entitle them to a share of the proceeds. This protects the company and the agent from being caught up in a long drawn out hassle before a claim can be settled.

I know. My point was a company will tell you one way to do something one day and then a different way the next time. Of course they are always right.

 

[rousemark]

I know. My point was a company will tell you one way to do something one day and then a different way the next time. Of course they are always right.

Of course .

 

[SportsNut]

Foresters was taking people 2 years ago that they will decline today.

Changes on the fly are the norm instead of aberations.

This seems to be the path of most companies.... CHANGE. I can just imagine how this comes about; death claims rise and they analyze them for what the u/w matrix of circumstances were on those cases. Gosh help us agents if one particular Rx or condition shows up in more than a few of those claims. Next that condition or Rx is no longer acceptable. Therein goes the ruination of what was a tolerable insurance company or product. I believe that this is reactionary [crisis] management style.