Published 2026-10-02 · Last updated 2026-10-02.
How insurers view it (general)
Type 1 vs Type 2 — different paths
Type 1 vs Type 2. Type 1 diabetes, usually diagnosed younger and managed with insulin for life, is viewed as higher risk because of longer duration and greater management complexity. Type 2, usually adult-onset, varies widely: well-controlled Type 2 managed with diet and exercise alone is viewed most favourably, while Type 2 requiring insulin or multiple medications sits in a different tier. Both types are insurable in general terms; the realistic expectation for Type 1 is a table-rated policy — a higher premium for the same benefit — rather than a standard rate, while well-controlled Type 2 can reach standard rates at some carriers. No rate class is promised for any applicant here.
A1C history — the single most important number. Underwriters review your A1C (average blood sugar) level and, just as importantly, its trend over time. A consistently lower A1C over two or more years signals controlled diabetes and opens the best available rate for a diabetic applicant; a rising or persistently high A1C narrows options and raises the rating. Bring your A1C history, not just your latest result, because a single good reading after years of poor control reads differently from a stable record.
Age at diagnosis and duration. Earlier diagnosis generally means longer disease duration and greater cumulative risk, so a person diagnosed at 40 is viewed more favourably, all else equal, than a person diagnosed at 20 with the same current control. Longer duration with no complications is a positive signal; longer duration with complications is penalised more heavily.
Complications. Neuropathy (nerve damage), nephropathy (kidney damage), retinopathy (eye damage) and cardiovascular complications each add meaningful rating, and multiple complications together — or complications combined with other risk factors — can push a case toward decline. No complications is a key positive underwriting factor, and it is worth stating plainly in your application if it is true.
Treatment, weight and companion risks. Oral medication only is generally viewed more favourably than insulin, though insulin does not disqualify you — it signals a different risk tier. Body weight, blood pressure and cholesterol compound the picture: well-controlled companion risks can partly offset a higher A1C, while uncontrolled companion risks stack on top of it. This is why the high blood pressure page (L9) is a useful companion read if you have both conditions.
What to disclose — and how to present control
Disclose diabetes exactly as the application asks it: type, date of diagnosis, current treatment, A1C history as you understand it, and any complications. Do not round an A1C down, omit a complication, or describe insulin use as oral medication — a material omission risks the claim itself under contestability, as the exclusions page explains, and a denied claim is worse than a rated policy.
Present control with evidence, not adjectives. If your clinician will provide a letter confirming well-controlled diabetes with no complications, that letter can help an underwriter see past the diagnosis word to the record behind it. Keep your own notes in the same order an underwriter reads them: type, diagnosis date, treatment history, A1C trend, complications (or their absence), and companion risks with their control status. If your control has recently improved, say when it improved and what changed — a recent improvement with a documented trend is stronger than a claim of good control with no dates.
Calculator link — size the need, then shop the condition
Use the life needs calculator (L1) to size the cover amount before you compare diabetic underwriting. The need does not change because you have diabetes, but shopping without a number leads to a common error: accepting whatever benefit a carrier offers, rather than testing whether that benefit matches the need. Once you have the number, compare policy types in the term-vs-whole explained article, and remember that a term policy is often the efficient way to carry a large, temporary need at a lower starting premium — if your underwriting outcome allows it.
If the first answer is rated, postponed or declined
A rating is not a rejection: it is a higher premium for the same benefit, and the size of the rating varies enormously by carrier for the same applicant — carrier selection matters more for diabetic cases than for most others, so a second and third opinion are worth the effort. A postponement usually means the carrier wants a longer record of control; use the time to document it, rather than reapplying immediately with the same record. A decline from one carrier is not a verdict on insurability: simplified-issue policies (health questions, no exam) and, as a last resort, guaranteed-issue policies (no health questions, higher price per dollar, usually capped benefits and graded early benefits) remain, but work down that ladder in order — fully underwritten first, simplified next, guaranteed last — because each step down costs more per dollar.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE — not a policy fact
Consider two ILLUSTRATIVE applicants. The first has Type 2 diabetes diagnosed five years ago, managed with oral medication, with a stable A1C record over two years and no complications. The second has Type 1 diabetes diagnosed in childhood, with several complications and a rising A1C. An underwriter would view the first application very differently from the second — not because one diagnosis word is "better" in the abstract, but because type, duration, control trend, treatment and complications all point in different directions. These are ILLUSTRATIVE contrasts to explain underwriting logic; they predict no real applicant's rate class, and no premium figure is asserted for either person.