New Claims Review Highlights the Cost of Slow Communication

The report, released on 30 October 2026 and reported across the insurance sector in early November, examined claims data from the 2023-24 financial year across six insurers. Its focus was not every claim in the market, but a narrower and important group: claims where insurers had treated extended decision timeframes as being affected by circumstances beyond their control.

That distinction matters. Income protection claims can involve medical reports, income records, employer information, occupational details, rehabilitation updates and, in some cases, superannuation trustee processes. Some delays may be genuine and unavoidable. The committee’s concern was whether insurer-controlled parts of the process were still being handled as promptly and clearly as they could have been.

The findings suggest room for practical improvement. Insurers acknowledged that information should have been requested earlier in 45 of the 116 income protection claims reviewed. The committee also found that communication and review commitments applying to delayed claims were not always met consistently. For a claimant waiting to understand whether a monthly benefit will be paid, unclear or staggered information requests can add stress at precisely the wrong time.

For consumers, the review is a reminder that the claims experience is shaped by more than the headline benefit amount. Policy definitions, waiting periods, evidence requirements, offsets and communication standards can all influence how smoothly a claim progresses. General steps that may help before or during an income protection claim include keeping policy documents accessible, maintaining records of income, saving dated copies of correspondence and asking the insurer or super fund to clarify what evidence is still outstanding.

The inquiry also has a broader industry message. Some insurers have already responded with process changes, including more targeted evidence requests, improved correspondence templates, stronger technical support for claims staff and closer monitoring of longer-running claims. The committee has indicated it will monitor whether those changes translate into better day-to-day claims handling.

The limitation is that the review used historical data and a selected sample of longer claims, so it should not be read as proof that all delayed claims are mishandled. Even so, it reinforces a simple point for income protection insurance in Australia: when income has stopped or reduced, timely explanations and coordinated evidence requests can be just as important as the policy wording itself.