Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Can Complicate Life Insurance Applications

For men with low-risk prostate cancer, active surveillance can be a medically recommended way to monitor the disease. But a patient’s experience with life insurance suggests that insurers may treat monitoring as “untreated cancer,” with financial consequences even when a doctor advises against immediate treatment.

Chicago-based medical journalist Howard Wolinsky says eight insurers declined his applications after his term life policy expired in 2013. They cited a small amount of prostate cancer diagnosed three years earlier, although his urologist and a second-opinion specialist had recommended surveillance rather than surgery or radiation.

His plan involved regular prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood tests, biopsies and, later, MRI scans. The approach has worked well for him. Yet after repeated rejections and negotiations, he converted his original coverage into a $100,000 universal life policy. He had previously paid $184 a month for $600,000 of term coverage; the conversion kept the same premium but left him with substantially less protection.

What active surveillance means for low-risk disease

Wolinsky’s cancer was Gleason 6, also called Grade Group 1, the lowest grade group on the current scale. Pathologists use the Gleason system to describe how prostate cancer cells look under a microscope. They assign two pattern scores, each from 3 to 5, then add them to produce a score between 6 and 10. A low score can support monitoring instead of immediate treatment, depending on a patient’s clinical picture and a doctor’s assessment.

Surveillance is not the same as ignoring a diagnosis. It involves follow-up tests intended to track whether the cancer changes. Wolinsky’s second-opinion specialist advised him in 2010 to hold off on treatment and described his Grade Group 1 cancer as “lame.” That recommendation, he writes, is what made the insurers’ description of his cancer as “untreated” feel at odds with his care.

Still, a biopsy finding cannot guarantee that more aggressive disease will never be detected. Regular follow-up matters, and insurers assess an applicant’s risk of dying during the coverage period from any cause. For Wolinsky, a heart attack in 2005 was another relevant part of that assessment.

Broker estimates point to delays and higher costs

Wolinsky recently asked two insurance brokers, both of whom have Gleason 6 diagnoses themselves, to consider a hypothetical 64-year-old man with a new diagnosis and a history of heart attack. The brokers’ estimates were informal, not decisions from insurers. Even so, they suggested that the obstacles Wolinsky encountered may persist.

One broker said some insurers might postpone a decision for three to five years while looking for stable PSA results and no increase in the cancer’s grade. That waiting period could leave someone following a specialist’s surveillance plan unable to learn whether coverage is available until years later. Applying at an older age could also mean higher premiums.

The past heart attack could affect price separately. Insurers may use table ratings when an applicant does not qualify for standard rates but may still be offered coverage. Each table rating adds 25% to the standard premium. One broker estimated that the hypothetical applicant might receive a Table 6 rating, roughly 150% above standard rates: a $1,000 annual premium could become $2,500. The brokers’ estimates for the hypothetical case reached thousands of dollars a year.

In this scenario, the heart attack appeared to drive the price, while the prostate cancer could delay a decision. The brokers could not say that every man on surveillance will face a delay, a higher cost or a denial. Their estimates do, however, raise questions about how insurers interpret monitored disease alongside other health history.

Questions patients can raise with their care team

Wolinsky says he does not know whether surgery or radiation would improve the hypothetical applicant’s chances of affordable coverage. That question may come up for patients who are weighing treatment partly because of insurance concerns. It calls for a discussion that includes the patient’s medical circumstances and the possible consequences of changing a care plan for financial reasons.

People considering life insurance while on active surveillance may want to ask their doctor what information best describes their monitoring and results. They can also ask a broker or insurer how stable findings, a surveillance schedule and a history of heart disease may factor into an application. The article does not establish how any particular insurer will decide a case.

Wolinsky argues that the medical record should convey more than a label such as “untreated.” He wants insurers to explain how they weigh years of stable findings, whether they use specific approaches for applicants on surveillance, and how they consider prostate cancer alongside heart disease. Clearer explanations, he writes, could help patients and clinicians understand decisions and plan with less uncertainty.

The central issue is not whether surveillance is equivalent to treatment. It is whether insurers recognize that ongoing monitoring follows a doctor’s recommendation and that a person’s record includes details beyond a diagnosis label. Wolinsky’s experience and the brokers’ estimates do not predict every outcome, but they suggest that patients may encounter insurance questions even when their care plan is clear.

Howard Wolinsky is a Chicago-based medical journalist and editor of The Active Surveillor, a newsletter covering active surveillance news. He brought the insurance issue to the attention of the American Urological Association’s insurance roundtable earlier in 2026.

Have an opinion on this essay? Submit a letter to the editor.

Topics: Cancer, Men’s and Boys’ Health, patients.

Submit a correction request | Reprints

Email Howard Wolinsky | Email Howard Wolinsky

STAT’s coverage of health challenges facing men and boys is supported by Rise Together, a donor-advised fund sponsored and administered by National Philanthropic Trust and established by Richard Reeves, founding president of the American Institute for Boys and Men; and by the Boston Foundation. Its financial supporters are not involved in decisions about its journalism.