Send message to Authors

Short abstract:

Former cancer patients encounter difficulties in accessing loan insurance. To remedy their insurability issues, France as developed two complementary and somehow contradictory strategies. What is the fairest way to insure former patients? More or less knowledge about their risk level?

Long abstract:

Medical progress regarding the treatment of cancer drastically increased patient’s survival rates. These improvements led to a growing population of living former cancer patients, highlighting new issues, among which insurability related issues.

To remedy their difficulties to access insurance, especially regarding loan insurance, France has developed two strategies. On one side, a reference grid to frame insurance practices with cutting edge epidemiological knowledge. On the basis of these actualized data, insurers commit to adapt their rates and exclusion policies. On the other side, since 2016, the Right to be Forgotten for former cancer patients allows people to not declare their cancer 5 years after the end of their treatments. In addition, the Lemoine act (2022) forbid the use of medical reviews for “short” loans insurance. While the first strategy consists in encouraging the production and use of knowledge, the second one, in an opposite move, lies on the reduction of information available to insurers.

With this proposal, we explore the rationales behind these two complementary/opposite strategies. How does actuarial fairness collide with the legitimacy of former cancer patients to not suffer what they call a “double penalty”? To do so, the paper will build on an ongoing investigation conducted in France. The fieldwork rests on 20 interviews conducted with former patients, and also interviews conducted with insurance professionals, regulators and patient organizations.

With the financial support of the French National CancerInstitute (INCA_15900)