Write for us — insurance
We publish contributions from people who work inside insurance and can explain how it actually operates.
That is a narrower filter than most sites apply, and it is deliberate. This site exists because almost everything written about life insurance underwriting is written by people who have never seen an underwriting manual. If you have, we want to hear from you.
Who we publish
Underwriters, current or former, at any carrier or reinsurer. You know things the public record does not contain.
Impaired-risk brokers and agents who place difficult files for a living and can say which carriers actually have appetite for what.
Actuaries and pricing analysts who can explain why a rate class costs what it costs.
Clinicians whose specialty intersects with underwriting — endocrinology, cardiology, oncology, pulmonology — and who can explain what a lab value means in a risk context.
Insurance regulators and compliance professionals who can explain filings, state variation and what the rules actually require.
Consumer advocates and attorneys who handle claim denials, rescissions and contestability disputes.
If you are none of those but have a genuinely researched piece with primary sources, pitch it anyway. The bar is the sourcing, not the job title.
What we are looking for
Pieces that answer a question the internet currently answers badly.
- How a specific condition is actually assessed, with the factors in the order underwriters weigh them
- What changed when a carrier revised its guidance, and what it means for applicants
- Explanations of mechanisms most consumers never see — reinsurance treaties, table shaving, facultative referrals, flat extras that expire
- Regulatory or filing analysis with the documents linked
- Claim-side pieces: why claims get contested, what the contestability period does in practice
- First-person practitioner accounts of how a difficult case was actually placed
Roughly 1,200–2,000 words. Longer is fine if the length is earning its place.
What we reject, every time
Anything with a rate figure we cannot trace to a source. This is the single most common rejection. If you state a premium, a threshold or an A1c band, tell us where it comes from — a carrier guide, a filing, a rate card. "Industry standard" is not a source.
Thinly disguised advertising. If the piece exists to make one carrier or agency look good, it is an ad, and we do not run ads dressed as editorial.
Generic SEO filler. "Everything you need to know about life insurance" written from other blog posts. We can tell, and so can readers.
Unlabelled AI output. We use AI ourselves and say so in our AI content policy. What we will not publish is model-generated prose presented as lived expertise, or invented statistics. If a model helped you draft, that is fine — but every factual claim still has to be real and sourced.
Medical or financial advice. We publish how underwriting works. We do not tell readers what to buy or what to do about their health.
Links and disclosure
You may include links to genuine sources, research and documentation — we encourage it, and well-sourced pieces are the ones that get accepted.
Commercial links to your own agency, product or service are marked rel="sponsored" or rel="nofollow", without exception and regardless of any commercial arrangement. That is Google's requirement and our policy, and it is not negotiable. If a link's value to you depends on it passing authority, this is not the right site.
Any piece where the author has a commercial interest in the subject carries a disclosure line naming that interest.
Placement options and turnaround
Editorial contributions from practitioners are free — if your piece is accepted on merit, you pay nothing, ever. The options below are for businesses that want a commercial placement, which is a different thing and is labelled as such on the page.
| Placement | What you get | Review | Turnaround |
|---|---|---|---|
| Editorial contribution | Full article, your byline and credentials, dofollow citations to sources | Full editorial review, may be rejected | 2–3 weeks |
| Link insertion | One contextual link added to an existing relevant article | Relevance check | 3–5 days |
| Sponsored article | Your article published with a sponsored label and disclosure line | Accuracy and compliance review | 5–7 days |
| Sponsored feature | Sponsored article plus placement in the related-links block on matching condition pages | Accuracy and compliance review | 7–10 days |
Every commercial placement carries a visible sponsored label, a disclosure line, and rel="sponsored" on commercial links. That applies at every tier and is not something a fee changes.
For current rates on the commercial tiers, ask through the contact page.
Topics we would commission tomorrow
If you can write any of these credibly, we are interested before you finish the pitch:
- What a facultative referral looks like from the underwriter's desk, and what triggers one
- How reinsurance treaty terms shape which conditions a carrier will write
- Table shaving: which carriers do it, on what, and what it saves an applicant
- What actually happens in a contestability investigation, from someone who has run them
- How accelerated underwriting models get audited, and what a random holdout is
- Why two carriers price the same A1c three table ratings apart
- The MIB file: what is actually in it, and how to read your own
- Flat extras that expire — how they are priced and when they fall away
- What changed in HIV underwriting between 2010 and now, and why it took so long
- Guaranteed issue economics: how carriers price a product that cannot decline anyone
- State filing analysis: what a rate filing reveals that marketing does not
- How group conversion rights are actually exercised, and where people lose them
How to pitch
Send the pitch, not the finished article. One paragraph on the argument, one on why you are the person to make it, and the sources you intend to use.
Use the contact page. Put "Guest post pitch" in the subject.
We reply to pitches we want. If you have not heard back in two weeks, it was not a fit — please do pitch something else rather than following up on the same idea.
Questions we get asked
Do you accept unsolicited finished articles? We prefer a pitch first. Finished pieces sent cold are read, but far less often and far more slowly, and most get rejected on an angle problem that a two-line pitch would have caught.
Do you pay contributors? Not currently. Editorial contributions are unpaid on both sides — you pay nothing and we pay nothing. What you get is a byline on a site that will not publish anything it cannot source.
Will my links be dofollow? Citations to research, filings, carrier documents and reference material are dofollow. Links to your own commercial entity are rel="sponsored" or rel="nofollow" in every case, including editorial contributions. If a placement's value depends on passing authority, this is not the right site.
Can I include statistics from my own company's data? Yes, and we like it — proprietary data is genuinely interesting. We will ask about methodology and sample size, and we will describe it as your company's data rather than presenting it as an industry figure.
How much editing will you do? Enough to matter. We cut promotional language, ask for sources on unsourced claims, and tighten structure. We do not change your argument, and you see the edited version before it publishes.
Do you accept AI-assisted drafts? Yes, with the same standard we hold ourselves to in our AI content policy: a model can help you write, but it cannot be the source of a factual claim. We check citations, and fabricated references end the relationship.
Can I update my article later? Yes. Guidance changes and we would rather a piece stayed accurate. Send the update and we will date the revision on the page.
What happens if we accept
You get an editor. We will push back on unsourced claims, ask for documents, and cut anything that reads as promotional. That process is the point of the site, and it is the reason a byline here is worth having.
Your piece carries your name, your credentials and a link to your professional profile. We do not publish under house bylines and we do not strip attribution.
Standards we hold everything to, including our own work, are in the editorial policy.