Medical insurance has no cash value itself. The so called cash value come from investment of unit trust hence it is called ILP. Those projected profit from the unit trust is not guaranteed nor must be profit. There may be negative return as well. If negative or less than projected then it may costlier then standalone. The beauty of ILP concept is to use igood nvestment return long term to offset the cost of insurance.

Gurus, expert or agent of insurance
Please advise on the matter.

My parent has a medical insurance since long time ago, and the policy said cover until 69 aka next year they will 69 .
What will happen after next year, just lapse like that then no more coverage?
Can it be extended?

The premium is so expensive about 8k plus for this year renewal, they need to assure whether it can be extended before deciding to pay for this year renewal.
Because if next year cannot be extended, it seems pointless to continue to pay for the 8K plus, because only can get 1 year coverage with annual limit about 100K only.
It is an old policy, so annual limit is rather low.

Fully understand the risk involved if opt not to renew.

The main issue, the policy will just lapse after 69?
Only if can be extended, may be got courage to renew.

I see. thank you for the reply.
Newer plan for a person currently 68?
Wouldn't be it is as expensive?
Existing old plan already 8k plus, if beyond 70 guess needs >10K?

They would like to keep it as well, but paying 8K plus to get the last year coverage of about 100K annual limit, doesn't seen a good deal.
Last time, not so expensive.
They have some saving and EPF to cover, or worst case opt for gov hospital. Touch wood.

It is standalone policy, and already so expensive... imagine paid 10 years for both, need almost 200K. That money may can cover a number of surgery and hospitalisation. Touch wood.
It seems doesn't worthwhile for aging people to take up medical. Because paid 10 years, almost 100K, annual limit only about slight 100K plus.

Surrender old plan and getting new plan, has a risk of pre-condition especially one is already aging.
You don't know what medical condition you may already have prior pre-subscribe the new plan.

Medical insurance is not like PA or others type of yearly renewal insurance, whereby you can ditch old plan and getting newer cheaper plan without risk.

ILP may mean long term commitment with investment portion inside.

My personal choice would be standalone first since your son still young.
In the future, if want ILP also no too late.
Standalone is easier to manage and based on yearly renewal.
If any newer better policy come out in the future, can cancel and take new one.

ILP inside got investment, and some investment may need considerably longer time to have return.
Cancel early may not be so good.

Anyway just personal choice, standalone vs ILP has their own pro and con, can't say which is better.

ILP also incur steep increase in medical cost when old.
No way to escape high medical cost or premium when old.
Insurance is profit driven business, not charity.

After all, her son may want to buy his own medical policy when grown up, as policy may be totally different by then.
Let them choose what they want then, as they are the one paying for it by then. Retirement is 60 years down the road issue, don't need to worry too far front.

I remembered last time bought medical insurance, annual limit is like 100k, 200K only. Now, newer policy come out with 1 mil or even more.

It is not because ILP doesn't incur steep medical cost premium when aging but because ILP drawdown the investment portion of money to pay for it.

ILP, you pay upfront more, the extra more being channeled into investment and being drawdown later so that pay lesser than Standalone when old.
Standalone, you pay upfront less and pay more afterwards.

Just like
ILP- bitter first, later sweet later.
Standalone - sweet first, bitter later.
Both also one bitter, one sweet. Neutral.

If one is financially discipline, both actually not much different. While Standalone may have more advantage in term of flexibility of cashflow and investing. Mind that certain a few ILP may suffer poor return as well.

The lesser pay standalone, the extra money can be invested into ETF or whatever, then long term future reap good profit, and those profit can help you to pay the bitter bill later on, which in the end of day, similar what ILP can offer.

But if take up standalone, have extra cash but spent with unnecessary stuff end up no money for future, then different story.

Generally, ILP is unable to have sustainability issue are due to
1. The investment return is not as good as initial projected. Investment can be as well making zero return or losses, there is no guarantee on the return. It is like unit trust.
2. The medical cost inflation rise as more than projected.

I think your concept on ILP is not quite right.
ILP- Every year when you paid for the ILP premium, the money is split into two portion, one is used to pay for the medical premium, the rest goes to investment typically like unit trust.
In early day or younger age, bigger portion goes to investment, as younger age has lesser medical premium compared to old age, similar to standalone.

Eg. 4000 premium yearly. 1000 goes to medical + 3000 investment. (Compared to standalone that you just pay the medical premium)
after 20 years, investment pool got 60K.
When old age, medical cost rise to 5000, then you still pay 4000, but the deficit 1000 deducted from your accumulated investment, this is where ILP "fixed" premium mechanism comes from, although it is not actually fixed.
When even older, medical cost rise to 10k, it continue to deduct the 60K pool until exhausted.

Due to early day of projection that the ILP (that normally projected certain return) should be sustain until 80 or whatever age, the investment pool money is estimated not enough, then the ILP premium needs to be raised or top up into the investment or whatever to solve the sustainability issue.

So it is never about ILP has less quantum rate increase or not compared to standalone. Both medical cost or premium rise together with age that nobody can run away. Just the pool of investment money being deducted out in the process.

Insurance company have standalone and ILP customer policy.
When there is medical inflation cost that need to pass through policy holder, will insurance treat differently between ILP vs standalone policy holders?

Since insurance basis is about working in a pool of fund, aka collect money then compensate or pay to those need to claim,
does insurance separate out the pool of standalone vs ILP?

ILP is about medical + investment only. It is not a magic channel to reduce quantum of increase medical premium. As no one escape rise in medical premium. Whether how steep, be it standalone or ILP, nobody knows the future.

The primary objective for getting ILP is have an investment or save extra in early age for investment that will be used for future paying medical premium.

No one can know how future medical inflation will be shaping.
No one can answer this question, even insurance companies.

I don't understand why hype on this question.
People already answered how ILP works, how ILP level or mitigate by saving and investment early to pay for future in the mechanism. This is the purpose of ILP.

ILP is not a tool to pay less for future repricing.
Both standalone and ILP serve to customer needs, neither is better nor worst.

As mentioned before
ILP consist two portion. Investment + medical
For the medical part repricing you cannot reduce it simply because you are on ILP, as simply as that. End of story.
How to use early saved investment money to pay, to level, has nothing to do with repricing of medical cost, it is just number game to play around in term of adjustment your annual premium and sustainability issues.

Medical repricing is always subjected to aging and market inflation on medical cost + numbers of claims incurred. When the whole population aged, and more claims incurred in the pool of fund, repricing needs to occur.
Insurance companies is profit orientated, not charity fund. So the pool of claims also a factor for repricing.

Level your premium /= reduce or lower medical insurance cost repricing.
Your premium paid in ILP this year /= your medical insurance cost currently.

Level your preimum, just means using your early saved money investment to level.

We are all along talking on medical insurance cost repricing, not your current paid premium or future premium.
The quoted statement never say lower or reduce medical cost at older age.

I guess you may still fail to comprehend ILP has 2 portion to start with, that are not interfering with each others except when need to drawdown the investment portion to compensate rise in medical cost.

Smoothen effect has nothing to do with incremental or ability to reduce cost of medical insurance in the future.
Smoothen effect has no real effect apart of psychological or own feel good factor only.
But this smoothen effect has goodness towards those have no financial discipline and tend to spend once they have cash.

Illustration, (not real, just a hypothetical scenario)
First option (mimic to standalone) assume every 5 years repricing due to aging (set aside inflation in medical cost premium repricing :
1,000 (first 5 years)- 2,000(x5) -3,000(x5) -4,000 (x5) - 5,000(x5) -10k (x5)
Total paid 100K over 25 years

Hypothetical smoothen effect in ILP:
Pay fixed 3K for 25 years.
Total 75K paid over 25 years, but due to more upfront being channeled into investment that gain in return of 25K and being drawdown eventually,
Total also 100K

If one wants to have feel good factor or less shock effect aka having the smoothen effect, then it is individual choice, in reality, not much difference in between.

Mind that those lesser amount paid in standalone example above in early years (2K each year), even put more in FD can yield more than 100% return after 25 years.

You have smoothen effect but a the same times sacrifice cashflow in early years, and potential other investment opportunities.

If at young age needs to choose standalone due to "buy within your means", meaning you cannot afford to buy ILP that with higher premium at early stage, As simple as that.
Or you have spent those saved money instead letting the saved money invested to grow more money for long term future.

ILP is just like EPF, forced you saved extra in the early year for retirement so that you have some money to pay for future incremental of premium. But it doesn't mean it reduce your medical repricing.
But ILP does very good for those have no strong financial discipline, again similar to EPF.

There is no "cheaper" insurance.
ILP vs standalone, the premium gap generally bigger, the merely extra 300 is not enough for long term sustainability and having smoothen effect in the future.

ILP has been drafted as the total projected money needed for the entire period let say 25 years.
If ILP need 3000 pa, for 25 years, means standalone may also need that amount for 25 years period.
Let say standalone is 1200 vs ILP 3000, 1800 saved, the 1800 is for you to put into investment, make the 1800 money grow money.
It is not something should be spent if one intends for have long term sustainability medical insurance in mind.

The advantage with standalone is that you have flexibility cashflow in the early year.
It is never about cheaper or can save money with standalone or ILP can have lower medical cost when aging, all are irrelevant.
You are focusing wrong on medical insurance (by persistent want to know which is "cheaper") by comparing ILP vs standalone.

ILP and standalone just a different package, it doesn't differ much the cost of medical insurance one needs to pay over the long term.

Historical data is not useful to predict the future repricing.
Reason :
1. Population aging compared to previous.
2. Pool of standalone and ILP may be changing. Recent years more and more agents push towards ILP, it may shape how ILP repricing as well.
3. Potential more claims can result in more repricing. Nowadays have see people with minor issue also want to do full checkout and try to claim, as well as potential more sickness due to unhealthy lifestyle
4, Newer medical equipment, advanced and more costly treatment that result higher claims money needed may result more repricing in the future.

Again, no point to predict how future premium will be, be it standalone or ILP.
Future repricing or your so called quantum of increase can never be known or predicted.

ILP and standalone are orange and apple - you are trying to justify which is cheaper - pointless
Want to know quantum of increase future repricing - something future that can be totally unpredictable - pointless.

No point trying to make correct guess game like 20 or 30 years down the road, there are too many variables that we cannot control. There won't be any conclusion even digging out super AI computer to process all the data.
Just plan whatever current condition and forseeable future, and making adjustment along from time to time.