About Dr Andrew Fronsko
as also instrumental in the conceptual design of Australia’s National Injury and Disability Insurance Schemes (NIIS & NDIS).
Andrew is currently the Principal of ADIIS Group in 2014, which over the past several years has provided advice to various government regulators/insures and private sector insurers in areas such as better practice in scheme administration, strategic planning, risk based supervision and legislative design/reform. Andrew has also been active overseas with a recent assignment for a major African CTP Insurer to develop a new 5-year strategic plan, and mission with the World Bank Group to provide advice on post-crash care in India for people severely injured motor vehicle accidents. Prior to establishing the ADIIS Group in 2014, Andrew was the General Manager Motor Accidents Compensation scheme in the Northern Territory also administering the Territory’s public sector workers’ compensation claims. Prior to that, Andrew held executive management roles with the Transport Accident Commission and Department of Treasury and Finance in Victoria. Andrew has also been the national product manager of CTP Insurance for a major Australian Insurer, and worked with Suncorp in senior roles to oversee the integration of the GIO workers’ compensation and Promina insurance portfolios post acquisition.
Andrew has a Doctorate in Insurance, MBA (Monash University School of Economics) and a Graduate Diploma in Applied Finance. Andrew is a Graduate Member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, and part-time lecturer in the field of personal injury scheme design and scheme evaluation.
Recent Comments
Hi Anthony
My interest [and background experience] is in the regulatory design and administration of the ‘Social Protection Ecosystem’. This comprises four key elements: social insurance and voluntary insurance systems, and [public] social assistance & welfare support systems. In recent times there is growing recognition of the importance of social inclusion for system beneficiaries; tailoring services to meet individual needs; inter-agency coherence (alignment of effort) and ensuring overall economic efficiency within budget and resource constraints.
Moving beyond ‘admiring’ the problem/challenges EMotion will cover, how can regulators best adapt/respond on two fronts. First, maintaining societal equity and equilibrium with respect to how technology (including the changing nature of work) impacts people and system coverage (e.g. GIG workers in relation to personal injury and employment law, automation and liability insurance, etc.). Second, how technology can better support system beneficiaries (e.g. intelligent identification of need, assistive technologies, etc.). Finally, how the public/private sector can work in the co-design of social protection reforms/initiatives – this requires new ways of thinking about the calculus [balancing benefit:cost] with respect to specifying the economic and social impact to the community .
Apologies for the [over]use of jargon… the intent is to help stimulate thinking about specific/practical matters can be further explored at EMotion.
See you in May!
Andrew
Thanks Anthony.
I look forward to attending and catching up with you & your team.
In social insurance, such as compulsory insurance systems (governed by statute law) such as workers' compensation and auto liability, there is a mix of public vs. private underwriting and scheme administration across international jurisdictions. There remains considerable debate on the relative merits of public vs private underwriting and administration. in some schemes, the private sector, rather than the public sector, underwrite risk and administer claims. In publicly underwritten schemes, private sector agents may be appointed to fulfil key administrative functions.
In social protection schemes where there is private sector involvement, there are competing views on accountability/value afforded: On one hand, there is a view that private sector entities are 'partners' with the [public] regulator to attain scheme objectives, often involving co-design of initiatives, and/or a high degree of autonomy for process innovation aligned to this objective. On the other hand, the private sector insurers can be viewed [by the regulator] as 'agents' with a role simply to efficiently and effectively deliver prescribed services.
This link to a recent paper I co-authored explores the question you have raised: https://www.actuaries.asn.au/Library/Events/%20InjuryDisabilitySchemesSeminar/2017/PublicVsPrivatePaper.pdf
Regards
Andrew
Hi Anthony
My interest [and background experience] is in the regulatory design and administration of the ‘Social Protection Ecosystem’. This comprises four key elements: social insurance and voluntary insurance systems, and [public] social assistance & welfare support systems. In recent times there is growing recognition of the importance of social inclusion for system beneficiaries; tailoring services to meet individual needs; inter-agency coherence (alignment of effort) and ensuring overall economic efficiency within budget and resource constraints.
Moving beyond ‘admiring’ the problem/challenges EMotion will cover, how can regulators best adapt/respond on two fronts. First, maintaining societal equity and equilibrium with respect to how technology (including the changing nature of work) impacts people and system coverage (e.g. GIG workers in relation to personal injury and employment law, automation and liability insurance, etc.). Second, how technology can better support system beneficiaries (e.g. intelligent identification of need, assistive technologies, etc.). Finally, how the public/private sector can work in the co-design of social protection reforms/initiatives – this requires new ways of thinking about the calculus [balancing benefit:cost] with respect to specifying the economic and social impact to the community .
Apologies for the [over]use of jargon… the intent is to help stimulate thinking about specific/practical matters can be further explored at EMotion.
See you in May!
Andrew