Today, most people are driving in semi-autonomous cars, or semi-self-driving vehicles, whether you realize it or not. So you may have nice specs, alloy rims and some cool new tricks: contactless keys, dynamic cruise control, parking assist, self-correcting lanes, a bunch of other mini-innovations that improve the driving experience for you personally and anyone driving with you or around you. These “minivations “ are just the start.
We know that roughly 93% of all vehicle accidents are caused by human error. Almost $1 trillion a year is spent on auto repair. Sit back and question that for a second, and that’s when you realize that all of this money – nearly $1 trillion! – is being dropped right into the pockets of the auto repair companies and the physical parts manufacturers.
Traditional original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are showing a glaring absence of innovation when it comes to preventing deaths. There are roughly 30,000 deaths per year due to auto accidents in the U.S. alone. To repair the auto industry and its surrounding ecosystem, the loss of lives must be addressed.
How? Through autonomy.
If you can take the 93% of human error caused by accidents down to 20%, 10%, 5% and ultimately under 3% with a (level 2, 3, 4 and 5 autonomy) vehicle, what will happen? First, you save lives (and the costs of healthcare). Second, you collapse an entire business model. You effectively shine light on the inefficiencies and economic costs absorbed by individuals.
This is where our favorite subject enters: insurance. Traditional insurance. The intangibles and untouchables: The Benjamin Buttons of Innovation!
Enter simple math. Look at the premiums you as an individual pay relative to the cash outlay that the insurance companies must make due to accidents. Do you see it now? To say that the business models of the incumbents in auto insurance will shift dramatically is an understatement.
This concept – a company without a tangible product that makes money off the liabilities they have on their balance sheet by means of your deposits – is going to pay for stagnation by means of obsolescence.
Now a reversal occurs – individual empowerment amid institutional disempowerment. The next generation of insurance companies (insurance-as-a-service, insurtech, ethical autonomy, you name it) will naturally, inevitably and ultimately rise to the top of the pack and take share away.
It is only sensible, therefore, to presume that the future of auto insurance is fascinating in a world where the metadata becomes statistically significant as it intersects with the data of connected vehicles. Why? Because now I can just pay as I drive. A true service (finally!). A pay-as-you-go business model that is as exact as it is precise. So, I – as an individual, an owner, leaser or driver turned rider – am no longer an “average” anymore. This is the concept of hyper-personalization, hyper-humanization and hyper-empowerment. There is an excellent example of hyper-personalization where I know precisely how many miles I actually drive, and the only premium I pay for insurance is for those miles. Furthermore, what if I as the user can actually obtain insights into my driving behavior (i.e. hard brakes, speeding, etc…),further influencing coverage premium and empowering me to drive behavioral change (no pun intended) with analytical insights and recommendations.
In fact, the business model has already been created in form and substance. It exists today – there are insurance companies offering that solution as we speak, and I suspect it will increasingly become the standard. It will be interesting to see which insurance companies become print newspapers, which ones become blogs and which ones have left ancient history to trade perhaps one fiscal year for the opportunity to pioneer the next frontier.
But before we embark across the Rubicon, let’s take a brief step back. By 2020, we will live in a world with 50 billion connected products. The enormity is surpassed only perhaps by the complexity.
So if you are at a company right now that is just starting to feel pretty good about your position along the intelligence of things continuum, really good about your digital marketing team’s evolution, your grasp on social media/SEM/SEO, your grasp on building a multi-channel experience, your grasp of what your customer wants, enjoy the feeling –you’re about to be disrupted. Amazon ring any bells?
And you’re going to get disrupted in a way that’s staggering in its infinite nature, with infinitely more data points, infinitely greater opportunities and, as a result, infinitely more options amid a sea of competition, which makes you feel infinitesimally small. Suddenly. This competitive force has built such a commanding, unexpected lead. Yes, a good, old KO before you even heard the bell go off. You will likely default, and it will be too late to pivot.
For the lucky, the ability to slip into obsolescence and appreciate the nostalgia of the past will do. (Of course, not the positive vibe-nostalgia, the punch-drunk love of sentimental warmth. Nope, as you become a relic of history, the nostalgia will be more like the Greek word root for nostalgia, which translates to pain, or more specifically the debilitating and often fatal medical condition expressing extreme homesickness).
Why will you get disrupted? Because we’re going to fast forward parabolically toward predictability and optimization. And that is precisely when machine learning takes place — that is when the machines become smart. As machines become more intelligent, they start to recognize patterns. Then they start to actually give you advice, input. Next, they start to predict what the outcomes could be, output. I/O. That, well, leads to artificial intelligence.
Transparent reinsurance programs could emerge as significant opportunities for healthcare providers, issuers, reinsurers, technology innovators and regulators to address health insurance.
The message is clear. Having to factor in higher costs associated with new entrants to the healthcare system gives insurance firms license to charge higher rates. If these new people were put into a reinsurance pot for three to five years with costs spread over all insurers, no one insurer would be unnecessarily burdened. After this period, costs for these entrants could be reexamined and a decision could be made on how to proceed with them, depending upon the deviation from the remaining population.
Several factors are coming into play.
United Health Group indicates it will be leaving all but a few of the 34 states where it is offering health insurance under Obamacare.
A fresh Blue Cross Blue Shield study finds recent Obamacare entrants have higher rates of specific illnesses and used more medical services than early entrants. “Medical costs of care for the new individual market members were, on average, 19% higher than employer-based group members in 2014 and 22% higher in 2015. For example, the average monthly medical spending per member was $559 for individual enrollees versus $457 for group members in 2015,” the study found.
What emerges in conversations with economists, regulators and healthcare actuaries is a sense that properly designed, fair and transparent reinsurance could—and would—advance industry and public policy goals to continue insurance for all at affordable prices. This approach would represent tangible improvements over inefficient, incumbent systems. Information would be used by insurers and reinsurers, providers and regulators and, crucially, insureds to establish best performances for healthcare outcomes and expenses. Virtually everyone knows that state or regional reinsurance would have to be mandated, as voluntary systems could be gamed.
“The implementation of new policies, the availability of research funding, payment reform and consumer- and patient-led efforts to improve healthcare together have created an environment suitable for the successful implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice,” fresh research in Health Affairs also indicates.
Risk analysis technologies could help issuers, reinsurers, healthcare institutions and citizens rein in the healthcare system’s enormous costs. Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation projected that, “in 2016, the federal subsidies, taxes and penalties associated with health insurance coverage will result in a net subsidy from the federal government of $660 billion, or 3.6% of gross domestic product (GDP). That amount is projected to rise at an average annual rate of 5.4%, reaching $1.1 trillion (or 4.1% of GDP) in 2026. For the entire 2017–2026 period, the projected net subsidy is $8.9 trillion.”
CBO/JCT published this stunning projection amid consensus that $750 billion to $1 trillion of wasted spending occurs in healthcare in the U.S. “Approximately one in three health care dollars is waste,” Consumer Reports says.
Key metrics should focus on estimates of risk using demographics and diagnoses; risk model descriptions; calculation of plan average actuarial risk; user-specified risk revealing and detailing information; drill-down capabilities clarifying research; monitoring and control; and calculation and comparison measures to address reinsurance validation.
Several major refinements yielding and relying upon granular, risk-revealing data and metrics would support more efficient reinsurance. All would, and could, update reinsurance information and address customer experience, trust and privacy concerns.
“Advanced analytics are the key,” remarked John Wisniewski, associate vice president of actuary services at UPMC Health Plan. “Predictive capability that looks at the likelihood a patient admission may be coming is the information that we can give to doctors to deal with the matter. … Whoever develops algorithms for people who will be at risk—so providers can develop plans to mitigate risk—will create value for issuers, providers and members alike.”
Available technologies support the connecting of risk assessments with incentives for risk information.
Michael Erlanger, the founder and managing principal of Marketcore, said,“We cannot know what we cannot see. We cannot see what we cannot measure. These available technologies provide clarity for more efficient health insurance and reinsurance.”
Context: Three Rs: Reinsurance, Risk Corridors and Risk Adjustment
When Congress enacted the ACA, the legislation created reinsurance and risk corridors through 2016 and established risk adjustment transfer as a permanent element of health insurance. These three Rs—reinsurance, risk corridors and risk adjustment—were designed to moderate insurance industry risks, making the transition to ACA coverage and responsibilities. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers the programs. All address adverse selection—that is, instances when insurers experience higher probabilities of losses due to risks not factored in at the times policies are issued. All also address risk selection, or industry preferences to insure healthier individuals and to avoid less healthy ones.
With the expiration of ACA reinsurance and risk corridors, along with mandatory reporting requirements this December, healthcare providers, issuers, reinsurers, technology innovators and regulators can now evaluate their futures, separate from CMS reporting.
Virtually all sources commend reinsurance and risk adjustment transfer as consistently as they deride risk corridors. Reinsurance has paid out well, while risk corridors have not. Risk adjustment transfer remains squarely with CMS.
While House Republican initiatives try and fail to repeal the ACA, and some news programs and pundits say it is unsustainable, approximately 20 million subscribers are enrolled in Obamacare: with 12.7 million as marketplace insureds, with others through Medicaid and as young adults on parent plans. President Obama, in March, remarked: “Last summer we learned that, for the first time ever, America’s uninsured rate has fallen below 10%. This is the lowest rate of uninsured that we’ve seen since we started keeping these records.” Subscription ratios are off the charts. Premium increases have been modest, approximately 6% for 2016, experts find. “I see no risk to the fundamental stability of the exchanges,” MIT economist Jonathan Gruber observed, noting “a big enough market for many insurers to remain in the fold.”
Transitional Reinsurance 2014-16: Vehicle for Innovation
One of the great benefits of the ACA is eliminating pre-existing conditions and premium or coverage variables based on individual underwriting across the board. Citizens are no longer excluded from receiving adequate healthcare, whether directly or indirectly through high premiums. Prices for various plan designs go up as coverage benefits increase and as co-pays and deductibles decrease, but the relative prices of the various plans are calculated to be actuarially equivalent.
To help issuers make the transition from an era when they prided themselves on reducing or eliminating less healthy lives from the insureds they covered, to an era where all insureds are offered similar ratings, the ACA introduced reinsurance and risk corridors to cover the first three years (2014 through 2016), in addition to risk adjustment transfer, which will remain in force.
The concept is relatively simple: Require all issuers to charge a flat per-dollar, per-month, per-“qualified” insured and create a pot of money with these “reinsurance premiums” that reimburses issuers for excess claims on unhealthy lives. Issuers would be reimbursed based on established terms outlined in the ACA.
Reinsurance reimburses issuers for individual claims in excess of the attachment point, up to a limit where existing reinsurance coverage would kick in. Individuals involved with these large claims may or may not be identified in advance as high-risk. The reimbursed claim may be an acute (non-chronic) condition or an accident. The individual may otherwise be low-risk.
The important aspect is that all health insurance issuers and self-insured plans contribute. By spreading the cost over a large number of individuals, the cost per individual of this reinsurance program is small to negligible. Non-grandfathered individual market plans are eligible for payments. A state can operate a reinsurance program, or CMS does on its behalf through this year.
As a backstop, the federal government put some money in the pot through 2016—just in case the pot proved inadequate to provide full reimbursement to the issuers. In a worst-case scenario, the sum of the reinsurance premiums and the federal contribution could still be inadequate, in which case the coinsurance refund rate would be set at less than 100%.
As it turned out, 2014 reinsurance premiums proved to be more than adequate, so the refund rate was 100%, and the excess funds in the pot after reimbursement were set aside and added to the pot for 2015, just in case that proves inadequate.
Reinsurance functions on this timetable through this year:
CMS transferred approximately $7.9 billion among 437 issuers—or 100% of filed claims for 2014, as claims were lower than expected— and it has yet to release 2015 payments. The results for 2015 are coming this summer.
From the outset, states could, and would, elect to continue reinsurance, the CMS contemplated. In 2012, the CMS indicated that “states are not prohibited from continuing a reinsurance program but may not use reinsurance contribution funds collected under the reinsurance program in calendar years 2014 through 2016 to fund the program in years after 2018.”
Subsequent clarification in 2013 did not disturb state discretion. Current regulation specifies that “a state must ensure that the applicable reinsurance entity completes all reinsurance-related activities for benefit years 2014 through 2016 and any activities required to be undertaken in subsequent periods.”
One course of action going forward from 2017 and varying from state-to-state could be mandatory reinsurance enacted through state laws. Healthcare providers, issuers, reinsurers, regulators and legislators could define the health reinsurance best suited to each state’s citizens.
Reinsurers could design and manage administration of these programs possibly at a percentage of premium cost that is less than what is charged by the federal government today. While these reinsurance programs would be mandated, they could include a component of private reinsurance. For example, reinsurers could guarantee the adequacy of per-month reinsurance premiums with provisos that if these actuarially calculated rates turned out to be inadequate in any given year or month, there will be an adjustment to account for the loss in the following year. Conversely, if those rates turn out to be too high, 90% or more is set aside in an account for use in the following year. This way, reinsurers could participate by providing a private sourced solution to adverse claims.
Risk corridors apply to issuers with Qualified Health Plans (exchange certified plans) and facilitate transfer payments. The CMS noted: “Issuers whose premiums exceed claims and other costs by more than a certain amount pay into the program, and insurers whose claims exceed premiums by a certain amount receive payments for their shortfall.” Technically, “risk corridors mean any payment adjustment system based on the ratio of allowable costs of a plan to the plan’s target amount,” as the CMS designated.
Risk corridors are politically contentious. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) likened risk corridors to bailouts. The HHS acknowledged it will “explore other sources of funding for risk corridors payments, subject to the availability of appropriations… includ[ing] working with Congress on the necessary funding for outstanding risk corridors payments.” And, a knowledgeable analyst, Dr. David Blumenthal, noted that risk corridors are not bailouts.
Going forward, evaluations of risk corridors will demand due diligence. Several health exchanges failed from any number of factors—from too little capital for growth experienced, inadequate pricing, mismanagement or risk corridor payments.
Whether innovation can yield effective risk corridors or whether risk corridors will simply fade out as transitional 2014-2016 regulation will depend on institutional and industry participants. Risk corridors did not score unalloyed approbation among sources.
Risk Adjustment: Permanent Element of ACA
Risk adjustment remains in force and impels issuers with healthier enrollees to offset some costs of issuers with sicker ones in specific states and markets and of markets as a means toward promoting affordable health care choices by discouraging cherry picking healthier enrollees.
The HHS transferred approximately $4.6 billion for risk adjustment among issuers for 2014.
At first blush, one might postulate that risk adjustment does the job and that reinsurance and risk corridors could just as reasonably fade out. There is some logic to that argument.
On the other hand, state or regional level reinsurance could make up for risk adjustment shortfalls. In some instances, risk adjustment seems to be less friendly to issuers that take on higher-risk individuals, rather than rewarding high tech issuers and providers with back office capabilities coding claims in such a way as to tactically game risk adjustment.
Evaluating and cultivating these opportunities are timely amid the uncertainties of the presidential and congressional elections that may yield executive and legislative lawmakers intent on undoing ACA provisions, starting with risk corridors. Such legislation could produce losses for issuers and reinsurers.
Nelson A. Rockefeller Precedent
In 1954, then-Undersecretary of Health Education and Welfare Nelson A. Rockefeller proposed reinsurance as an incentive for insurers to offer more health insurance. S 3114, A Bill to Improve the Public Health by Encouraging More Extensive Use of the Voluntary Prepayment Method in the Provision of Personal Health Services, emerged in the first Eisenhower administration to enact a federally funded health reinsurance pool. Rockefeller intended the reinsurance as a means toward an end, what would eventually be dubbed a “third way” among proponents of national health insurance. President Truman and organized labor championed the approach into the mid-’50s. So did the Chamber of Commerce and congressional Republican adversaries of the New Deal and Fair Deal, who were chaffing to undo Social Security as quickly as they could. The American Medical Association also supported this third way because it opposed federal healthcare reinsurance as an opening wedge for socialized medicine. Despite limiting risk and offering new products, insurers demurred because of comfort zones with state regulators and trepidation about a federal role.
Nelson A. Rockefeller, then-undersecretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, presenting a federally funded health reinsurance plan, 1954.
Source: Department of Health Education and Welfare—now Health and Human Services
Rockefeller’s health reinsurance plan would “achieve a better understanding of the nation’s medical care problem, of the techniques for meeting it through voluntary means, and of the actuarial risks involved,” HEW Secretary Oveta Culp Hobby testified to a Senate subcommittee in 1954.
Rockefeller’s health reinsurance plan did not make it through the House. Organized labor decried it as too little, the AMA said it was too intrusive. Upon hearing news of the House vote, a frustrated Dwight Eisenhower blistered to reporters, “The people that voted against this bill just don’t understand what are the facts of American life,” according to Cary Reich in The Life of Nelson A. Rockefeller 1908-1958. “Ingenuity was no match for inertia,” Rockefeller biographer Richard Norton Smith remarked of industry and labor interests in those hard-wired, central-switched, mainframe times.
“’It’s déjà vu all over again’ like Yogi Berra,” said one insurance commissioner immersed in the ACA on hearing Ike’s quote.
The idea of national health insurance went nowhere despite initiatives by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) in the late ’70s and President Bill and First Lady Hillary Clinton roughly 20 years ago, until Congress legislated Obamacare.
Innovative, Transparent Technologies Can Deliver Results
Nowadays, more than 60 years after Rockefeller’s attempt, innovative information technologies can get beyond these legislative and regulatory hurdles. Much of the data and networking is at hand. Enrollee actuarial risks, coverage actuarial values, utilization, local area costs of business and cost-sharing impacts on utilization are knowable in current systems. Broadband deployment and information technology innovations drive customer acquisition and information management costs ever lower each succeeding day. Long-term efficiencies for reinsurers, insurers, carriers, regulators, technology innovators and state regulators await evaluation and development.
Reinsurance Going Forward From 2017
So, if state reinsurance programs can provide benefits, what should they look like, and how should they be delivered?
For issuers, state-of-the-art transparent solutions improve the current system by enabling issuers to offer more products and services and becalm more ferocious industry adversaries while lowering risks and extending markets. Smaller, nimbler issuers may provide more innovative solutions and gain market share by providing the dual objectives of better health outcomes with lower costs.
For regulators, innovative, timely information sustains the indispensability of state regulators ensuring financial soundness and legal compliance—while allowing innovators to upgrade marketplace and regulatory systems, key regulatory goals that Iowa’s insurance commissioner, Nick Gerhart, pointed out recently. Commissioner Gerhart envisions regulators as orchestra conductors, acknowledging that most insurance regulatory entities are woefully understaffed to design or operate such reinsurance programs themselves, but they will, and they can lead if the participants can provide turnkey capabilities.
Think of health insurance and reinsurance as generational opportunities for significant innovation rather like the Internet and email. When the Department of Defense permitted the Internet and email to evolve to civilian markets from military capabilities in the 1980s, the DOD initially approached the U.S. Postal Service. Senior Post Office management said it welcomed the opportunity to support email: All users need do is email correspondence to recipients’ local post offices by nine p.m. for printing, enveloping, sorting and letter-carrier delivery the following day.
Similarly, considerable opportunities chart innovative pathways for state and regional health reinsurance for 2017 and beyond.
One path, emulating the post office in the ’80s, keeps on coding and bemoans a zero sum; it would allow the existing programs to fade away and will respond to whatever the president and Congress might do.
Another path lumps issuer health reinsurance as an incumbent reinsurer service without addressing the sustainability of state health exchanges or, indeed, any private health insurers in the absences of risk spreading with readily available information technologies.
The approach suggested here—mandated state health reinsurance—innovates to build sustainable futures. Enabling technologies empower all stakeholders to advance private and public interests through industry solutions advancing affordable healthcare.
On June 23, 2016, the U.K. population will vote on whether to stay a part of the E.U.’s 28 countries or to leave. It’s a once-in-a-generation decision, and it is likely to dominate U.K. press for the next six months. But what impact would a British exit, or “Brexit.” have on the insurance industry?
A report by Euler Hermes, a consultancy backed by Allianz, indicates this exit would include:
Massive loss of U.K. exports, which could take 10 years to recover
A heavy hit to financial services
London’s loss of its supremacy as a financial center
The likelihood that trade barriers would be imposed by continental Europe
Global insurers would inevitably be affected. Zurich Financial Services says it is “monitoring developments carefully.” The AXA chief executive described the situation as the U.K. “playing Russian roulette” and predicted a severe negative impact on London. Moody’s says the U.K.’s credit rating would be hurt.
Despite the recent challenges of Solvency 2, the argument that there will be less regulation if the U.K. leaves the E.U. doesn’t hold weight with Lloyd’s of London, whose Chief Risk Officer Sean McGovern recently said, “None of the alternatives will be as beneficial for the London market as the current relationship.”
Companies are already indicating they will need to make stockholders aware of the consequences of leaving—if only to avoid directors and officers (D&O) claims down the line. Because most annual reports are published only months before the vote, there’s likely to be a swell of activity; social media analytics measuring citizen sentiment will have a field day.
In October 2015, U.S. administrator Michael Froman ruled out a separate trade deal with the U.K. in the event that it leaves the European Union. He said, “We have no free trade agreement with the U.K., so it would be subject to the same tariffs—and other trade-related measures—as China, or Brazil or India.”
At face value, staying in the E.U. seems like an obvious choice, especially as the U.K. population—like the insurance industry—is risk averse and often reluctant to change. But there are other issues at play here, especially those regarding the emotional response.
Some are suggesting that London would be at greater risk of terrorism if the U.K. remains part of the E.U. Others are concerned about the immigration issue and the effect of the Euro crisis. Others simply argue that that the U.K—which has the fifth-largest economy in the world, is the fourth-greatest military power, is a leading member of the G7, has more Nobel Prizes than any other European country and is one of only five permanent members on the U.N. Security Council—is entitled to greater autonomy to make its own decisions and should not be constrained by politicians who are not elected by U.K. citizens.
“After all,” say those in favor of an “out” vote, “isn’t the current safety and prosperity enjoyed by the U.S., Australia, India, Canada and others founded on the principles of democratic self-government created by those who were once prepared to take matters into their own hands?”
Luckily, even with an “out” vote, the exiting process won’t happen overnight. There will be processes to follow, some of which could take years. It’ll give plenty of time for insurers and intermediaries, (not just those in the U.K. or Europe) to think carefully about the consequences on their businesses, the economy and their customers.
Here are some issues that would have to be considered:
As London reduces its influence and there is a brain drain, where might the power shift to, physically, and will some of the big broking houses move house (again)? Where will the new powerhouse occur? Singapore or Shanghai?
If there are new trade tariffs, how will this affect the flow of global business? According to U.K. government data, in 2011, the U.S. exported $3.5 billion of insurance services to the E.U.—that’s nearly $1 in every $4 in global insurance services exports.
How might an economic squeeze in the U.K. over the next decade affect consumer behavior in terms of buying both property and life insurance, and will this lead to further consolidation of an already saturated marketplace?
There is a basic insurance principle used to establish negligence that dates back more than 100 years. It refers to the “man on the Clapham Omnibus,” a hypothetical character epitomizing the “common man,” who is described as reasonably educated and intelligent but nondescript and against which a defendant’s conduct is measured.
So, on June 23, 2016, everyone in the U.K. over the age of 18 will get to vote regardless of their expertise on the topic. On that day. it will not just be a matter for the entire U.K. population but for the “man on the Clapham Omnibus.” At this moment, we can only speculate whether his head will rule his heart, or vice versa.
As part of the 2016 edition of the Usage Based Insurance study, we analyzed the impact of autonomy on the insurance market. We forecast that 380 million semi-, highly or fully autonomous vehicles will be on the road by 2030.
This might sound like a lot, but then at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas we heard that new manufacturers are entering the race. Typically, we expect the luxury brands to foster the development of autonomous vehicles (AVs), with Mercedes, BMW and Tesla all topping the list of development activity. This time, however, it is the mid-market brands such as Nissan, Ford and GM that are making the announcements.
All three arrived at the show with news and partnerships up their sleeves as the competition grows ever more intense.
Nissan, in partnership with Renault, announced 10 vehicle models with autonomous capabilities on the road by 2020, with single-lane control from this year and rolling out multi-lane control intersections assistance from 2018 onward.
GM announced a $500 million investment in Uber rival Lyft, which GM says could lead to the development of a fleet of driverless cars, some available for hire, as well as a network of car rental stations. This announcement follows news regarding the development of GM’s self-driving version of the hybrid Chevrolet Volt.
Ford revealed an agreement with Amazon, aimed at linking cars with connected homes and the Internet of Things. Ford was also expected to announce a tie-up with Google, but that did not happen, possibly because of recent regulatory proposals limiting driverless vehicle testing in California. Instead, the car maker stated that it would triple the size of its Fusion Hybrid autonomous research fleet this year to 30. Ford will also integrate new solid-state lidar sensors that create real-time 3D models of the surrounding environment.
Although many autonomous functions, such as cruise and parking, are aimed at improving comfort, most of the development today is focused on safety and crash avoidance.
These capabilities will have a direct impact on the insurance industry a lot sooner than the driverless car. We analyzed and quantified that impact in the study to precisely estimate the share of accidents that could be avoided with the introduction of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS).
For example, we concluded that frontal collision avoidance and cruise systems could reduce losses by as much as 50% (depending on the level of sophistication).
ADAS functions could therefore lead to a reduction in accidents of between 30% and 40%, with AVs beginning to have a significant impact in mature markets from 2023 onward. In the most advanced countries, such as Germany, premiums will decrease by as much as 40% between 2020 and 2030.
With the end of the statistical actuarial model also approaching, insurers will need to be acutely aware of the car technology evolution speed. The car without accident will be on the road long before the car without driver.
The 2016 edition of the UBI Global Study was launched last month; It covers the impact of ADAS on insurance premiums in details and with a market forecast up to 2030. You can download the free abstract here.
The introduction of self-driving vehicles (SDVs) poses many questions. Working for Zurich, I’m often asked about the insurance and liability implications: “What happens if my SDV is involved in an accident, and who pays?” Increasingly, I am facing a line of more technical and legal questioning. For example, “Who homologates the vehicle, approves its circulation, certifies that it complies to safety standards?” Or even, “Am I allowed to operate an SDV to run my morning errands?” I expect these questions to become more complex as we get closer to the reality of our purchasing our first SDVs.
As a strong supporter of public transport, I am keen to understand how the path to autonomy will influence urban buses, trams and the like. Will the trend for car clubs, and sharing in general, extend to SDVs, or will vehicles be mostly owned by individuals and fleet managers? And if SDVs do become a shared mode of transport, how will customers react to boarding a two-seater “autonomous pod,” left dirty by that nice gentleman who just stepped out?
No one has a crystal ball that can predict the potential legal, cultural and behavioral impact of SDVs, so it’s important that we experiment and learn — like the researchers at CityMobil2 are doing with a number of demonstrations across Europe. Zurich has just announced it will work with them and, we hope, other similar organizations.