Pet's Best Insurance Services Reviews (%countItem)
Pet's Best Insurance Services Rating
Address: 2323 S Vista Ave Ste 100, Boise, Idaho, United States, 83705-7343
Phone: |
Show more...
|
Fax: |
+1 (866) 777-1434 |
Web: |
|
E-mails: |
Sign in to see
|
Add contact information for Pet's Best Insurance Services
Add new contacts
Regarding policy numbers #*** and #***. I timely and properly filed 2 claims for my dog in November of 2016 following unexpected and costly teeth extractions. From the moment I filed, the customer service provided by this company was unacceptable and sloppy. They initially sent a request for additional documentation. I requested this information from my veterinarian right away. The office faxed the information right away. When I followed up, Pets Best reported they didn't receive the information. I physically watched my veterinarian office fax it an additional two times. They still claimed to not receive info. I sent all the records certified. I still had to email and ask them to find paperwork. They claimed they still needed more. On my 6th trip to veterinarian they went through trouble of having vet write detailed later. I sent certified and still had to request they find paperwork. Finally, eight months later I was informed we will not be reimbursed for anything. If they could have taken care of this in timely and organized manner, I would have never renewed my policy in December.
Your policy has very specific exclusions regarding dental treatment, especially anything related to periodontal disease. Your pet had nine teeth extracted. This is almost always due to periodontal disease, but we wanted to get your pets medical records to try and see if there was another reason for the extractions. Your records took some time to obtain, and once they were received they confirmed that the extractions were due to periodontal disease and were appropriately denied.
Regarding policy numbers #*** and #***. I timely and properly filed 2 claims for my dog in November of 2016 following unexpected and costly teeth extractions. From the moment I filed, the customer service provided by this company was unacceptable and sloppy. They initially sent a request for additional documentation. I requested this information from my veterinarian right away. The office faxed the information right away. When I followed up, Pets Best reported they didn't receive the information. I physically watched my veterinarian office fax it an additional two times. They still claimed to not receive info. I sent all the records certified. I still had to email and ask them to find paperwork. They claimed they still needed more. On my 6th trip to veterinarian they went through trouble of having vet write detailed later. I sent certified and still had to request they find paperwork. Finally, eight months later I was informed we will not be reimbursed for anything. If they could have taken care of this in timely and organized manner, I would have never renewed my policy in December.
Your policy has very specific exclusions regarding dental treatment, especially anything related to periodontal disease. Your pet had nine teeth extracted. This is almost always due to periodontal disease, but we wanted to get your pets medical records to try and see if there was another reason for the extractions. Your records took some time to obtain, and once they were received they confirmed that the extractions were due to periodontal disease and were appropriately denied.
Regarding policy numbers #*** and #***. I timely and properly filed 2 claims for my dog in November of 2016 following unexpected and costly teeth extractions. From the moment I filed, the customer service provided by this company was unacceptable and sloppy. They initially sent a request for additional documentation. I requested this information from my veterinarian right away. The office faxed the information right away. When I followed up, Pets Best reported they didn't receive the information. I physically watched my veterinarian office fax it an additional two times. They still claimed to not receive info. I sent all the records certified. I still had to email and ask them to find paperwork. They claimed they still needed more. On my 6th trip to veterinarian they went through trouble of having vet write detailed later. I sent certified and still had to request they find paperwork. Finally, eight months later I was informed we will not be reimbursed for anything. If they could have taken care of this in timely and organized manner, I would have never renewed my policy in December.
Your policy has very specific exclusions regarding dental treatment, especially anything related to periodontal disease. Your pet had nine teeth extracted. This is almost always due to periodontal disease, but we wanted to get your pets medical records to try and see if there was another reason for the extractions. Your records took some time to obtain, and once they were received they confirmed that the extractions were due to periodontal disease and were appropriately denied.
I purchased pet health insurance and filed a claimed at which time there was no communication they took 2 1/2 weeks more than they were supposed to and then denied my claim citing a pre existing condition and pneumonia is secondary so they dont have to pay and saying its my fault that it took so long was told I could file for appeal but the same people that reviewed my claim the first go round would take a look at the appeal I find this unfair and a cop out there is not medical history to support that plus my vet will write a letter stating this to support my claims
Ms. complaint is being handled on appeal, by way of a consumer complaint with her state's Department of Insurance, and via communications with the carrier who underwrites her policy. While we are working our way through those three channels, there is nothing further I can add by way of the Revdex.com. We are in regular communication with Ms., as is the carrier who underwrites her policy. All indications at this time indicate that the condition she is claiming began several months before she purchased coverage. As the coverage she purchased does not cover pre-existing conditions (as no pet insurance in the country does) the claim was denied as being outside the coverage purchased. The denial appears to have been appropriate.
I purchased pet health insurance and filed a claimed at which time there was no communication they took 2 1/2 weeks more than they were supposed to and then denied my claim citing a pre existing condition and pneumonia is secondary so they dont have to pay and saying its my fault that it took so long was told I could file for appeal but the same people that reviewed my claim the first go round would take a look at the appeal I find this unfair and a cop out there is not medical history to support that plus my vet will write a letter stating this to support my claims
Ms. complaint is being handled on appeal, by way of a consumer complaint with her state's Department of Insurance, and via communications with the carrier who underwrites her policy. While we are working our way through those three channels, there is nothing further I can add by way of the Revdex.com. We are in regular communication with Ms., as is the carrier who underwrites her policy. All indications at this time indicate that the condition she is claiming began several months before she purchased coverage. As the coverage she purchased does not cover pre-existing conditions (as no pet insurance in the country does) the claim was denied as being outside the coverage purchased. The denial appears to have been appropriate.
I purchased pet health insurance and filed a claimed at which time there was no communication they took 2 1/2 weeks more than they were supposed to and then denied my claim citing a pre existing condition and pneumonia is secondary so they dont have to pay and saying its my fault that it took so long was told I could file for appeal but the same people that reviewed my claim the first go round would take a look at the appeal I find this unfair and a cop out there is not medical history to support that plus my vet will write a letter stating this to support my claims
Ms. complaint is being handled on appeal, by way of a consumer complaint with her state's Department of Insurance, and via communications with the carrier who underwrites her policy. While we are working our way through those three channels, there is nothing further I can add by way of the Revdex.com. We are in regular communication with Ms., as is the carrier who underwrites her policy. All indications at this time indicate that the condition she is claiming began several months before she purchased coverage. As the coverage she purchased does not cover pre-existing conditions (as no pet insurance in the country does) the claim was denied as being outside the coverage purchased. The denial appears to have been appropriate.
On Dec 17 2016 Mr. (Golden Retriever 4-1/2 years old) went outside in the AM to do his business. A few hours later he started to vomit. No diarrhea was involved. I called the Vet and took him in the same day. I kept the evidence of some small white bones or chicken pieces that was thrown up. My observation since I do not give him bones or people food some kids that pass through the back of the property since I live across the street from a Junior High School threw something in the yard which he came in contact with. I filed a claim since this was accidental with Pets Best and was denied. I re submitted an Appeal claim which included a letter from the "Brett The Vet" stated his findings. This illness lasted 12 hours and did a follow up the next day with Dr. Brett The Vet. My bills cost me $700.00. I just received a letter today from Pets Best denying my claim. I pay over $36.00 a month for his insurance. Since this was accidental I do not understand why I was denied. Over 11 years of service I only filed 5 claims for my other dogs. This was the 1st claim with Mr..
The budget policy that was purchased is for accidental injuries only. It contains a specific exclusion against illnesses. As the claim in question was for an illness, as confirmed in your complaint, the claim was appropriately denied. For the purposes of the coverage purchased, an accidental injury is defined in your policy as follows:
Covered Accidental Injuries include: trauma; poisoning; bite (animal, insect, snake); hit by car or moving vehicle; foreign body ingestion requiring surgical intervention; bone fracture; laceration; cut; abrasion; wound; torn nail; and other such related medical problems directly attributable to Accidental Injury.
Additional Coverage Limitations
Disease conditions including, but not limited to: bacterial; metabolic; viral; viral like; or cancer are not considered
Accidental Injuries. Cruciate injury and patellar luxation are not considered Accidental Injury and as such are directly excluded.
Medical records obtained from Arizona Animal Hospital indicate that the rule out diagnoses are gastroenteritis or pancreatitis. Both of these are illnesses and not accidental injuries. Had medical insurance been purchased rather than accidental injury insurance, this would certainly have been a covered claim.
On Dec 17 2016 Mr. (Golden Retriever 4-1/2 years old) went outside in the AM to do his business. A few hours later he started to vomit. No diarrhea was involved. I called the Vet and took him in the same day. I kept the evidence of some small white bones or chicken pieces that was thrown up. My observation since I do not give him bones or people food some kids that pass through the back of the property since I live across the street from a Junior High School threw something in the yard which he came in contact with. I filed a claim since this was accidental with Pets Best and was denied. I re submitted an Appeal claim which included a letter from the "Brett The Vet" stated his findings. This illness lasted 12 hours and did a follow up the next day with Dr. Brett The Vet. My bills cost me $700.00. I just received a letter today from Pets Best denying my claim. I pay over $36.00 a month for his insurance. Since this was accidental I do not understand why I was denied. Over 11 years of service I only filed 5 claims for my other dogs. This was the 1st claim with Mr..
The budget policy that was purchased is for accidental injuries only. It contains a specific exclusion against illnesses. As the claim in question was for an illness, as confirmed in your complaint, the claim was appropriately denied. For the purposes of the coverage purchased, an accidental injury is defined in your policy as follows:
Covered Accidental Injuries include: trauma; poisoning; bite (animal, insect, snake); hit by car or moving vehicle; foreign body ingestion requiring surgical intervention; bone fracture; laceration; cut; abrasion; wound; torn nail; and other such related medical problems directly attributable to Accidental Injury.
Additional Coverage Limitations
Disease conditions including, but not limited to: bacterial; metabolic; viral; viral like; or cancer are not considered
Accidental Injuries. Cruciate injury and patellar luxation are not considered Accidental Injury and as such are directly excluded.
Medical records obtained from Arizona Animal Hospital indicate that the rule out diagnoses are gastroenteritis or pancreatitis. Both of these are illnesses and not accidental injuries. Had medical insurance been purchased rather than accidental injury insurance, this would certainly have been a covered claim.
On Dec 17 2016 Mr. (Golden Retriever 4-1/2 years old) went outside in the AM to do his business. A few hours later he started to vomit. No diarrhea was involved. I called the Vet and took him in the same day. I kept the evidence of some small white bones or chicken pieces that was thrown up. My observation since I do not give him bones or people food some kids that pass through the back of the property since I live across the street from a Junior High School threw something in the yard which he came in contact with. I filed a claim since this was accidental with Pets Best and was denied. I re submitted an Appeal claim which included a letter from the "Brett The Vet" stated his findings. This illness lasted 12 hours and did a follow up the next day with Dr. Brett The Vet. My bills cost me $700.00. I just received a letter today from Pets Best denying my claim. I pay over $36.00 a month for his insurance. Since this was accidental I do not understand why I was denied. Over 11 years of service I only filed 5 claims for my other dogs. This was the 1st claim with Mr..
The budget policy that was purchased is for accidental injuries only. It contains a specific exclusion against illnesses. As the claim in question was for an illness, as confirmed in your complaint, the claim was appropriately denied. For the purposes of the coverage purchased, an accidental injury is defined in your policy as follows:
Covered Accidental Injuries include: trauma; poisoning; bite (animal, insect, snake); hit by car or moving vehicle; foreign body ingestion requiring surgical intervention; bone fracture; laceration; cut; abrasion; wound; torn nail; and other such related medical problems directly attributable to Accidental Injury.
Additional Coverage Limitations
Disease conditions including, but not limited to: bacterial; metabolic; viral; viral like; or cancer are not considered
Accidental Injuries. Cruciate injury and patellar luxation are not considered Accidental Injury and as such are directly excluded.
Medical records obtained from Arizona Animal Hospital indicate that the rule out diagnoses are gastroenteritis or pancreatitis. Both of these are illnesses and not accidental injuries. Had medical insurance been purchased rather than accidental injury insurance, this would certainly have been a covered claim.
I have been with Pets Best since 2014 and have paid them on time for complete coverage of my two dogs throughout the length of the dogs' policies. Monthly payments for both dogs came to $245 a month. Both dogs are in perfect health and have not had any issues. The yearly blood work I have done proves it. I have only been using Pets Best for their yearly checkups which comes to around $300 per dog, $600 for both dogs per year, plus the one teeth cleaning of $382 for just one dog this year for which I was reimbursed $100. This past month I mistakenly had the yearly checkups for my dogs made 5 days before the renewal of the policy, and I tried my best to have it covered as the claims clearly show a yearly checkup, nothing more, which is covered 100%, but the customer service simply said nothing could be done and I could not be reimbursed because of the 5 days difference and it is a legal contract. I have been paying Pets Best $245 a month, that comes to $2940 a year, and they cannot refund me $600? Furthermore, had I not checked my bill, they would have added a further $15 a month to my new policy. At least that they reimbursed me. I know insurance companies can be ruthless prioritizing their financial gain over their clients' health (and perhaps even more so with pets), and Pets best is definitely a good example of such practice. I just want to be reimbursed for my two dogs' yearly checkups, and hope for Pets Best reputation, they will do so. I see many complaints.
Unfortunately, there is nothing that Pets Best can do in this situation. We are a third party administrator of an insurance contract between the policyholder and the insurance carrier. The policy in question provides a set amount of wellness benefits per policy year. These benefits reset upon renewal, which is communicated by mail 50 days ahead of the renewal date. Pets Best cannot pay for services that are not eligible because all the benefits have been used during the current policy year.
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response on ethical grounds: There are different types of business practice - ethical ones and those based on financial greed.. It is 100% clear that Pets Best is just another one of those based on financial greed. I forgot to mention the deductible I would have had to pay above my monthly rate, $500 for one dog, $250 for the other, should my dogs have gotten ill (which they never did). It seems only very neglected, seriously ill dogs might just benefit somewhat from this insurance, that is if they did not have any pre-existing conditions from the start. Laws should be made to prevent such unethical lawlessness.
Sincerely
I have been with Pets Best since 2014 and have paid them on time for complete coverage of my two dogs throughout the length of the dogs' policies. Monthly payments for both dogs came to $245 a month. Both dogs are in perfect health and have not had any issues. The yearly blood work I have done proves it. I have only been using Pets Best for their yearly checkups which comes to around $300 per dog, $600 for both dogs per year, plus the one teeth cleaning of $382 for just one dog this year for which I was reimbursed $100. This past month I mistakenly had the yearly checkups for my dogs made 5 days before the renewal of the policy, and I tried my best to have it covered as the claims clearly show a yearly checkup, nothing more, which is covered 100%, but the customer service simply said nothing could be done and I could not be reimbursed because of the 5 days difference and it is a legal contract. I have been paying Pets Best $245 a month, that comes to $2940 a year, and they cannot refund me $600? Furthermore, had I not checked my bill, they would have added a further $15 a month to my new policy. At least that they reimbursed me. I know insurance companies can be ruthless prioritizing their financial gain over their clients' health (and perhaps even more so with pets), and Pets best is definitely a good example of such practice. I just want to be reimbursed for my two dogs' yearly checkups, and hope for Pets Best reputation, they will do so. I see many complaints.
Unfortunately, there is nothing that Pets Best can do in this situation. We are a third party administrator of an insurance contract between the policyholder and the insurance carrier. The policy in question provides a set amount of wellness benefits per policy year. These benefits reset upon renewal, which is communicated by mail 50 days ahead of the renewal date. Pets Best cannot pay for services that are not eligible because all the benefits have been used during the current policy year.
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response on ethical grounds: There are different types of business practice - ethical ones and those based on financial greed.. It is 100% clear that Pets Best is just another one of those based on financial greed. I forgot to mention the deductible I would have had to pay above my monthly rate, $500 for one dog, $250 for the other, should my dogs have gotten ill (which they never did). It seems only very neglected, seriously ill dogs might just benefit somewhat from this insurance, that is if they did not have any pre-existing conditions from the start. Laws should be made to prevent such unethical lawlessness.
Sincerely