Advertisement

Exposing Impediments to Insurance Claims Processing

Compulsory Third Party Insurance in Queensland
  • Robert AndrewsEmail author
  • Moe Wynn
  • Arthur H. M ter Hofstede
  • Jingxin Xu
  • Kylie Horton
  • Paul Taylor
  • Sue Plunkett-Cole
Chapter
Part of the Management for Professionals book series (MANAGPROF)

Abstract

  1. (a)

    Situation faced: Processing injury-compensation claims, such as compulsory third party (CTP) claims, is complex, as it involves negotiations among multiple parties (e.g., claimants, insurers, law firms, health providers). Queensland’s CTP program is regulated by the Motor Accident Insurance Commission (MAIC). The Nominal Defendant, an arm of MAIC, determines liability for claims when the vehicle “at fault” is unregistered or unidentified and manages such claims from injured persons. While the relevant legislation mandates milestones for claims processing, the Nominal Defendant sees significant behavioral and performance variations in CTP claims processing, affecting the costs and durations of claims. The reasons for these variations are poorly understood.

     
  2. (b)

    Action taken: The BPM initiative took a process-mining approach that focused on the process identification, discovery, and analysis phases of the BPM Lifecycle. We undertook automated process discovery and comparative performance analysis with the aim of identifying where claims processing across cohorts of interest to the Nominal Defendant differed. In parallel, we conducted a context analysis with the aim of identifying the context factors that affect claim duration and cost. The personal injury literature and interviews with representative Nominal Defendant staff informed our selection of data attributes.

     
  3. (c)

    Results achieved: Process models were developed to facilitate comparative visualization of processes. The Nominal Defendant was particularly interested in differences in the processes for specific cohorts of claims: (i) overall claims, (ii) claims involving unregistered vehicles versus unidentified vehicles, and (iii) direct claims versus legally represented claims. The model facilitated identification of aspects of claims processing where there were significant differences between cohorts. Data mining/feature selection techniques identified a set of process-related context factors affecting claim duration and cost. Models utilizing these context factors were able to distinguish between cases with short and long durations with 68% accuracy and between low-cost and high-cost claims with 83% accuracy.

     
  4. (d)

    Lessons learned: This multi-faceted process-mining study presented many challenges and opportunities for refining our process-mining methodology and toolset. Data-related challenges arose because of the replacement of claims-management software during the study. Legislative changes, changes to key personnel, and the semi-structured nature of CTP claims-processing introduced issues related to concept drift. Each of these issues affected process discovery, but close collaboration with the stakeholders proved valuable in addressing these issues. Novel visualization techniques were developed to support delivery of insights gained through comparative analysis that will guide process improvement. Consideration of context considerably broadens the scope of process mining and facilitates reasoning about process specifics.

     

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research for this article was supported by a Queensland Government Accelerate Partnerships grant. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions made to this project by Neil Singleton (Insurance Commissioner) and Mark Allsopp.

References

  1. Bose, J. C., Mans, R. S., & van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2013). Wanna improve process mining results? It’s high time we consider data quality issues seriously. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Data Mining (CIDM) (pp. 127–134). Singapore.Google Scholar
  2. Cassidy, J. D., Carroll, L. J., Cote, P., Lemstra, M., Berglund, A., & Nygren, A. (2000). Effect of eliminating compensation for pain and suffering on the outcome of insurance claims for whiplash injury. New England Journal of Medicine, 342(16), 1179–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dey, A. K. (2001). Understanding and using context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5(1), 4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. (2013). Fundamentals of business process management. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Glover, J., McDonald, S., Brombal, K., & Fisher, E. (2006). A social health atlas of compensable injury in South Australia. Public Health Information Development Unit.Google Scholar
  6. Grant, G., O’Donnell, M. L., Spittal, M. J., Creamer, M., & Studdert, D. M. (2014). Relationship between stressfulness of claiming for injury compensation and long-term recovery – A prospective cohort study. JAMA Psychiatry, 71(4), 446–453. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.4023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harder, S., Veilleux, M., & Suissa, S. (1998). The effect of socio-demographic and crash-related factors on the prognosis of whiplash. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(5), 377–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kenardy, J., Heron-Delaney, M., Lang, J., Brown, E., Hendrikz, J., Connelly, L., Sterling, M., & Bellamy, N. (2013). Psychological and physical outcomes following a road traffic crash: 24 month follow-up. In Presentation for the Actuaries Institute 2013 Injury Schemes Seminar, Gold Coast, Queensland.Google Scholar
  9. Lakshmanan, G. T., Keyser, P. T., & Duan, S. (2011). Detecting changes in a semi-structured business process through spectral graph analysis. In IEEE 27th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW) (pp. 255–260).Google Scholar
  10. Murgatroyd, D. F., Cameron, I. D., & Harris, I. A. (2011). Understanding the effect of compensation on recovery from severe motor vehicle crash injuries: A qualitative study. Injury Prevention, 17(4), 222–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. O’Donnell, C. (2000). Motor accident and workers’ compensation insurance design for high-quality health outcomes and cost containment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 22(1–2), 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Roberts-Yates, C. (2003). The concerns and issues of injured workers in relation to claims/injury management and rehabilitation: The need for new operational frameworks. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(16), 898–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rosemann, M., Recker, J., & Flender, C. (2008). Contextualisation of business processes. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management, 3(1), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sterner, Y., Toolanen, G., Gerdle, B., & Hildingsson, C. (2003). The incidence of whiplash trauma and the effects of different factors on recovery. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques, 16(2), 195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. van der Aalst, W. M. P., & Dustdar, S. (2012). Process mining put into context. IEEE Internet Computing, 16(1), 82–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Yang, Z., Lowe, A. J., David, E., & Richardson, M. D. (2010). Factors that predict poor outcomes in patients with traumatic vertebral body fractures. Injury, 41(2), 226–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Andrews
    • 1
    Email author
  • Moe Wynn
    • 1
  • Arthur H. M ter Hofstede
    • 1
  • Jingxin Xu
    • 1
  • Kylie Horton
    • 2
  • Paul Taylor
    • 2
  • Sue Plunkett-Cole
    • 1
  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Motor Accident Insurance CommissionBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations