TOP
Pending (or planned) surgeries are one of the most challenging areas encountered by life insurance underwriters. The core challenge is that the surgery has not yet occurred and its outcome is uncertain. Even when medical reports are available, underwriters often lack a practical and consistent way of estimating how any applicant will respond to anesthesia, physiological stress, and the perioperative and postoperative period.
Surgical outcomes vary widely across individuals, techniques, and perioperative conditions. While some surgeries, such as modern cataract extraction or guideline-based stone removal, are predictably safe for suitable adults, surgeries such as craniotomy, colorectal resection, or valve surgery carry far higher inherent risk even in specialized medical centers.1,2,3,4,5
Many surgeries fall into a grey zone of intermediate complexity, which can create additional ambiguity in underwriting risk assessment. Applicant health factors such as age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, cardiometabolic disease, frailty, and chronic medication further influence perioperative outcomes.6,7
Adding to this complexity, pending surgery disclosures often contain inconsistent terminology or incomplete descriptions, leading to conservative decisions, avoidable delays, or unnecessary postponements. Key procedural or contextual details that materially influence outcomes may not be clearly captured.
It’s clear that underwriting pending surgeries requires a structured approach to manage the breadth and complexity of associated challenges. Once an applicant discloses an imminent or scheduled surgery, the underwriter is immediately alerted to a temporarily elevated risk and, more importantly, to a period of genuine uncertainty. At this stage, the clinical outcome is unknown and it remains unclear whether complications or a prolonged recovery may occur. Faced with this uncertainty, the technically straightforward response is often to postpone the application and reassess the risk after the procedure has been completed – provided the applicant still wishes to pursue cover after what may feel, from their perspective, like a temporary decline. While such a decision may be actuarially sound, it can appear unnecessarily harsh to applicants who otherwise consider themselves insurable.
In response, Gen Re has developed a structured underwriting approach that clearly distinguishes between the applicant’s underlying health status and the complexity of the planned surgery, integrating both dimensions into a transparent, evidence based underwriting pathway. This approach provides underwriters with clear guidance to identify favourable cases with negligible additional risk that do not warrant postponement. As a result, it enhances consistency, transparency, and fairness across underwriting teams and markets, enabling timely, risk adequate decisions without compromising portfolio integrity.
The framework converts surgical disclosures into two evidence-based scores that combine into a clear recommendation. In practical terms, once a Surgical Risk Score and a Health Risk Score are established, they are combined into a single recommendation that reflects total perioperative and postoperative risk. For example, a pending gallbladder removal is classified as a low Surgical Risk Score. When combined with an otherwise healthy applicant with a low Health Risk Score, an immediate offer for life insurance can be made without the need to postpone. However, keeping the surgical risk constant, the same low-risk surgical procedure may justify a short postponement when combined with relevant applicant health risk factors such as diabetes or active smoking status, resulting in a higher Health Risk Score. Conversely, even in a healthy applicant with low Health Risk Score, a pending surgery for colostomy, classified as a high Surgical Risk Score, would typically justify a short-term postponement due to the inherent surgical risk.
This approach effectively replaces case by case searching with a simple, transparent, and repeatable process. Because health status and surgery risk are assessed consistently, similar applicants receive similar decisions across offices and markets. It improves fairness, strengthens pricing alignment with true risk, and provides outcomes that advisers, clients, and reinsurers can readily understand.
Applicants benefit because low risk combinations move forward quickly, while higher risk cases are deferred with a clear medical explanation. Portfolios are enhanced because acceptance and postponement patterns align with real perioperative and postoperative outcomes.
To sum up, this integration of risk scores brings structured clinical science into daily underwriting and it ensures consistent, evidence-based decisions.
By separating the applicant’s health from the complexity of the planned surgery, evaluating each dimension with solid evidence and combining them into one clear underwriting recommendation, pending surgeries can be underwritten with much greater confidence. The approach is scientifically grounded yet operationally simple for underwriting teams and medical consultants working across markets.
By reflecting real surgical outcomes and modern epidemiology, the framework also helps low risk cases progress faster while higher risk combinations are deferred appropriately, including the reduction of avoidable postponements. This supports fairness for applicants and at the same time it strengthens portfolio performance in a way that aligns with best underwriting practice and the expectations of both insurers and reinsurers.
