Hi everyone, I have five case studies for you this time. I’m going through life insurance options for gift planning and IHT planning. Arranging life insurance to protect against these taxes is often quite straightforward, but there are a number of technicalities that can mean that the ‘normal’ approach to life insurance doesn’t give your client the best outcome.

Things like your client’s residency, their health and other factors, can play a big part on how your approach choosing the right insurer and life insurance product for them.

The key takeaways:

• Three case studies of arranging life insurance in different ways for gift protection 
• Two case studies of arrange life insurance for IHT protection 
• Insights into how reviewable and guaranteed premiums can each work positively for your clients, depending upon their circumstances 

Next time I will be joined once again by Lisa Balboa, Head of Life & Health Digital Business Accelerator at Hannover Re, to talk about the latest insights into AI and insurance. 

Remember, if you are listening to this as part of your work, you can claim a CPD certificate on our website, thanks to our sponsors NextGen Planners.

Kathryn Knowles  00:11

Hi everybody. We are on season 10, Episode 10, and today is just me, and I’m going to be chatting you through some IHT and protection insurance case studies. This is the practical protection podcast.

Kathryn Knowles  00:35

So just be very clear from the big start. So when it comes to things like IHT planning and using protection insurance, it’s we get a lot at cure of a lot of our clients do come through introducers, so wealth managers, pension specialists, ifas, and it will be quite easy in some ways, for either my clients or the introducing IFA to potentially identify who I’m talking about when I’m giving case studies, it could be to do with health disclosures. It could do with residencies, the amount of tax liability, things like that. So I want to be super, super clear that with the case studies that I’m chatting about today, they are incredibly anonymised. If there’s a health condition, I will have swapped it for something different, completely unrelated, but it will still be the same underwriting outcome. So one of the ones I’ll be chatting about is somebody who has declined insurance, and so what I have done is I’ve chosen a completely different set of risks that caused the decline so that it isn’t identifiable to anybody. I’ve also done things like changing the some assurance for the insurance that we are looking at as well, but being reflective in terms of it’s the same outcome in terms of underwriting. So if it was a case of somebody had rearranged their insurance and their premium was increased by what’s known as a plus 50. And then I’ll be doing the same for the summer show that I’ve chosen to use as an example. We’ve got five case studies to look at today, and probably quite a quick episode just then. Again, I do golf on tangents, as we know, but I will try and do my best not to tangent too much, but it’s just obviously me trying to provide as much information as possible for you all, and to give you a really good idea of what that kind of pricing is, and also some of the difficulties that we might need to go around. So I know that the first case study I had was incredibly interesting to do. It was very, very kind of like here, there and everywhere, in terms of the technicalities and trying to figure out the best outcome for the clients. One where possibly, you know, one route would seem like the most usual route that you would take, but actually, if you did something slightly different, much, much better outcome. But, but yeah, we will go through them all and just see where we are with things. So first case study. So this is somebody who needed a gift into Vivek policy. So they were making a gift, and it was in excess of their nil rate band that will make probably a lot of sense to the ifas they’re simple for other people, the nil rate band is the amount of assets that you have that can be inherited without there being the inheritance tax liability. That’s different. If you are single, if you’re married, depending upon the ownership of your primary property, depends upon how much your estate is worth overall as well. Lots and lots of things go into that kind of a consideration. It’s one of those things as well, if you work just in protection insurance. So I’d say a lot of our clients do come from ifas, where a lot of this has already been, you know, the calculations and all these things have been thoroughly, thoroughly gone through and by people who are obviously qualified in that area. But there are times that clients will come direct to us as protection specialists and just say, look, I want life insurance. I’ve calculated this. What I would say is, if you’re a protection specialist in that area, and that’s happening, and you don’t have somebody who’s qualified in your company to look at that kind of those calculations and things like that, is to have an IFA or someone that you trust and that you can say to the client, well, look, you know, you’re probably gonna say, Well, look, this is the price that it would be for that. But just in case you’ve not calculated it exactly as as you would need to. Then, you know, here’s some, either an IFA or a handful of ifas, that I would suggest you engage with and just make sure. Because if somebody’s come to you in that situation and they haven’t had an IFA already calculated it for them, then it probably means they don’t have an IFA at all. And and you know, it would be a good idea, obviously, to just make sure that they do get that advice. Because obviously, ifas look at so many different things, can. See so many different areas, and people can either think that that they have lots and lots of IHT, that they’re going to need to pay, or their family will need to pay. And actually that’s not the case. It’s much less, or it could be a lot more. So always sort of like have that, that wonderful phrase of sign posting as well. So anyway, I’ve gone off on a tangent again, haven’t I? So anyway, we have this person, and there’s a couple of things with this. So this person actually retired and left the UK to the south of France, which is very nice. They’re in their early 60s, and they’re a non smoker. And what they decided to do was to make a gift from the UK, from their UK assets, to their children, who are based in the UK. So we have initially this immediate thing of well, the person who’s wanting the insurance is not a UK resident, which takes out all of your main insurers in the UK for doing cover for them. So you’re going to need to start looking into the international side of things. What you would usually do in this kind of instance, and with the gift is you typically tend to do an own life policy. So the person shows themselves, pays for the insurance themselves, and it’s put into trust for the people who have received the gift. So in this case, the children. But, and this is the thing where I said, like, that’s what you’d usually do, but I’ve obviously have a look at audit scenarios. So this one ended up being a bit unusual, because obviously we are who we are. We always go for the more unusual and quirky cases. So we obviously had a look at it. And another way that you can set up life insurance is as a life of another policy. So somebody arranges the policy on someone else’s life. There are obviously certain compliance rules and things like that for doing that, and it isn’t the usual way that you would do it. In terms of the gift. We still had the residency issue, so we still had to do the international cover. It just so happened that the children in the UK and the policies, instead of the parent in this in the south of France owning it. But owning it, but doing it as own life policy was 50% more of the premium. And when we talk about the premiums innovator, we’ll be able to see roughly, I’ll do some very quick calculations, roughly how much of a difference that would have made. And it was really, really strange, because of the fact that obviously so we decided to do life of another, because they’re like, Well, I’d much rather pay, you know, not that amount compared to this amount if we do his life of another, but they still then wanted to pay the premium themselves, rather than their children paying it themselves. So what ended up happening, and it says it’s very, very complicated. So what ended up happening is the children arranged the life of another policy for the parents who lives in France, and the parents in France then gifted them money to cover the premiums, because obviously they’d initially intended to pay the premiums themselves on lone life policy. So we’ve gone for life of another the parent is gifting them the money for the premiums for the children to use. So we’re actually covering a gift, but actually the payment of the premium also is acting like a gift. So that’s also a gift. So very, very unusual situation, but that was still better overall than doing an own life policy. It was better than financially to do it that way, another aspect of it, and just because of, like minimum terms of life insurance and things like that, the policy actually had to be split into three policies. So I say we’ve gone through the complication. If we’ve got residency, we’ve gone for life of another instead of own life. We now have the fact we’re doing three policies instead of one, because we couldn’t do your gift interviews actual, an actual gift interviews policy that’s only available with LV, and obviously they don’t do the overseas residency cover. And so what you can do is build up a number of other plans of like specific term insurances to make that work. So what we did, I’m going to say I’m giggly now, because it does sound absolutely insane when I’m sort of going through it now, as to everything that happens so with this one, so there was three policies done over five, six and seven years to make sure that we had the full amount of the gift covered for however long we needed it to cover for. But then what would then happen is, on the on the policies, you would then start to reduce the summer short at, well, one of the policies, you reduce the some assured at set times from after year three, when the tax starts to taper. And I do apologize for anybody who’s not familiar with the the tapering side of things, or any kind of technicalities I’m discussing here. I do apologize, but essentially to just sort of like so we’ve had to do three policies that’s really technical. Just trust me, it really needs to be done that way. And but it was 1 million 100 145,000 pounds was the value of the gift tax. So that was arranged over seven years, and that came out at approximately 519 pounds per month. So that was 6228

Kathryn Knowles  10:16

pounds per year. So if you think about if you did plus 50, you’re looking at almost 10,000 pound a year if we had done an own life version. So we’ve saved the client about, you know, close to 3000 pounds, or little over 3000 pounds per year, by doing it as life of another, which is something that obviously they, they very, very much wanted to do. Because why wouldn’t you? Why wouldn’t you want to save 3000 pounds? I mean, I appreciate the value of the gift is clearly quite large, but still, if we can save 3000 pounds a year, then we definitely want to be doing that. So that one you have to take into account the residency, the policy type, the product type, the structure, how the premiums are being paid, and then also the technicalities of the policies as to how many you needed to set up. So that was a really, really fun The next one is really, really simple and easy. So don’t worry, I say it’s simple and easy. It is simple and easy. However, there is, again, a little quirk with it. So the next person was somebody in their late 50s, and again, non smoker, and they wanted a obviously, what they wanted they needed, again, a gift into Vivek style kind of situation. And I’ve got the three different ways and pricings in front so I can explain to you, sort of like, why certain things and choices were made. So the gift interviews policy, as I say, is only available at the moment with LV, you have to quote it in specific quote engines to be able to see it. And you can build gifting to vivos style plans. So if another insurer says, I’ll come to us, we do gifts. You know, we do gift life insurance, it’s because they’re doing a solution plan, and it’s not actually gifting to vivos. And what you do this is something we potentially do quite often, is while looking at it and considering it for your clients. If, when you are looking at doing these things, is you take the value of the tax liability for the gift, and you kind of to say, like, if it said, like, if it was a million pounds, we’d say that the value was the gift tax was potentially 400,000 just as a very, very rough thing. Okay? So then what you do is you kind of imagine that 400,000 as its own 100% so the 100% of the gift tax would be 400,000 and then what you do is you split that down into five. So you do 20% of the 400,000 and you do 20% of over three years, over four years, five years, six years and seven years. So you do five policies each at a value of 20% and so that over time they reduce as the gift taxation reduces. That’s, you know, I mean, the ideal situation is to do the gifting to vivos, where it’s got all of that kind of set up for you already. It’s got certain protections in it as well towards certain rules or changes in the taxation. But you can do this other option as well. Sometimes it is cheaper to do gift interviews with LV. Sometimes it’s cheaper to do this one where you do the five years, where you do five policies at 20% each, and then other times it’s cheaper to just do a level seven year term for the full amount and then just manually decrease it after year three each year with this client, there was no risks at all. The Financial questionnaire was quite intense to complete. So, you know, when you are looking at certain levels of insurance, there will be financial questionnaires. It can feel quite intensive in terms of completing them. But you know, hopefully, especially when you do have people with these kinds of value and estates, there would usually be an accountant involved, or an IFA who would have a lot of the information to fill that out. So to give you some examples, so the amount of insurance that we needed was, oh, let me just have a look. I’ve got. Do you know what I’ve said? I’ve put in my notes. This is terrible, isn’t it? I’ve put in my notes exactly how much insurance I needed. But then when I did it for the five individual policies, but then not actually listening to myself as like, okay, yeah, there we go, 5.2 million. That’s all we needed. Quick bit of calculator there. And so we needed 5.2 million pounds worth of life insurance, so on a gift into Vivek policy. And that was being indicated, and it’s 855 pounds per month. If we did it as a level seven year term, then that was indicated to 865 pounds per month. So on that one, between those two, you’re looking at anything right gifting to fee of us, it is 10 pounds a month cheaper. It gives some extra protections and certain things. But then at the same point, for. An extra 10 pound a month more, you could just have 5.2 million there for a full seven years without the value of it decreasing over time. So kind of, some are short premium value does kind of feel like the seven year one, the term one just, just actually over time, seems to have more actual value to it. But then there was the five individual policies of 1,040,000 each. So that was 1,040,000 over 34567, years, and the premium for that was 777 pound. So that’s the one that was decided to proceed with. That’s quite a big difference. You know, we’re talking sort of around 80 pound a month cheaper to do it that way than to do it the other ways. Again, you know, you could potentially argue about, well, if you did the level seven year term, then you’d say the 5.2 million, it would stay that value all this time, whereas these individual policies, it will start to drop, which it will do. But again, it comes down to showing the client what’s there and then having that frank conversation. Because for me, 10 pound difference a month to have it stay the same instead of decreasing over the seven years is doesn’t seem too bad, but when it’s 80 pound a month difference, that feels like quite a jump. So I would go with and like we did, do? We went with the one where it was that’s that cheaper amount. Okay, then, right? We then have a third case study. So this one again, was somebody making a gift, but the gift was all within the nil rate band. And the intention is, if the gift sits within the nil rate band. What we want to do is, for the seven years that that could potentially, that that that part of the nil rate band could be lost because it’s been absorbed by the gift, if the person has passed away, we’re kind of wanting to replace the value of what’s been lost, just so that the family have those extra funds there, essentially. So with this one, again, very nice and straightforward. So someone in their mid 60s, a non smoker, and 280,000 pounds of life insurance over seven years was a little over 90 pounds per month. And so that was just nice and simple and straightforward. And that was done as the level term life insurance over the seven years, because that’s what’s needed in that regard to protect the nil rate band. Now we have two case studies in terms of the IHT planning, because there is going to be IHT on the deaths of both people when they pass. So we’re not talking about gifts here. We are talking about the full IHT on the estate. And so case study four. Okay, so we have people in the early 50s. Again. This is a really nice, kind of straightforward one, so not too much to dwell on with this. But some two people at early 50s, non smokers, and they need 1.7 million of joint life second death. So really important to make sure you do the joint life second death, if it’s a married couple, and obviously they have joint assets, and the IHT is going to be on the estate, because IHT is not between a married couple, but it is once they’ve both passed away, that’s when it would kick in. And if you do joint night first death, then it’s going to be a lot more expensive, and it’s going to pay out before the actual tax liability is due. And that can present a load of issues. And you’d have to make sure the trust was done in a certain way if you did a joint nine first death. And you’ve got to hope that if, if I was usually the children that receive it, you have to hope, in this case, that the children, if they receive 1.7 million, that they don’t suddenly blow it on lots and lots of different things, rather than keeping it on hand and ready for the IHT that will be coming in at whatever time period it might be doing. And so we’ve done a joint life second death. And it’s really important here that I give the reviewable and the guaranteed premiums that were on offer, and I’ll be doing the same for the next case, it does show just how different these things can be. So the reviewable premium was 104 pounds per month, which really didn’t feel very bad, for 1.7 million pounds worth of life insurance the guaranteed premium. So everybody be prepared. It was 1388

Kathryn Knowles  19:25

pounds per month. So huge, huge jump, more than 10 times the value of the reviewable premium. Now I am a massive advocate of guaranteed premiums, and for the reason that I have quite a lot of people quite love if I face, bring me clients to say, look, my client, they’ve got this, you know, the the old, you know, whole of life policies where they often have with profit elements to them, so like an investment aspect to them, usually set up some kind of reviewable premium. And people are getting into their 60s, their 70s, the premiums are going up, and they’re starting to not be able to afford them. Yeah. And the difficulty, you can see, and this is an example I remember not long ago, is that there was a couple and they had, they’d been paying like, 300 pound per month for their premium. And at the review, it had come back, and it was something like 550 pounds on, like, what, you know, we don’t want to be paying an extra 250 pound for this policy, which you can understand, they don’t want to do that. But the problem is, is that once they have reached that age, especially if I was looking at doing them new cover, the review ball is going to be premium is going to be much higher than what they’re paying already, and the guaranteed premium is, again, probably going to be a good you know, five times more, three to five, even on this case, you can see 10 times more than what they’re already paying. So it’s really important with the reviewable that you look at the forecasts as to what that premium is going to be. So these people, early 50s, say the reviewable payments 104 pound per month. The projection is that in 20 years time, the premium will be 953 pounds per month, so still 400 pound a month cheaper than if they did the guaranteed premium. Now that’s huge. And even though I’m fan of guaranteed premiums, that’s really huge. However, what I would say is at this, though, by that 20 years time, they’re in the early 70s, the time that that review comes in for the next because it’s usually on a five year period that this that’s reviewing it is going to jump and significantly jump. And I do have examples of that going forward. Because ultimately, we can do all this, we can make these premiums, we can save them lots of money with a reviewable premium, but if they’re going to have to cancel that policy at some point, because they just cannot afford to keep it going, because the premiums have reviewed that much and got so intense, then it’s really not fit for purpose in the sense from the start, and maybe we should be looking at alternative routes, or doing some things to try and make The guaranteed premiums as looking as nice as possible, in a sense, and and just having that open conversation so and so that one I say early 50. So really, by my early 50s, 1.7 million giant knife, second death, and it was reviewable, 104 pounds. And the guaranteed was 1388 so I have the last case study now, and this is, again, inheritance tax, joint life, second death. Now, the difference with this, and it is quite different for a couple of different things as to what we’re looking at, is that these people are early 70s, and they are non smokers, and they need 230,000 as joint life, second death, whole of life cover. Now the reason this is different for a couple of things, obviously, compared to case study for the 20 years older. So the Pm is bound to be different, but also with one of these people, they had recently been diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia. The diagnosis had happened within the last month, so there’s still very early stages of treatments, of seeing how the body is reacting to treatment. CML is a condition where you can live quite a long time with it, if it’s well, if it’s well, managed with treatments, medications and things like that. But obviously this person, you know that they are in their 70s and and obviously the body isn’t going to be able to fight it as much as someone who’s much younger. So we’re still, we’re just very, very early, but even if somebody was very young or not, but so very young, but, you know, in their 30s or 40s and had been diagnosed with this, and it was only a month ago, again, the insurers would say no until there was a longer time period to see that progression over time. So this person, one of them, they were declined, the other person was standard terms. Really important to say that it was a decline and standard terms because of the fact that with joint life, second death, if you have one person who is a decline and one who is standard terms, some of the insurers have the potential to still insure both people. And I’ll say this quite bluntly, because I think it needs to be obvious and clear as to why that is the case, but you would not be this clear with your clients if they were facing this situation, and please bear in mind I have obviously changed the the outcomes that the risks involved here, so it’s not identifiable to any of my clients, because obviously we wouldn’t want it to be so blunt. But essentially, if that is the case, it’s a joint knife second death and one person declined, one person standard rates, then the person that is going to be declined, essentially, the insurer will kind of make an assumption that that person will be the first person that passes away, because they have some kind of risks that do make it. It’s statistically more likely that they will pass away first. And with this, insurance is all about the second death. So the person sorry, the statistical likelihood of this, when the second person is going to pass away, how long it will be before that happens. And the key thing is here is that in order for this to be able to happen, potentially for joint life, second death, for it still to be covering both people, if one person has been declined, the other person needs to be standard rates. So if you do have a rating on the second person, it’s not likely that it would be available. And what the insurers do is they actually price the insurance as if it is just the second person, so the person who’s getting standard terms, they price it as if they’ve applied for it on a single life option, because they’re kind of the kind of ignoring one person and that they’re going to be there and be insured, so they’re doing it based all upon one other person, but still having both insured, which is is really, really good in terms of what the outcomes can be, especially if we’re looking at something like inheritance tax planning. So this was priced as a single life, and so we will look at the premiums here, but again, it will just show you how the differences in terms of like how reviewable and guaranteed premiums can change. But I will just say as well. Just bear in mind that the pricing for somebody on a single life, for something like this and this amount of insurance is more expensive than a joint life second death. There are reasons behind it, and whenever I whenever I say this, and whenever I look at it, my immediate thought is, what, why? Why is it cheaper for two people to be insured on a joint life second death than it is for someone single, you know? And the reason is, is because, in a sense, if it’s a single life you are. You’re, in a sense, you know, you’re gambling on when one person will pass away, and if it’s two people covered, then you’re gambling on when it’s both people passing away. So there’s almost two events happening, which means it makes it different. It makes it cheaper. If it’s joint life on the second death side of things, I know it makes sense when someone sits down and really goes through it with me, but it’s one of those things that for me, personally, and for you, if you find it better, just think, do you know it’s just one of those things. And in life, we just sometimes have to accept things. And I could sit here and look at the maths on the tables, but no, that is not what I’m going to do. So with this one price is single life, 230,000 someone in their early 70s. So the reviewable premium was 263 pounds per month. And that you might be thinking to the last one, thinking, Oh Lord, what are the what’s it going to be now on the guaranteed? Well, the guaranteed is actually 609 pounds and 33 pence. So instead of the last one being 10 times as much. This guaranteed one is three times as much, which obviously doesn’t seem so bad, but it’s really important here for me to share what happens to that reviewable premium. Because on the last one, as we saw, you know, it was 20 years time, the viewable premium still wasn’t anywhere near that original guaranteed premium. This one’s very different. So 263, pounds per month. Reviewable, 609, pounds guaranteed from the start. Well on the reviewable, year 10, the premium will become 1000 pounds per month. So at this point we’re almost 400 pound more than the guaranteed premium is, and that is by year 10, by year 15, the premium is one point. Well, it’s 1760 pounds per month. And by year 20, I appreciate these people are in their 90s. By this point, which is very, very doable, people are living a very, very long time. Now, the premium is 3570 pounds per month. And that’s what I was meaning before about because obviously, even though it says price for single life, obviously is the couple themselves repaying folks, they are going to be both covered. But ultimately, if you are looking at those reviewable premiums, and I think sometimes it

Kathryn Knowles  29:18

can be quite it can almost be sometimes the indications of the premiums going forward can be almost a little bit misleading sometimes, because if you’ve got people in their 50s, and you’re seeing an indication of a reviewable premium for 20 years time, well they’re only reaching their 70s, and in all likelihood, they’re going to live quite a bit longer than that. And you don’t get that indication once you’ve reached 20 years in the illustrations, you don’t get that indication of the premium going further and what it’s going to be like, whereas with this one, it’s, in a sense, it’s better and it’s more realistic for that long term financial plan, because they’re in their 70s, and we’re seeing by the time they’re in the early 90s, it’s say, three and a half 1000 pounds a month to have this insurance. Now, if your client is. Not going to be able to afford that, you almost kind of think, well, if they can’t afford that, then are you kind of, are they’re going to kind of think, well, you know, I don’t plan on making it to 90 anyway, kind of thing. But obviously you can’t guarantee those things. And you know, people, I’m sure, once they’re getting towards 90, quite a few will still want to be going on super strong. But if they, if they’re not going to be able to afford that, or even going up to 1000 pound a month at the when, for these people, when they reach 80, if they can’t do that, then is there any point in really starting this? Or Should there be something else looked at? Or do you go, do you know what the 609, pound per month premium. That doesn’t look nice at all compared to this lovely, reviewable one. That’s a third of the thing at the moment. Well, actually it’s more towards half, isn’t it? Sorry, I’m doing random mass in front of my head. And is it worth a while just biting the bullet and going, do you know what? You know? You are very 70s, but if you look at your family, they all lived into their hundreds or to the late 90s, I think we should go with a guaranteed premium. Now it’s just a little bit of food for thought. Everybody has their own points of view. Lots of people will have points of view that reviewable is absolutely the way to go. I know quite a lot of IFA firms where they will go for reviewable, because what they do is they do have gifts and other things that are being planned coming up, so that actually the full whole of life cover might not be needed, and it might just need to be there for a little while, and then potentially it can be canceled. And that can work really, really well the reviewable premium. But I just think a really good thing to take away today is that you know, when you’ve got those 20 year indications for the viewable premiums. And just bear in mind what that can do once the person is actually getting into their getting into their 80s and things like that. Another key thing, obviously, as well, is if you have clients, and I know lots of ifas don’t have clients who are younger, you know, you know, probably not even in their 30s a lot of the time. But if we are envisaging that, there is potential, IHT, you know, in the future. And I know that in many ways, we don’t do insurances just to say, well, this might happen in the future, you know, in terms of estates and things like that, or values. The key thing is, though, is if you can guess, the whole of life insurance is set up when people are as young as possible, in many ways, and then that is going to work out to be a much, much better outcome for them financially, even if you don’t do a huge amount, but do sort of like a ballpark amount that you’re thinking of. And then when they’re older, you could maybe look at doing a bit of a top up with some extra cover, you’ll have still been able to lock in a really good price for them at a younger age, and probably as well when their health conditions haven’t necessarily kicked in and things like that, that can really alter options going forward. But I hope you’ve all found that interesting and useful. Thank you for listening to me everybody. I’m sorry, because I feel like I’ve jumped around quite a lot of numbers and technicalities. I hope you’ve been able to stay with me as I’ve gone through it all. Next time, Lisa Balboa is going to be back with me, always lovely to have her on and get her actuarial insights. And we’re going to be talking about the latest news and things that are exciting in the world of AI and insurance. If you’ve listened to this podcast as part of your work, please do feel free to get your CPD certificate on the website, practical hyphen protection.co.uk. Thanks to our sponsors, the next gen planners. Lovely to have you all listening and really, really look forward to seeing you next time. Take care. Everybody. Bye. You

Transcript Disclaimer:

Episodes of the Practical Protection Podcast include a transcript of the episode’s audio. The text is the output of AI based transcribing from an audio recording. Although the transcription is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors and should not be treated as an authoritative record.

We often discuss health and medical conditions in relation to protection insurance and underwriting, always consult with a healthcare professional if you are concerned about any medical conditions and symptoms we have covered in any episode.