In a clinical setting, finger prick testing with immediate results is used to monitor glucose and/or cholesterol levels. It is not appropriate for diagnosis. WHO recommends HbA1c is used for diagnosis of diabetes.

The main advantage for Insurers is the perceived improved customer journey as a finger prick test is less painful than the traditional needle method. In addition the result is available immediately. However, if the results are not ‘normal’ and therefore require a ‘proper blood test’ then the customer is worse off because they will have a pin prick and a needle. There is another issue that if, for example, the glucose is found to be raised, then the nurse/ doctor will need to address this with the customer.

The accuracy standards for glucose meters have been tightened, so now 95 % of blood results need to be within ± 15% of laboratory results at concentrations of 5.6 mmol/L or more- is this accurate enough for you?

Most of our Insurer clients who want blood tests require more than just a cholesterol or glucose so there does not appear to be much value in this methodology unless underwriting rules are changed to underwrite based only on these tests and the variable results they can provide compared with lab values.

white arrow Forget fasting for blood tests