HIF is recruiting members to sit on a new AI Advisory Council. The not-for-profit private health insurer wants policyholders to help shape how it governs its use of artificial intelligence.
The fund, which has operated since 1954 and covers almost 100,000 people, is seeking up to two current members. They will join an independent advisory forum to discuss the risks and opportunities of AI and what the community expects from insurers that use it. HIF said the council’s role was to provide outside perspectives on transparency, accountability and oversight, rather than technical advice.
Members will be expected to attend at least two meetings a year. AI expertise is not required, but applicants should be willing to ask questions, challenge assumptions and offer balanced views. HIF said it also wanted people who could bring lived experience and practical perspectives on how AI might improve the member experience. Expressions of interest close on November 23.
Chief executive Greg Morris, who joined HIF in January from AIA Health, said trust had to come first in private health insurance.
“For HIF, responsible AI adoption means making sure our governance, safeguards and decision-making are mature before use scales across the business,” said Morris.
He said the council would help HIF test its thinking as the technology and community expectations changed. He wanted members who were prepared to ask difficult questions, and said member voices should sit alongside expert advice.
HIF is not starting from scratch. It has already introduced an AI-driven virtual assistant, hiffy, to support its member service teams. Its stated aim of having governance in place before AI use scales suggests the fund is considering wider applications, although it has not said which parts of the business are under review.
That is likely to be the question members care about most. AI that helps service staff answer queries is a different proposition from AI that informs claims assessment or benefit decisions. In those areas, mistakes carry direct financial consequences for policyholders - and for the brokers and advisers who recommended the cover.
The move comes as APRA presses insurers to show stronger oversight of AI. In April, the regulator told industry that governance and risk management were not keeping pace with AI adoption. At last week’s Insurance Council conference, APRA member Suzanne Smith, who oversees private health as well as general and life insurance, said boards needed a clear view of where AI is used, its material risks and who is accountable.
“AI can support judgement; it cannot replace accountability,” said Smith.
She also warned that opaque models could make outcomes harder to explain, just as expectations for transparent decisions were rising. Those expectations apply beyond insurers. APRA has made clear that outsourced functions and technology - including AI tools embedded in broker platforms and comparison services - fall within the same governance framework. Brokers and advisers who recommend products where AI plays a role in pricing, eligibility or claims should understand what oversight their insurer has in place.
A two-seat member panel that meets twice a year is a modest mechanism next to those expectations. It gives HIF a way to hear policyholders’ concerns but no formal role in decisions. Still, few Australian insurers have published any structure for consulting customers on AI.
Whether the council influences HIF’s decisions, or simply provides a forum for feedback, will depend on how much of its advice the fund makes public.
