Question

A 9-year-old Arabian horse is reevaluated 4 months after the removal of a mandibular mass. The wound was debrided and cultured. Treatment resolved most of the problem, although the horse still needs follow-up care. The client is concerned because the pet insurance policy will not pay for additional care of this condition. Which of the following is the most likely explanation for the insurer's mandate?

1) Per-incident limit
2) Annual limit
3) Co-payment
4) Premium
5) Deductible

Answer 1

The insurer's mandate is likely due to a per-incident limit, which is a maximum amount the insurance company will pay for each separate illness or injury.

Step-by-step explanation:

The most likely explanation for the insurer's mandate of not paying for additional care of this condition is a per-incident limit. A per-incident limit is a maximum amount that insurance companies will pay for each separate illness or injury. In this case, the removal of the mandibular mass was considered a single incident, and the insurer may have reached the limit for coverage related to that incident. Therefore, the client would need to pay for any follow-up care for the horse's condition.