3News » Home
Full Story

ACC claimants should be worried by cuts - CTU

7 comments | Post Comment email Email printer friendly Print    Text Size:
aA
aA
aA
ACC long-term claims project leader Phil Riley said the unit was formed to battle rising claims and costs (file pic)

ACC long-term claims project leader Phil Riley said the unit was formed to battle rising claims and costs (file pic)

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 7:51p.m.

Moves by a new ACC unit to cut costs by targeting long-term clients who claim more than $600 a week are a worrying prospect, according to the Combined Trade Unions (CTU).

A report today said that in the six months since the recover independence unit was formed, 721 people have been dropped from ACC - roughly, twice the number as would normally be expected to leave.

An internal document obtained by The Press under the Official Information Act said the unit focused on cases with potential for "quick wins through targeted intervention".

It said there was a need to balance the needs of clients with"an increased focus on scheme liability, cost containment and value for money".

ACC long-term claims project leader Phil Riley said the unit was formed to battle rising claims and costs.

But CTU president Helen Kelly said the information was a worrying prospect for all present and future claimants.

"So-called 'high cost' clients are the most likely to have suffered very serious injuries," she said.

"Instead of targeting them simply on the basis of cost, ACC should be developing its services to ensure these accident victims get the best support to rehabilitate them and return them to work."

Ms Kelly said reports that many of those moved off ACC were simply being shifted to the Unemployment Benefit showed that real rehabilitation had not taken place.

"The ACC promise is that the injured will have access to complete rehabilitation and compensation to assist them back to a normal life in exchange for losing the right to sue.

"If ACC starts treating these people as a cost rather than a responsibility then the essence of the scheme is lost."

Ms Kelly said the regime of cost cutting and over-zealous pruning of entitlements had been going on since the Government had taken power.

"It is driven by a desperation to paint a picture of an organisation in 'crisis' through the misleading focus on actuarial liabilities. For the sake of a better bottom line people are being thrown off of ACC on to benefits."

She suspected the Government was trying to turn public opinion against the corporation and the scheme itself by forcing it to take "these unpopular and unprincipled actions".

"People must know that it is the Government driving these unfair cutbacks. It is also obvious that plans to privatise ACC require the cuts to be made now to make the prospects of buying into ACC more enticing for insurance companies," Ms Kelly said.

ACC Minister Nick Smith has said the organisation would be under pressure to manage costs to keep levy increases to a minimum and ensure its long-term financial viability.

NZPA

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Comments [7]

rhys
09 Feb 2010 7:18p.m.

ACC are kicking people who are already down! National have shirked their responsibility towards these people. People should be able to sue ACC for costs, if ACC are wrongly exiting them! National's Lies will be their downfall!

Diana
26 Jan 2010 12:32p.m.

Those requiring long-term ACC support did not choose to be in the situation they are in. These are members of society who were once independent, working in good jobs, raising good families, loving and contributing to life. They are now the innocent survivors of among the most hideous criminal action of our country's most hideous criminals.

They must endure the personal, physical and mental recovery of being in the wrong place and at the wrong time in the path of such criminals as drunken drivers, aggrevated assault, drugged-up home-invaders, rapists, murderers, and sometimes, negligent employees.

The Government ought to be directing their attention to preventing and responding to these criminals and criminal behaviour.

Leave alone the systems already in place and working that enable the care and rehabilitation of "long-term" ACC recipients to reclaim a life worth living, to return to the workforce and the right to return to independence.

Diana
26 Jan 2010 12:32p.m.

Those requiring long-term ACC support did not choose to be in the situation they are in. These are members of society who were once independent, working in good jobs, raising good families, loving and contributing to life. They are now the innocent survivors of among the most hideous criminal action of our country's most hideous criminals.

They must endure the personal, physical and mental recovery of being in the wrong place and at the wrong time in the path of such criminals as drunken drivers, aggrevated assault, drugged-up home-invaders, rapists, murderers, and sometimes, negligent employees.

The Government ought to be directing their attention to preventing and responding to these criminals and criminal behaviour.

Leave alone the systems already in place and working that enable the care and rehabilitation of "long-term" ACC recipients to reclaim a life worth living, to return to the workforce and the right to return to independence.

Kim
19 Jan 2010 2:50p.m.

one more thing Alien
Just the fact that you know about cases that Nick the Dick has overturned points to the reason he has overturned those decisions, which is that the media got involved. I wonder how many are ignored.
You are obviously some idiot employed by the govt to troll thro the blogs to try and discredit people who don't agree with govt policies. If not how about you comment on the news articles and not other people valuable contributions.

Kim
19 Jan 2010 12:10p.m.

Alien..
I think the person that commented makes some very valid points.
It is a fact that ACC denys claims based on cost rather than need. Its not good enough for a govt dept to deny cover and then expect the claimant to have to take a govt dept to court to force it to do what its setup to do.
Acc do this because they know that 50% of people will not take them to court believing that the ACC has followed thier own rules when in actual fact they are just trying it on. And of the other 50% that want to take them to court 30% doesn't have the money to pursue a claim through the courts. Or are scared that if they lose they will get hit with high court costs.
Of the 20% left even if 100% win thier cases ACC has still managed to kick 80% of people off ACC without redress.
Ask an insurance company what they do when they recieve a claim from 1 of thier clients..They send out a form letter to the other party saying its all thier fault even if they know its not because they know that 70% of people will just write out a cheque because they think the insurance company is honest.. that leaves 30% of claims to deal with of which 50% might win or lose through court.
(these figures are estimates only to illustrate my point but i think they would not be far from reality)

Alien
19 Jan 2010 9:41a.m.

I suggest the person who commented above learn the facts for they bleat on. If you are denied ACC payments you have the right to take legal action against ACC to have the case reviewed by a court. Nick Smith doesn't care? yeah that is why he has over turned a few ACC decisions and made sure the people have received their payment. Just another blow hard who has learned to use the internet but doesn't know what they are talking about aren't you.

What is ACC really
18 Jan 2010 9:51p.m.

You have to wonder about a government that uses tactics that are said to be spurious information to justify its decisions here.

Why are they being so back handed about ACC? probably because they want us to think it was our idea and not theirs.

The morality of this lot of Ministers that we have had in the last 2 decades has been non existent.

If you are entitled to ACC because you have an injury and yet you are not given the requisite rehabilitation then what is the point of the scheme? and why dont we have the right to therefore sue?.

ACC isnt comprehensive and never has been, only injuries recognised by ACC in whatever list it uses to determine cover.

In other countries traumatic injuries are being treated and recognised but there are many of those conditions that are recognised world wide... except here in New Zealand.

Somatic injuries because of chest operations is one example, Autonomic dysfunction is another.

If ACC have never been comprehensive as they have repeatedly claimed, why do we let our politicians fool us so much?.

People like Nick Smith dont care if you are sick or injured, they just care about how much it is going to cost them to fix you and whether they consider you worth it or not.

All of us have the probability of using this scheme at some point and if we keep letting liars like Nick Smith have the only say... the scheme we have will sound pretty but in reality it will just be an abusive waste of time more likely to harm us than fix us.

If we elect Nick Smith in Nelson again we should all hang our heads in shame.

Post a comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide here
Name:
Email: (Won't be published)
Comment:



3News Video 3News Audio

Post your opinion

3News - What changes would you make to MMP?
The Govt and lobby groups are urging people to have their say on
Comments (9)