KEY POINTS:
ACC was criticised in a recent article by David Lowe. He suggested that people can expect delays in getting help from ACC. This is simply not true.
When someone injures themselves they may receive emergency treatment, which is funded by ACC. Other injuries, that are lodged as ACC claims via General Practitioners or other health practitioners, result in a letter being sent to the injured person indicating that the injury has been "covered".
If the injury is relatively minor, there may be no need for ongoing contact as the initial treatment might be all that's needed. If the injury is more serious, injured people can expect to hear from an ACC Contact Centre within 10 days of their claim being lodged.
There would only be a delay if there is some hold up in ACC receiving the claim. For injuries that will clearly need more than three months off work, such as those caused in a serious car crash, an ACC case manager will contact the person involved and organise a meeting to discuss rehabilitation as soon as is viable for the injured person.
Mr Lowe also criticised ACC for setting levies as well as organising rehabilitation for injured people. Whilst there are no directly comparable schemes anywhere in the world, comparisons can be made with many countries' workers compensation schemes.
All such insurance schemes set levies and organise rehabilitation, whether the latter be directly or through a contracted provider. It makes sense that an organisation which provides and funds rehabilitation, like ACC, has the greatest incentive to ensure that that rehabilitation is adequate and effective so that injured people can return to work as soon as possible, for the benefit of the individual as well as to reduce the cost of their ongoing care. It is worthy of note that the average levy for workers compensation in New Zealand is lower than in any other country in the world.
As noted by Mr Lowe, levies have increased in some areas. This is primarily due to the increase in the number of injuries and the subsequent cost of treating them. Developments in medical technology mean that treatment is becoming increasingly expensive but also more effective, keeping injured people alive for longer, meaning the lifetime costs of an injury are increasing.
The treatment of serious injuries today is far more advanced and more effective than in the past, but also substantially more expensive. It should be noted that the area of the scheme with the lowest level of increase is workers compensation.
The statement that ACC places little emphasis on injury prevention could not be further from the truth. ACC works across a range of areas, including the workplace, to encourage safer behaviours and address the issues that cause the most claims.
But ACC is certainly not alone in this task and works alongside many other government agencies who may have the main responsibility to prevent injuries. In the workplace the responsibility for preventing injuries clearly lies with the employer under the Health and Safety Employment Act. Both the Department of Labour and ACC provide support to employers to achieve this.
On the part of ACC this is through a range of mechanisms including working directly with large employers and working with industry bodies in the case of small business. The Department of Labour has the main responsibility for workplace injury prevention and is supported by ACC.
I was surprised to read that Mr Lowe thinks that ACC has "blamed ordinary people for being accident prone". We will always provide statistics of injuries when asked and use these to illustrate where people may want to be more aware, or change their behaviour to keep them and their families safe.
I don't think that working with New Zealand Transport Agency and the police to remind people that driving drunk or speeding is dangerous behaviour that is killing New Zealanders is blaming ordinary people at all. It's up to the police and the justice system to punish those who break the law, it's our role to help those who are injured to recover.
ACC is a unique scheme in that everyone in the country is covered if they injure themselves. An all-inclusive scheme is an effective way of ensuring that everyone receives good quality of care, regardless of their personal situation.
With any large organisation there are, of course, always areas that need constant attention and improvement and ACC is committed to acting on feedback to improve its processes. However, we should all celebrate that we live in a country where there is a scheme that means everyone can be confident in the knowledge that if they are hurt they can expect quality care and rehabilitation until they recover. This is unique and a cornerstone of our society.
* Dr Jan White is chief executive of ACC.
