Sorry, I know this question has been asked before but I'm seeking a bit of clarity.
I'm one of the lucky ones in that I have no ill health related to PBC and I do feel for those of you suffering so much. Back around 2001, I was found to have AMAs after a blood test for another reason. No unusual LFTs or anything else associated with PBC, scan of liver was fine, and definitely no symptoms. Routine annual liver function tests were fine until about ten years ago, when they became a bit elevated. Went onto Urso, which worked immediately and everything has remained stable since. Like I said, I feel really lucky.
However, wanting to book a longer cruise of a lifetime whilst I'm still young enough to go, I am being quoted £3450 for the trip. Without declaring PBC, the quote is about £550. So back to the question, do I have to declare myself as actually having PBC when I have none of the symptoms or clinical indications, although I am medicated. From the questions, it looks like insurers have a distorted view of PBS, questions only focusing on end stage but of course, insurance costs affect all of us at all stages.
To repeat, I feel a bit guilty asking my question when so many others have much more serious issues, but it feels like PBC is penalising me and maybe others, in other ways. If anyone can advise, I'd be very grateful.
Best wishes to all