Chasing the update on ‘hit and miss’ claims tracking tools

Automated tracking tools have long promised to transform the claims experience for brokers, MGAs and clients alike.

Designed to provide real time updates on a claims progress, through interfaces such as portals and applications, claims tracking systems are loaded with potential to allow users to cut out the chase in the claims journey.  

A lucrative investment to save broker time, it tracks that in recent years stakeholders have jumped at the chance to develop these systems. However, they have not yet quite made it to the mark.

Indeed, Insurance Times Five Star Rating Report: MGA Market 2025/26 noted that 39% of surveyed brokers agree that technological improvements to claims tracking would most benefit interactions with MGAs.

A likely response to a softening market and the intensifying scrutiny of service levels, this increase in broker requests to advance claims tracking systems is unsurprising – especially as their delivery has historically been met with mixed reviews.

Speaking to Insurance Times, Managing General Agents’ Association (MGAA) chief executive Mike Keating said that he believes the term “hit and miss” is apt to describe claims tracking tool solutions currently.

Having been involved with insurers, brokers and MGAs, Keating noted that it “wanes a bit around how [much] of claims tracking is real time”.

He explained that he has spoken to insurers who have invested in these tools that have been “very disappointed about the amount of tragic which goes through it” and believe they are “wasting time”.

Meanwhile, for other brokers, Keating has noted that it has been seen as an effective tool to “keep on top of any claim” with customers.

The issue, Keating contends, is that while claims tracking systems have been built for the “interest of all the community at heart”, they often include features that aren’t a priority and miss elements that hold greater value to stakeholders.

He continued: “What’s been lacking, if I could be so bold, is whether someone has pulled together all the relevant stakeholders and actually [asked them to] articulate exactly what [they] would like to see from a claims tracking solution – what should be in it, what shouldn’t be, what should be accessible or not.”

This poses the question – what would a truly effective claims tracking system look like for MGAs and brokers?

Updating communication

Keating said that he believes the value of the investment into claims tracking tools should be judged on operational efficiency.

For example, he explained, if a digital tracking solution can cut inbound enquiries chasing up the status of claims – that could sway insurers to believe it’s worth the investment.

Victoria Sutton, business divisional performance director in the claims division at Howden, agreed that the biggest issue claims tracking should address is whether the tools can make this communication path in the claims journey quicker.

She said: “The issues we have from clients is when they haven’t heard anything, because if you don’t hear anything, especially in today’s world – it’s the Amazon effect – you assume it’s not happening.”

To meet this consumer demand, Steve Whetter, managing director for third party administration (TPA) at Sedgwick, said that he believes that a successful claims communication system should go beyond simply tracking the claims progress and offer self-serve options.

This would enable the customer to provide information, documents and photos relevant to progressing the claim with the support of an integrated live chat facility.

He continued: “We can involve the customer, in other words. We can help the user understand what they need to do next to support the progression of their claim.

“By user, I mean it has the flexibility to engage various stakeholders where required – the customer, a third-party claimant, an insurer, MGA or broker and it’s a tool the user can access any time, any place and opens up another choice of communication channel.”

Chasing relevancy

Whetter told Insurance Times that harbouring longevity and keeping it “fresh” remains one of the most common gaps in existing claims tracking tools.

He explained that many platforms are not reviewed or updated frequently enough to keep pace with changing customer expectations and technology capabilities.

“Building and deploying these tools is one thing, but we need to see adoption and then adoption flow through to benefits,” he continued.

“It also drives efficiencies for us, which enables us to continue to offer value for our clients and ensure we remain competitive within our marketplace.”

For Billy Hinken, claims director at Pen Underwriting, the ability to meet consumer demand depends on how effectively claims data is treated to challenge and improve performance.

He continued: “While we track key indicators, we constantly review and refine our measures, drawing insight from operational data, customer feedback and complaints to drive continuous improvement.

“Standing still with the same metrics limits evolution and can be a common challenge or gap seen in tools elsewhere.”

While the sector should remain dynamic to keep a hold of remaining relevant, Sutton warned that it should be careful not to fall into repeating past mistakes.

She explained that the industry’s tendency to over-engineer and chase technology trends often result in claims tracking tools that fail to reflect real customer behaviour.

For example, she pointed to the influx of investments into launching apps which failed to gain traction and eventually “died a death” because “an app is only useful when you open it pretty much every day”.

She continued: “As an industry, we sometimes get overexcited and then we drive it down a path and when we’re so far down that path we forget to come back to it when it’s not working.”

To progress these tools to meet consumer demand, Sutton concluded that it would take firms being willing to collaborate and share data which would mean that “no company can be precious about what they’re working on”.