Daily Bulletin


The Conversation

  • Written by Jason Thompson, Senior Research Fellow, University of Melbourne
image

Between 1955 and 1976, Australian private vehicle ownership more than tripled. This period produced improved population mobility. However, it also created a continuing human and financial toll generated by road trauma.

In response, Australia developed a series of transport injury insurance, compensation and rehabilitation schemes funded by compulsory third-party premiums attached to vehicle registrations.

Since then, schemes such as the TAC have played a crucial role in ensuring Australia’s transport and health systems continue to function while effectively mopping up the more than A$5 billion in annual injury costs generated by road crashes.

However, the time for Australia’s personal injury insurance schemes to start preparing for change is now. Here’s why.

What are these schemes for?

Injury insurance, compensation and rehabilitation schemes pay for emergency services, trauma and hospital care, psychological care, GP visits, medications, wage replacement, and a host of other supports to injured people and their families.

In some circumstances, they also allow injured road-users to sue at-fault drivers for common law damages.

Through continued investment in administrative efficiencies and injury prevention, schemes also attempt to keep a lid on the cost of premiums paid for by motorists. Therefore, while exact design differs between jurisdictions, broadly, each scheme promotes an emphasis on:

  • maintaining reasonable cost of premiums for motorists;

  • responding to clients’ non-medical expectations of service; and

  • improving health outcomes for injured clients.

However, achieving multiple performance goals is challenging – especially in the face of rapid external social and technological change.

For example, in 1986, the failure of Victoria’s Motor Accident Board to adjust to the “era of mass motor vehicle usage” brought about its collapse. At closure, the board experienced widespread fraud, provided poor support for injured people, held outstanding liabilities of $2.6 billion, and had revenue shortfalls of more than $200 per registered vehicle.

Similarly, the New South Wales government recently invited comment on the redesign of its compulsory third-party insurance scheme. It cited significant challenges including increased injury claim volumes, fraudulent and exaggerated claims, inefficient distribution of funds to injured people, and lengthy claim resolution processes.

NSW is attempting to redesign its scheme to optimise affordability, health outcomes, and system responsiveness in the face of an uncertain, dynamic and complex transportation and legal environment.

As these examples illustrate, schemes must have confidence in predicting levels of road trauma produced by the transport system, and the costs of rehabilitation and common law cases associated with claims.

Against this, expected revenue gathered from insurance premiums and investment returns must be balanced. However, the predictability of these equations may be about to change radically.

The need for change

Australia’s transport system finds itself on the precipice of a technological and social revolution. The combined rise of autonomous vehicles and the sharing economy is coalescing into a potentially positive – yet uncertain – future for transport system design.

In turn, this should ring alarm bells for injury insurance, compensation and rehabilitation schemes whose operational models reflect current, rather than future, transport system structures. The former are based on human drivers, private car use, private car ownership, registration-linked premium collection, and personal liability for the consequences of road crashes.

In future, though, there may be the introduction of autonomous vehicles not “driven” by owners or no longer “owned” by individuals at all. This could lead to a reduction in the total vehicle road-going fleet, and a decrease in the amount compulsory third-party premium revenues.

Finally, this could lead to the hiking of premiums for those left in the system without access to autonomous vehicles. These would potentially be people on low-incomes or motorcycles, creating a virtually uninsurable “self-driving” population.

And, in the case of common law damages, who would be the target of litigation? The manufacturer? The autonomous vehicle user?

It is hard to imagine users agreeing to accept liability on behalf of an autonomous vehicle manufacturer any more than you would take on risk for your taxi driver.

However, autonomous vehicles are often hailed for their potential safety benefits – which may yet prove correct. If a future containing autonomous vehicles no longer contains road crashes, then personal injury insurers may no longer be required. But the road to that utopia contains many twists and turns, not all of which we can foresee.

What we do know is that around 1,300 people still die, and tens of thousands more are injured, on Australian roads every year. Australians pay around $700 per vehicle per year to ensure their medical bills and rehabilitation costs will be looked after in the event of a crash.

It is unclear how autonomous vehicles will reshape the transportation sector. It is therefore unclear how this will affect the operational model of the multi-billion-dollar personal injury insurance industry that underpins it. But if schemes cannot adapt to the transition, the functionality of the whole transport system is at risk.

Authors: Jason Thompson, Senior Research Fellow, University of Melbourne

Read more http://theconversation.com/personal-injury-insurers-are-at-risk-of-crashing-in-the-transport-systems-of-tomorrow-80668

Writers Wanted

Tokophobia is an extreme fear of childbirth. Here's how to recognise and treat it

arrow_forward

The forgotten environmental crisis: how 20th century settler writers foreshadowed the Anthropocene

arrow_forward

The Conversation
INTERWEBS DIGITAL AGENCY

Politics

Prime Minister Interview with Ben Fordham, 2GB

BEN FORDHAM: Scott Morrison, good morning to you.    PRIME MINISTER: Good morning, Ben. How are you?    FORDHAM: Good. How many days have you got to go?   PRIME MINISTER: I've got another we...

Scott Morrison - avatar Scott Morrison

Prime Minister Interview with Kieran Gilbert, Sky News

KIERAN GILBERT: Kieran Gilbert here with you and the Prime Minister joins me. Prime Minister, thanks so much for your time.  PRIME MINISTER: G'day Kieran.  GILBERT: An assumption a vaccine is ...

Daily Bulletin - avatar Daily Bulletin

Did BLM Really Change the US Police Work?

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has proven that the power of the state rests in the hands of the people it governs. Following the death of 46-year-old black American George Floyd in a case of ...

a Guest Writer - avatar a Guest Writer

Business News

Nisbets’ Collab with The Lobby is Showing the Sexy Side of Hospitality Supply

Hospitality supply services might not immediately make you think ‘sexy’. But when a barkeep in a moodily lit bar holds up the perfectly formed juniper gin balloon or catches the light in the edg...

The Atticism - avatar The Atticism

Buy Instagram Followers And Likes Now

Do you like to buy followers on Instagram? Just give a simple Google search on the internet, and there will be an abounding of seeking outcomes full of businesses offering such services. But, th...

News Co - avatar News Co

Cybersecurity data means nothing to business leaders without context

Top business leaders are starting to realise the widespread impact a cyberattack can have on a business. Unfortunately, according to a study by Forrester Consulting commissioned by Tenable, some...

Scott McKinnel, ANZ Country Manager, Tenable - avatar Scott McKinnel, ANZ Country Manager, Tenable



News Co Media Group

Content & Technology Connecting Global Audiences

More Information - Less Opinion