Even as a relatively new MP I get a feeling when a pattern is developing in dealing with government agencies. Four cases coming to the electorate office on one topic in a short space of time is a sign. That is definitely the case with ACC declining surgery on the grounds of a “pre-existing condition”. One of the cases has had a run in the media, but the others are just the same. In all cases the patient’s doctors argue that surgery is required as a result of the accident, but ACC has denied the surgery.
Jim Anderton raised this in Parliament last week, and at the time I thought he had got an unequivocal answer from Nick Smith that there had been no change in policy. Reading the transcript again I am not so sure. Smith talks about no change in the “legislative cover.“ But this does not eliminate a policy change, and I think that is what we are seeing.
In the exchange with Jim Anderton, Nick Smith does acknowledge that more cases are going to appeal, but he also says ” it is critical that these decisions are made on medical and not cost grounds.” That is something we can all agree on, but when doctors are saying that the surgery is required as a result of the accident, but ACC is finding ways around this, that is not meeting the Minister’s test.
The view of all those involved in the cases is that they feel as people who have paid their taxes and ACC levies over the years, they thought the system would be there for them when they needed it. They are feeling cheated, and they have every right to do so. I am supporting them to appeal the decisions, but that is wasting a lot of time for all concerned.
Denying people treatment for their injuries is just plain wrong
Great you’re fighting this!
Continue the plan – If we make it bad enough people will be screaming for competition and privatization!
Competition ?
Like when you dont like your insurers answer and you walk off to find another like when you go from New World to Foodtown?
The idea is too silly for words.
Like life insurance , A choice you made say 15 years ago but havent worried about till needed much later, doesnt help you …now that you need it.
I can see the same situation that happened under Chritine Rankine, who was the puppet for national ministers in the 90s. That is it would take about 5 years for the court cases to wend through courts, which like with WINZ showed they were acting totally unlawfully.
Too true, except if its anything like last time it will be your employer who chooses between NW or Foodies, and Woolies for management and Logan Brown for Directors.
ACC came in with some stated aims of protecting people and cutting out the court actions and uncertainty for those involved in liability and to some degree injury.
Prior to that if you cut yourself or broke a leg then the hospital would tend to your medical needs as a matter of course. No paper trail of forms, ACC specialist consultations and all the hurdles there now for those who are unfortunate enough to get hurt, and also for their attending medics.
The A & E medical care was a part of what you paid taxes for – the health system. ACC has been morphed over the years to become a quasi insurance scheme, obviously set up for privatization as we have seen in recent years.
The most efficient way to deal with injury is to have treatment under a health system devoid of ACC.
I suspect the real cost of running the ACC system is enormous and none of that money is used to actually assist victims.
Scrap ACC and treat people as they need. That is a health system – simple.
Privatisation?
Such an option is many times more expensive, denies treatment for large sections of the community and reaps profit for rich investment groups. A slippery slope with no return.
Look at your models of private health overseas.
eg US 27% or GDP spend on health. NZ 9%.
Privatisation is a no brainer.
Competition is not a substitute for good design. Look at the bigger picture.
My nephew is self-employed and he pretty much doesn’t get ACC cover. They refuse his expense claims and under pay (or just don’t) him when he’s been off work because of accident. It’s atrocious and yet it happens.
If you have an accident then you should be covered automatically but ACC has, over the last 10 years especially, become far more like an insurance company that just doesn’t want to pay out. We’ve all seen what happens in the US with health insurance. It doesn’t work, a large section of the population can’t afford it and a lot of people who do have that insurance find out that they aren’t covered anyway as the insurance companies find any and all excuses not to pay out.
@ John W
You did not mention that ACC was primarily for wage compensation, not the treatment side the hospital already did?
Interestingly no-one supporting privatization wants to return the right to sue. Probably don’t want consumers sueing the insurer either.
“US 27% or GDP spend on health. NZ 9%.” At first I thought that was their defense spend. But remember they get better room service in the wards, including selling stuff they dont want or need.
Indeed Jeremy. And the USA doctors carry out a large number of expensive checks to guard against being sued. If ACC was watered down then it might happen here.
And as for pre-existing conditions this is crazy as every person has an unknown condition of some sort and when I fall off my ladder I hope they don’t turn me down because somewhere I have a hidden scar of some sort. Just like the Private USA Insurers who refuse on such grounds or delay for so long that you die! Keep the wonderful ACC intact please!
I remember how Labour MPs cried buckets of crocodile tears when ACC shafted people in the late 1990s and did nothing to restrain its abuses while it was in office. Yes, ACC has ratcheted up its abusive behaviour under NACT, but only by a matter of degree. If Labour had actually sorted ACC out, when it had ample opportunity to do so, it wouldn’t have been able to act so viciously now, as most of the people doing the shafting had their jobs while Labour sat on the government side of the House. Labour’s failure to control bureaucracy cost it votes by the thousands in 2008, and they won’t be coming back any time soon.
@ Grant: yes it is appalling that ACC are finding ways round covering the surgery that pertains to an accident. But this has been going on for years.
Michael Gibson I agree.
I like ACC, I like the model in theory and I like its purpose. What I don’t like is the fact that while it is NOT broke, it IS broken and does need to be fixed.
But Labour weren’t prepared to tackle these issues in 9 years and given that NACT leans towards privatisation then the only option left is perhaps opening the workers account to competition.
However, I personally would like ACC to do the following:
To become ACCIDENT compensation only and pay ALL accident related costs including physios!
To remove the no fault policy in the sense that some groups should pay more
To see recreational groups who make up the majority of the non work related injuries start paying some kind of levy – e.g. a SMALL levy in conjunction with the rugby subs or purchase of new snowboard, mountain or road bike etc
To remove all non accident things from the policy – e.g. the likes of cover for Graham Burton and his 10k leg (not an accident by any stretch of the imagination) and sexual abuse claims.
To reduce the transport owner/driver levies that went up by 100% with only 10 weeks notice in 2007 because Ruth Dyson claimed that the self-employed & employers accounts were unfair so the changes would create a more level playing field. Not true. Self-employed truckies are now propping up their employee colleagues – so much so that they are paying $1.47 per $100 of income MORE than an employee (including their employer’s contribution) doing the exact same job.
To see groups like truckies & couriers rewarded for good driving – e.g. link the ACC levy to the police CVIU checks. This means all those who keep their trucks/vans etc in great working order (and often are in less accidents or at least, least likely to cause them) pay less than those who don’t keep their trucks/vans in good working order, who frequently drive overweight, don’t keep good logs, drive more than their allowable hours etc.
I want to know that as someone who pays $6000 in ACC levies per year that if I stuff my shoulder from gardening or falling off a bike that ACC will pay to get it fixed.
Have any of you read the March 2008 PWC Report on ACC? It is a very useful place to start an analysis of if ACC is broken.
Hiding behind “let the court decide” is a cop-out by Smith. The cost to a claimant is very high and long. ACC, if directed by policy to defend, defined, defend, has enormous resources to do so. In the meantime someone’s physical health deteriorates and their emotional/mental health and family will suffer for the Court case.
IF National intends privatising ACC, or opening up competition then they need to bring back the ability to sue for personal injury by accident. They never even raise this in discussions.
@Ianmac – Agreed
“But this has been going on for years.” – But is getting worse now.
I strongly disagree about sexual abuse claims being removed, sexual abuse causes huge injury. P.S don’t want to resurrect the sexual abuse accusing people debate.
@Tracey – Agreed.
Tracey I am not sure there would be the need to sue if they only open the workers account to competition.
Opening the non workers account – well yes, the 2 go hand in hand and wouldn’t that be a sad day in hell.
I just don’t understand why it is so difficult for any government to make ACC do what it is supposed to – charge levies that are fair and reasonable where everyone pays their fair share, provide cover where it ought and be accountable and transparent.
Self employed people who dont draw wages dont get ACC payments because they have no wages to compensate.
That is a choice self employed people make to gain the most benefit from there business.
Im sick of people bagging those who play sport saying they should pay more acc levies. lazy arsed people who sit on teh couch and then use up teh health dollar later in life due to being unhealthy could be levied against aswell.
Government’s function is not to make lawyers rich and deprive those without money from justice.
ACC had a huge surplus, there is no need to charge anyone any extra, sports people or not!
Rebbecca
Michael Labour did take ACC back out of privatised hands. The role of the last Labour govt has been to keep at bay the international pressure for entering into wars, lessening government and laying blueprints for more corporate control including widening the role of international bankers in the running of NZ.
Kiwibank had a period of consolidation making it harder for National to throw it out as it competes with overseas banks and keeps them honest.
Our future food security with rail transport ( particularly for cities ) will be a very big issue in years to come. Rail has been secured after being sold off by you know who.
Future provision of the pension has had sound planning and implementation of a future proofing provision. National will attempt to dismantle that as well.
National opposed all of these things as they do not fall in line with international pressures to privatise government function for profit.
You would have had much more degradation of our societal fabric had they not played a line of pedaling softly and staying in power. Enormous gains were made for NZ during those 9 years but the loss of govt control over many parts of our economic structure was in place before they came to power.
It is typical of common public comment to look at the small things and the bigger picture is ignored.
Many of the destructive forces are based on greed and the greediest group promote their interests through economic “reform”. Just watch what will be thrown to the sharks by the present mob in power.
The lower socio economic strata will be squeezed further and increased crime and break down of living standards will be addressed by more draconian laws and prisons. It would seem that privatising prisons for profit is also acceptable. This is not NZ the way we want it and again a slippery slope you can’t climb back from without massive public support. The NZ public are fed spin and right wing propaganda daily through the media. The average Kiwi just goes along with it.
What is stupid ?
P.s Spud re your “I strongly disagree about sexual abuse claims being removed, sexual abuse causes huge injury. P.S don’t want to resurrect the sexual abuse accusing people debate.”
I’m not aware of that debate but I personally want to see sexual abuse claims transferred to the health system. They are not the result of an accident – no more than Graham Burton and his need for a $10k leg. They are the result of the hideous vile actions of people who have no concept of morality.
The right departments should be covering the right costs however, I don’t want to see people missing out on the support and rehabilitation they need. In saying that, it has always been almost impossible to get the support you need under ACC anyway. Even if your claim after jumping through a million hoops and telling your story to all and sundry is successful, they then choose a counsellor for you to go to in the sense that you can only go to ACC approved people – which has huge implications in terms of the claimants ability to actually open up & address their issues and heal. Counseling and therapy is a very private thing and the claimant should be able to choose who they feel they can connect with the most. But given that ACC makes it so difficult for good therapists etc to be registered with them, then it is a lose lose for the claimant.
I am NOT advocating a return to suing for personal injury by accident but as is pointed out above, self employed people do not get either, ACC payment OR the right to sue.
IF a free market, competition, privatisation is intended then it MUST accept litigation, but it doesn’t, so this Govt wants to open up to a so-called free market scheme with HUGE protection in place for the insurers.
Rebecca, aren’t the levies based on particular jobs/industries? Therefore an industry which has higher occurrence of injuries have higher levies? The NZRU specifically partnered with ACC to address spinal injuries in the early 2000’s and together they went nationwide to reduce injuries in rugby. My understanding is that it has had a huge impact in reducing those injuries, which are very high cost for ACC.
I was a sports consultant, and if I had gone into the sports industry bracket, I would have been paying similar to professional sportspeople. I changed my category to business consultant.
Sorry, don’t agree.
That post was for Rebecca.
Rebecca
“accident” has a very specific, and slightly convoluted meaning under ACC precisely to remove the possibility of suing for negligence, that is why sexual abuse claims are in ACC, to prevent suing for the injury.
Assault victims, who are deliberately kicked and punched have still suffered an “accident” under ACC to close the door on suing for personal injury.
Gotcha spud, also got your comment about not wanting to ressurect the sexual abuse allegations debate. ;D
Tracey yes different industries of course pay different rates – I would never expect an accountant to say pay as much as a truckie. However, if that accountant was an extreme motorcross or mountain bike rider then yes I would like to see them pay more.
The main difference between the self-employed and employee that I referred to is like that in the transport industry where you have 2 people doing the exact same job – one is an employee and one is an owner/driver.
The reason why people become owner/drivers is because that is what the transport companies dictate. Transport companies don’t employ people to do complete runs/areas and anyone who is deemed to be competent is pushed to be an owner/driver as that ultimately means more freight revenue for the company.
The actual work the employee and S/E do is exactly the same – loading and unloading freight via forklift, tailgate & pellet jack yet the employee along with their employer’s ACC contribution pays the exact same levy rate as that of say an office worker while the self-employed person doing the exact same job is paying $1.47 per $100 of income MORE. This is grossly unfair.
PAYE does not differentiate between industry types. Transport employers & their employees pay the same flat of $0.70 and $1.70 per $100 of income respectively as an employer and employee in any other industry type.
Currently an employee in the transport industry can only pay ACC levies $1,810.04 maximum per year. This means the self-employed people are propping these people up.
In terms of making sure you choose the right industry type – I agree however road freight transport is exactly that, they can’t sneak under another category.
This is a huge issue for a massive industry, one that we will no doubt see more of as time goes on. They are up in arms as should be the consumer as costs on these guys means more costs on us at the check out.
In terms of prevention of suing etc, I agree however, I am sure changes could be made so that other departments carried the weight of these claims rather than just ACC.
Rebecca if we charge people for the sports they play, wont that make playing sports prohibitive? I help pay for people with children for their schooling, health and so on, because of the societal benefit, same goes with sport , a physically active individual is better for all of us?
It would be cumbersome Rebecca, to remove an acc type claim from ACC legislation and create new legislation under the Ministry of Health. All that is required is a policy/attitude shift in ACC, that comes fromt he top and would not be different under the Ministry of health.
No not at all – considering how expensive subs are anyway (e.g. $350 for hockey) a few more dollars would hardly make that much of a difference. I am after all talking about a small levy.
To a degree someone is always going to pay for someone else (high earning self employed non smoker truck driver who eats well, is extremely athletic has own health insurance vs a low earning employee truck driver who eats pies all day, smokes and does nothing but drink Vs and beer and play playstation in his spare time), however there could be a better balance.
Addressing the huge anomalies in that bureaucratic rort we call ACC would be a good start – surely it can’t be that difficult to make sure those who are injured get the cover they are entitled to get as well as making sure those who cost us the most pay their fair share and people who do the same jobs pay the same levies per $100 of income.
“drink Vs and beer and play playstation in his spare time), however there could be a better balance.” – Absolutely, he could drink beer and play ruby at the same time
“a few more dollars would hardly make that much of a difference.” _ there are people who are struggling to afford sports now, it would just force some people to quit. Plus it’s unnecessary given the huge surplus that ACC had.
Spud it is has not had! They’re not broke!!! The surplus you keep referring to is the main source of contention in terms of whether ACC should continue to be fully funded (which it is now until 2014) or be funded year to year which I think was what the Woodward model proposed.
Being active does not mean you have to put yourself at risk.
Everyone talks about how we should reward people who are active and not make them pay some levies in their high risk sports.
Walking and running keep you active and does not have anywhere near the same risk in terms of the frequency and severity of other sports like rugby & extreme sports (including snowboarding, skiing, mountain biking, etc).
I choose not to play netball anymore because my risk of further injury is too high thanks to touch rugby injuries and my husband is not allowed to snowboard because his insurance for work classes it has an extreme sport. These things are called personal responsibility.
If you choose to do things that put you at severe risk for injury then you should be required to pay a little towards this rather than expecting to be covered out of this so-called bottomless pit we call consolidated funds. So I guess in that sense, perhaps the way forward is making ACC an insurance scheme of sorts where you pay more less depending on your claim rating.
This morning Thursday 9:10 Nine to Noon: Jim Anderton did a very clear rundown on ACC. Even I could understand the implications.
Then Nick Smokescreen Smith. Ducked and dived, played with Statistics and confused the issue.
He would only need to do that if they were trying to hide a mistake or protect an agenda. A great listen esp from Jim Everlasting Anderton. (Remember his clarity during thos panels at Election 2008?)
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/
@Rebecca – Oops, tired and multitasking.
I agree that sports people should exercise personal responsibility in saftey, just not that they should have to pay extra.
It wouldn’t be a small levy Rebecca, it would be pretty big.
These kinds of measures are, imo, better ideas than increased levies on sports and sports players. I personally believe the change in ACC to focus on Prevention back in 2002 was a good thing.
http://www.acc.co.nz/preventing-injuries/playing-sport/index.htm
Perhaps Tracey and I agree – like all things, prevention should be the first path.
However, when you choose to do extreme sports especially there is no such thing as prevention; vertical drops whether that be through skiing, motorcross, snowboarding, BMX, mountain biking you name it mean injury at some point is a given.
However, this side of the issue is in my view the least of our worries. I am much more concerned about things like I have stated above.
As it affects me directly – that is, we are paying over $4500 more in levies per year that an employee doing the same job as my husband then I can’t help but lean towards a more user pays system. We can afford it so why not. So tired of having to pay so much to everyone and getting nothing back. You may argue the same re children and while I agree with that argument in many ways, our child may be very well be your PM, doctor, or rest home provider one day. So there is benefit to making sure families like us are treated a little more fairly.
I’m not fussed on who does it, I just want change! I want a guarantee that if I suffer an injury I get the surgery for it through ACC and I want to know that people are paying their fair share in the levies. Currently the system fails on both of these.
Rugby is the largest contributer to sports injury costs, I am pretty sure the so-called extreme sports actually have a small impact on our levies.
Is it – I have always suspected that rugby was the worst. I personally think levies for rugby players would be a great thing as if it turns people off the sport then good, I don’t think it has done this country many favours in terms of the culture of alcohol & domestic abuse that goes with it.
it has about 180,000 players, not including social and touch rugby etc… it stands to reason it contributes the most. For this reason and the cultural (I use that term advisedly) that sport will never be directly levied, ie increased member registration fees.
Hi there,
I have been looking for the full 477 pages of the 2008 PriceWatherhouseCooper report without success. My feeling is that this report is the basis from which many arguments against the current regime should be mounted. However, it seems to have been taken down from the web…..has anyone got access to an electronic version?
anyone got access to an electronic version of the 2008 PWC report. It contains many of the arguments that we should be airing.