Where do I start with this? There are so many things wrong that it's not easy to pick on one thing.

Having been involved with life, disability, and medical insurance for over two decades I've seen a thing or two.

Just to quantify what I'm talking about before I launch into a ranting tirade about our medical system from some middle aged stale pale male, let's have a look at what I have seen more recently.

Just this year alone we have had 255 claims notified and 191 of them have landed on my desk to assist and manage. We have completed 166 of those claims and have 80 still in progress, including 9 long term likely permanent income protection claims paying about $70,000 per month.

In the last 5 years in addition to those that are still in progress we have had 635 claims from clients, with 442 of them being medical claims, 39 of them disability claims, 11 Trauma claims, 2 TPD claims, 6 Life Cover claims and 36 policy suspensions. Out of those 635 claims, only 7 were declined.

We have had in excess of $7,500,000 in claims paid to our clients in the last 5 years.

The declined claims we have had fit into two categories, the condition claims was excluded (and we thought there was enough to argue a claim so it was presented) or the medical evidence didn't meet the criteria for a claim to be paid. Very few of the latter.

My point in stating this; we have seen a lot of claims and talked to a lot of clients experiencing our public and private medical system.

Now what am I on about with bias in our system?

I have noticed over the years with clients, friends, family, and my own experience that the medical system has a particular bias towards how it treats people. And I'm not happy about it.

I'm not happy about this because it is biased against me? No quite the opposite, it's biased against anyone that's not pale and male.

Over the years I have noted that we have a distinct bias that follows a general approach in the following way:

1. White Male
2. White Female
3. Coloured Male
4. Coloured Female

Where the top of that list often has a far better experience with the system than the bottom.

Maori have a worse time than Asian cultures but Indian's or Western Asian people have a worse time than Eastern Asian people.

The more you are someone that looks like the bottom of that list, the more likely you are going to hear your condition is related to mental health than actually get treatment for whatever is going on.

Interestingly the demographic profile of the clinician delivering the message has little to do with the clinical answer.

This isn't about the bias of the clinicians, this is about the bias trained into the clinicians with their training.

Just in the last few years I have numerous examples of this going on.

Cases where I've been asked to assist by attending the clinical appointment with the client, and the clinician suddenly has a complete change of direction.

Discussing the client's situation and what's going on, the client presents their story with their medical evidence and the clinician dismisses it. The client adds external non-medical evidence of events and suddenly the clinician has a change of direction.

In one case involving a head injury, the clinical bias has been so bad that it's taken the client taking along a damaged helmet to demonstrate to multiple clinicians that their issue is related to a knock on the skull and the client isn't imagining it!

Another case, the clinician doing the assessment didn't agree with the expected answer, despite the clinical questions and evidence.

They changed their tune when the client stated they had tried the medication for the condition and had a significant improvement! The clinician changed their dismissive approach and investigated further.

The conditions I'm talking about here aren't mental health conditions, they are physical conditions that are often poked into the mental health box.

More often than not the client is female, and the astounding approach and answers they are contending with from supposed trained professionals I would not put up with in the same situaiton!

Time and time and time again I have observed these things, and it's not right!

Even with things that have a mental health aspect, ADHD which is a neurological condition not a mental health one. If you are a female with ADHD you are more likely to be diagnosed with a mental health disorder than actually be diagnosed with ADHD.

It's a shocker and that ADHD one has been both been well researched and documented, yet, it's still happening.

I don't know where to start on fixing this, as this is embedded in the training of clinicians globally, this is not just a local NZ thing, it's happening everywhere!

What has surprised me is it is not concentrated with pale male clinicians, which you would normally expect this sort of bias to present from. They're probably part of the original training that has created this issue, but they aren't the stand out perpetrators in the field.

The clinicians demonstrating these biases are also female and coloured, people you wouldn't expect to see this sort of bias coming through from, but it's happening.

The one clear truth from what I have observed, if you're looking for good medical support anywhere you're best to be a pale male.

If you are not a pale male, then find one to be your support person, it makes a massive difference to your treatment outcomes.

For me; I do what I do to help people, sure I help arrange cover and "sell" insurance, at the same time I'm there when the wheels fall off and people need support.

As I said earlier, I've attended clinical appointments with clients as their support person. Something I am happy to help with.

Sure, the clinicians do look at me funny when the patient introduces me, not as a partner of family member, but as their insurance adviser.

If being there with the people I look after ensures they have a better outcome for their medical care, I'm there in a heart beat.

Because looking after people is what I am all about. That includes the stale pale males too!