Judith Collins speaks about ACC

6/07/2012 10:36:45 a.m.

tony wrote:

the hundreds of medical assessors that have worked with ACC to denigh claimants compensation ,especially for independance allowances, need to be charged with abuse as they have denighed people their rightful payments and there is nothing happening to stop this practise from still going on. the assessor gets $720 approx while the claimant get cut off from compensation, it is crimainal and people need to be held to account. thousands of people out there have been victims , myself included.

4/07/2012 5:32:01 p.m.

Seannachie wrote:

Judith Collins should resign as her government is responsible fort halving operations,for reduced subsidies for physio,for bunuses for getting people off treatment,for appointing Bruce Judge to implement these policies,for increased ACC levies ,for cutbacks in funding, and for information leaks. The buck should stop with her as the Minister of ACC.Buck passing to others when Government cutbacks underlie tyhese problems and grandstanding does not cut it.

18/06/2012 10:48:57 a.m.

Michael Ferrari wrote:

Is John Judge a fit person to be Chair of ANZ National bank? Does his behaviour at ACC in the Pullar/Boag affair suggest that he is a fit person? I think not.

17/06/2012 3:05:19 p.m.

jason wrote:

I Hope ACC and Judith Collins can answer Peters Questions here on TV3 Forum. Maybe the media and and Peter should ask these questions directly to Judith Collins on Campbell Live. We Kiwis need answers now"

14/06/2012 1:27:03 p.m.

peter mullins wrote:

There are many ACC offices through out NZ,Where is the head office?Dunedin Wellington,Auckland?As most of the south islands dealings are done in Dunedin,and even some files get sent to Greymouth,and where is the filing system kept?as my file was lost,destroyed,or other,as they said that it is no longer in circulation on paper files.I cannot see that Acc will ever run smoothly as it should as you have so many offices through out the country,and so many files that are handled by so many different people,and the response to claims that go through the system by the managers of each branch,have different opinions of your claims.As for some people getting different payments for the self same injury,does not stack up,also this full body impairment done on a scale,done by your doctor,then it goes to another department for a opinion,then it goes onto the ACC specialist and he does another assessment to see if your doctor has done the right prognosis then it comes down to the decision of ACC,there are so many people there that are on huge wages saying that you should or should not be entitled to any payment for your injuries.The whole system is characteristic to the claimant as the scale of loss taken on the scale used if your impairment is less than 7% you get nothing,as it has to be 10% and over,so that means that the Specialist you have to be seen by ,by the ACC can be in the margin of error by 3 points that is a very marginal area of miss calculation of the graph that is used,and is a American system.

14/06/2012 11:50:50 a.m.

Peter wrote:

A couple of further questions.

1. How does the performance of Board Members measure up against the standards expected by the Institute of Directors? Are these Board members of the Institute of Directors? If so will the Institute be investigating whether their members who are or until earlier in the week board members of ACC have breached the Institute's standards?

Similarly, will the State Services Commission be investigating whether the conduct of ACC management have breached the standards expected of Pulic Sector Management? What routine assessments does the State Services Commission do of state sector management? How did they rate ACC management in the last assessment?

14/06/2012 10:44:59 a.m.

Peter wrote:

Evidence of how common repeated assessments were for long term claimants should be available from either ACC' financial system or from ACC's case management system.

What reports did ACC's internal audit do on long term claimants or were issues raised about long term claimants in reports on other topics eg Medical Assessment process? Did the eternal auditors comment in their management letters on the financial/service matters of long term claimants - if not whhy not?

Have Aucit NZ's value for money team undertaken any reviews of ACC and long term claims? If so what did they say about the service dimension?

Have Treasury looked at the long term claimants situation at ACC?

Have the Health and Disability Commissioner received complaints from long term claimants declared fit for full time work?

Has the Medical Practitioners Complaints body recieved complaints from doctors or long term claimants declared fit for full time work?

Has the ombudsman received complaints about the handling of long term claimants?

TV3's investigation indicated that Bronwyn's battles with ACC extended over more than a decande, to what extent is Labour culpable due to the policy direction they set for ACC?

If Labour and National ministers didn't know the service level outcomes for long term claimants is it because the didn't want to know - compare the situation with Rupert Murdock and the News of the World phone hacking saga. Therefore are ACC Ministers over at least the last decade negligent in the performance of their duties in not seeking information on the impact of their policy settings?

14/06/2012 9:49:55 a.m.

Sam wrote:

The whole National Party agenda was to squeeze the public out of ACC claims, and now they claim "not fair" when there own party members get a rough ride. lol

14/06/2012 9:16:16 a.m.

Jessica wrote:

ACC Minister Judith Collins is a joke and so is NZ voters

14/06/2012 9:14:50 a.m.

Peter wrote:

Just get 'Crusher' Collins doing her 'Attila the Hun' look down the barrel of the camera two or three more times and John, you'll win in the court of public opinion regardless of the argument!