At the turn of the century, the Chilean Social Security system initiated a series of reforms, the components of which considered the inclusion of the users of the different systems in their management, in a more or less direct manner, recalling the bipartite or tripartite composition of the former Pension Funds. The first one of these reforms was the unemployment insurance, which included a committee comprising representatives of workers and employers (CUSC), which was replicated for the pension system in Law No. 20.255 (CUSP), and to which a second agency was added for providing advisory services to the authority: the Pension Advisory Council (CCP). Finally, in the first years of the second decade of this century, its own participating agency was created as part of the efforts for modernizing the occupational health sector: the Advisory Committee for Health and Safety in the Workplace (CCSST).

This study presents a compilation of the proposals put forward by these four agencies participating in Chilean Social Security, as well as their monitoring over time, seeking to relate such reports to public policies and the regulatory changes occurring in each regime.

Among the conclusions, it mentions that in the first place, and generally speaking, that these agencies have problems in presenting reports within the legal deadlines they are subject to. This should not be an impediment to their operation, but they should be relieved of the legal obligation of submitting reports on a specific date, or else obligated to comply. Secondly, the impetus of their mission depends to a great extent on the existence of reforms that are being implemented, but not on discussion. In other words, they are good at implementing reforms, proposing corrections and following them up, but their effectiveness diminishes when the in-depth modifications of the system enter the sphere of political discussion. Finally, the degree of regulatory acceptance of the proposals put forward, although partial, appears to be positive: the total discarding of proposals would question their usefulness, whereas their total acceptance would call into question the usefulness of the legislator.