Kerre Woodham: Plenty of fault in our ACC system

It hasn't taken long for the scythe to start slashing at ACC.

In the wake of a reported budget blowout, the Government has warned the universal no-fault accident compensation scheme is unaffordable unless levies are raised and costs are cut.

Physios are the first to be hit - hardly surprising given that the cost of free visits estimated at $9 million a year is actually nine times that.

This week, ACC's new Recover Independence Unit announced 721 long-term clients had been dropped from ACC's long-term client list in the past six months.

The aim is to get rid of 12 people per year off the long-term client list, with aspirations to get that number to 20 expulsions a year.

Surely when you're dealing with injured people, you can't make projections like that. What if only 11 of them have recovered? Where will the 12th come from to meet the target?

The name Recover Independence is a bit of a misnomer, too. A 2007 study of people who'd been booted off ACC showed that nearly 50 per cent of them weren't working and nearly a quarter were drawing the unemployment benefit.

An ACC spokesman said he expected most of the clients recently expelled would "return to independence without a job".

Come again? How on earth can anyone be independent if they're unable to earn a crust? They're either going to be dependent on a spouse or dependent on the state - not an ideal situation for the injured party or the taxpayer.

Oh, I'm sure there are malingerers - remember the tennis-playing, millionaire, property investor who's been collecting ACC payments since 1974? But there are also many people with complicated medical issues who aren't quick-fix cases.

If ACC is going to play hardball, and move from being a social insurer to an insurer as they put it, then perhaps the insurance system should be opened up for competition, allowing employers and individuals to shop around for a scheme that best suits their lifestyle, their occupation and their needs.

I heard from a number of people who told me they'd injured rotator cuffs and backs in falls but when they applied to ACC for treatment costs, they were told the aches and pains were symptoms of their age and their claims were denied.

If ACC is going to continue to insist that injuries in anyone over 50 are simply due to wear and tear and natural attrition, then maybe they should stop charging the over 50s premiums.

ACC is supposed to be a no- fault system - there are plenty of faults in it from what I can see.