The future of the ACT's compulsory third party scheme will be decided by a jury of more than 50 people.

A group of industry stakeholders, including insurance groups and lawyers, are currently finessing the details of four prospective CTP schemes, based on priorities identified the citizens' jury.

The jury favoured a no-fault scheme that would cover anyone injured in crash in the ACT and allow the injured to access to treatment and rehabilitation sooner.

As such, all four draft models include some eligibility and benefits for anyone injured in a motor vehicle accident, regardless of fault.

However the most generous schemes have been tempered by thresholds that would limit lump-sum payouts to only the most severely injured.

Model A meets the jury's criteria with the least amount of change to the current common law, at-fault scheme.

It gives anyone injured in a motor vehicle accident the same cover for six months, giving them time to focus on their recovery and to determine who was at fault.

If no one else was at fault, benefits stop. If someone else was at fault, the claim will move to the common law system, with insurers obliged to pay for treatment and lost earnings for at least three years, unless there is reasonable cause not to.

Disputed claims under Model A also move to the common law stream, and benefits stop.

Those who can prove someone else was at fault in the common law system can claim past economic loss, future loss of earning capacity, the cost of past and future treatment and up to $500,000 in general damages.

The legal fees will remain a matter for lawyers and their clients, as in the current scheme.

Model B closely resembles Model A, but gives more generous benefits to at-fault people while scaling back general damages for people with less severe injuries.

All injuries parties start off with the same benefits for one year.

However if fault cannot be determined, the case will be referred to a CTP tribunal.

Under this model solicitor fees would be capped on common law settlements over $50,000.

Model C is similar to Model B, but treatment is available for five years and income loss and paid domestic services available for two years.

Those with permanent injuries can claim a lump sum payment of up to $250,000, regardless of fault.

If someone else was at fault, claimants can apply for up to $500,000.

Model D provides treatment for five years to anyone injured in a crash but with extra benefits for those who were not-at-fault but are seriously injured.

The models are yet to be finalised and will not be presented to the jury until the end of next month.

However two of the four models include thresholds of Whole of Person Impairment (WPI), a controversial assessment of the degree of permanent injuries.

All models originally included thresholds, which have proved difficult and inflexible in other jurisdictions, earlier documents provided to the Canberra Times showed.

The report authors, Finity Actuarial and Insurance Consultants, said they had moved away from Comcare an ISV evaluations "for reasons discussed separately".

Model A has no threshold but accounted for "some judicial guidance" for less severe injuries.

Model B also has no threshold either, but includes a scale that would give lower benefits to those less severely injured.

Model C includes a threshold of WPI less than 10 per cent, while Model D has a threshold of more than 10 per cent.

Under Model C, at-fault injured claimants with a WPI higher than 10 per cent can claim income benefits at 80 per cent for five years. If their WPI is lower than 10 per cent the income benefits stop after two years.

In Model D, quality of life compensation compensation is determined on WPI.

Not-at-fault claimants with WPI of 10 per cent or more would be able to claim future economic loss as well.

The thresholds would be based on the AMA5 guidelines, but with modifications to cover psychological injuries, pain, hearing loss, loss of vision, low to moderate spinal injuries and the impact on daily life.

However a NSW Bar Association submission to the NSW government on their CTP reform in 2013 claimed 90 per cent of people injured in crashes did not clear the 10 per cent WPI threshold.

They cited a 20-year-old labourer with a lumbar disc prolapse who would receive no earning benefits beyond five years despite no longer being able to work.

They also gave an example of a police officer with an ankle fusion who was deemed no longer fit for active duty and medical retired, but who had no claim to the ongoing cost of pain medication or allowance for lost earnings after five years.

The NSW government eventually retreated on some of the harshest elements of their scheme but legal experts estimated up to a third of injured people lost the right to benefits under the new scheme.

However motorists were expected to save $120 a year on premiums.