Moratorium vs Full Medical Underwriting: What Bupa, AXA and Aviva Don’t Spell Out

When you take out private medical insurance with Bupa, AXA Health, Aviva or anyone else, you’ll choose an “underwriting basis.” It sounds technical, but it simply decides how your pre-existing conditions are handled. Get it right and claims are smooth; get it wrong and you could face a nasty surprise.

Moratorium underwriting

With moratorium, you don’t fill in a medical history form upfront. Instead, conditions you’ve had in a recent period (commonly the last five years) are excluded — but many can become covered again after you’ve gone a continuous period (often two years) without symptoms, treatment or advice for them.

• Pros — fast to set up, no forms, conditions can “come back into cover” over time.
• Cons — less certainty at claim time, as your history is assessed when you claim.

Full medical underwriting (FMU)

With FMU, you disclose your medical history when you apply, and the insurer tells you exactly what is and isn’t covered from day one.

• Pros — certainty upfront; you know precisely where you stand.
• Cons — more admin at the start, and any exclusions are fixed from the outset.

Which should you choose?

If you have a clean bill of health, moratorium is often simplest. If you have a medical history and want certainty — or you’re switching insurers and need continuity — full medical underwriting or a continued-cover switch may serve you better.

Choosing the wrong underwriting basis is the most common reason PMI claims get declined. It’s worth a five-minute conversation.

ComparePMI compares underwriting options across a wide panel of insurers and explains them in plain English. If you’d like advice on which basis suits you, we introduce you to an FCA-authorised firm who provides it. Free and no obligation.