Death Benefits in Super: The case for doing it better (with less grey hair all round)
/Let’s talk about death benefits.
Not exactly the kind of cheery opener you’d expect from a blog — but if you work in superannuation, you know it’s part of the territory. Death benefit claims are part of the job — a part we’d all love to handle better, faster and with far fewer headaches for everyone involved.
At our recent ASFA National Legislation Discussion Group, we had guest speakers Sarah Poole and Ben Darlow from estateXchange sharing some reflections on how super funds might improve claims handling by drawing on lessons (and cautionary tales) from banking. Importantly, these aren’t “best practice rules” carved in stone. They’re stories and observations that funds might find useful when thinking about what works in their own context. Banking doesn’t have it all figured out either but some of their hard knocks may help us avoid repeating the same mistakes.
What we saw in banking (and recognised in super)
It turns out that banking and super share a few headaches: delays, inconsistent service and processes that grew organically over time rather than being properly designed. Banking found that the biggest culprit wasn’t “difficult customers” — it was underinvestment in systems, training and process design.
That insight may ring a bell for some in super. It certainly did for us.
Process redesign: a chance to step back
One idea we explored is starting with the experience you’d like claimants to have — and then designing processes to deliver that.
Some approaches we’ve seen include:
Setting clear goals for customer experience (the so-called “A Current Affair test” can be a handy sense check - imagine your decisions being featured on A Current Affair. If the claimant looks reasonable and you look like a heartless bureaucrat, you’ve failed the test)
Remembering that claimants are often grieving, confused and dealing with the fund for the first time.
Standardising input methods where possible, while still leaving room for compassion.
Building evidence capture into systems so you don’t have to scramble for explanations later.
Funds might like to reflect on whether their current process grew by “tweaks and patches” or whether it was consciously designed. If it’s the former, there could be value in pausing to redesign before layering on more technology.
Data and reporting: from fog to visibility
In both banking and super, cases sometimes sit in limbo with little visibility on what’s happening. What worked better was breaking down the claim’s lifecycle into clear stages with milestones and capturing the reasons for delays rather than just the length.
This enabled both:
Macro reporting — trends and performance at the fund level.
Micro reporting — insights into individual cases, making it easier to spot bottlenecks.
Some funds may want to consider moving towards more real-time data, so issues can be addressed proactively rather than reactively.
Risk management: finding the right balance
Managing risk in death benefit claims is always a balancing act: protecting members and beneficiaries, but also ensuring processes aren’t so rigid that they create unnecessary pain.
Some banking learnings included analysing historical loss data to inform risk appetite, taking different approaches to high vs low-value cases, and questioning rules that made sense in theory but weren’t delivering for customers.
Super funds might reflect on where they sit on that spectrum - are they over-engineering for every case, or is there room to flex without losing control?
People power: investing in capability
Another big takeaway was that even the best-designed processes don’t work without well-supported people. In banking, investing in training, coaching roles and career pathways had a tangible impact on claims handling.
Some ideas funds might consider include:
Structured training beyond just handing over the policy manual.
Regular call listening and feedback loops.
Career progression opportunities to help retain experienced staff.
Forums where staff can share what’s working and what isn’t.
We’ve found that when staff feel capable and valued, it shows in the way they interact with claimants.
Communication: clear, compassionate, consistent
One of the simplest, yet most powerful shifts is improving communication.
This could mean:
Tailoring approaches for different audiences (a grieving spouse vs a legal adviser have very different needs).
Continuously refining forms, letters and website content.
Providing as much upfront information as possible to reduce back-and-forth.
Considering specialised support, such as a bereavement call team.
Making proactive calls to keep cases moving, rather than waiting for members to chase.
Funds may find that small tweaks here can deliver outsized improvements to the claimant’s experience.
AI: your new (non-annoying) co-worker
AI came up as an area of emerging potential. While it’s not a silver bullet, some practical applications could include:
Analysing complaints to detect systemic issues.
Assisting with interpreting wills or identifying beneficiaries.
Capturing organisational knowledge from past decisions.
For funds curious about AI, complaints analysis could be a safe first step before moving into more complex applications.
Board reporting: keeping everyone in the loop
One of the banking lessons was that boards prefer transparency to surprises. Regular, detailed reporting helped build trust and made it easier to secure investment in improvements.
Funds could consider whether their board reports provide not just numbers, but also insight into root causes and progress on initiatives.
Where to begin
This might sound like a long shopping list and it is. But no fund needs to do everything at once. Some starting points we’ve seen include:
Reviewing current processes against what’s worked (and what hasn’t) in banking.
Looking at whether board reporting is giving the right level of visibility.
Assessing current training and capability-building efforts.
Exploring one small AI use case.
Making a simple communication improvement as a quick win.
Closing thoughts
Death benefit claims will never be “easy.” But by sharing stories and insights (the wins and the war wounds) we can all move towards approaches that are faster, fairer and kinder.
Banking’s journey isn’t a perfect map, but it offers signposts. Each fund can take what resonates, leave what doesn’t and adapt the rest to fit their own context.
At the end of the day, that’s what it’s about: doing right by our members, especially in the hardest moments of their lives. Because if we can’t get that right, what are we here for?