ACCforum: Kpi Measures - Branches - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Kpi Measures - Branches KPI Measure - Branches

#1 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 13 February 2006 - 09:43 AM

The 2005/2006 KPI Measures for Branches states:

"Purpose - To ensure that branches operate a control environment that mitigates the chance ACC will pay, process, accept or approve an action that could result in a loss."

The KPI Measures for earlier years are essentially the same. They are deliberately and intentionally designed to give performance weight in order to keep a claimant from entitlements and for exiting a claimant.

These KPI Measures do not acknolwedge the existence of discretionary powers.

They are not formulated within the scope of the legisaltive purpose in s.3.

The s.3 statutory purpose does not contemplate such policies.

The policies are inconsistent with the remedial and beneficial purpose of the Act and the generous and unniggardly interpretation that must be given as stated in Harrild v Director of Proceedings.

The policies are an improper motive.

This KPI Measure - Branches also states that a claim is "active" as defined by ACC thus - if a claimant has received an entitlement disbursement within the last 35 days.

Therefore it is in the case manager's and Branch self interest to keep a claimant from an entitlement disbursement beyond 35 days because the claim is not "active".

Case Managers are able to financially benefit because if the claim is not "active" then it does not affect their KPI Measures and weightings - i.e. their Performance+Hay=Pay ratings.

If you have not received an entitlement disbursement within the last 35 days but are, nevertheless, at review or appeal then your claim, by ACC's definition, is not "active."
0

#2 User is offline   hillsy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 19-July 05

Posted 13 February 2006 - 10:44 AM

Good morning all

thanks for highlighting this matter Magnacarta. Many Review Applicants and Appeallants have experienced the Multiple Case Manager phenomenon. This is a bureaucratic way of milking the Claim for all the KPI's it can yeild.

I used to think I was good at keeping ACC honest in it's management of my Case. I was so awesome that I kept wearing out Case Managers until I'd get my Entitlements reinstated.

WRONG!!!

My Case File was being handed around the ACC branch offices to maximise the effect of it's KPI enhancing status.

Claimants are dying because ACC staff do this.

Peace
Hillsy
0

#3 User is offline   hillsy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 19-July 05

Posted 13 February 2006 - 12:29 PM

Good afternoon all

where could someone raise this matter?
The "Purpose" statement in the 2005/2006 KPI Measures for Branches is a documented Policy Directive to breach the IPRC Act at S.3, issued from ACC Corporate to it's staff.

There must be a desk upon which these two documents could be placed side-by-side and be seen as the smoking gun in the case of ACC Corporate liability for Claimant financial loss, pain and suffering.

Peace
Hillsy
0

#4 User is offline   gaffa09 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 13 February 2006 - 01:55 PM

you got it maungataniwha

line there own pockets feed they families , live in there homes, yes live life and that is what we are entitled to as well , travel where they want ,
Have big birthday bashers, Do we get it like bloody hell , take from the poor which ACC ground us into .
0

#5 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 13 February 2006 - 04:31 PM

these KPI have been going since the start of ACC

they have been designed to stop entitlements as they go on the anount of money that is received in the area to the amount that is paid in entitlements.

the administration of the claims does not come into the figure.

its about time ACC were shown that they are a pack of lyers.
0

#6 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 14 February 2006 - 07:29 AM

KPI's

Kill Poor Invalids.

Attached File(s)


0

#7 User is offline   gaffa09 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 14 February 2006 - 07:57 AM

Good one Flowers

Now what do we have for our new CEO

something like CARELESS ERRORTIC< OFFENDER
0

#8 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 14 February 2006 - 08:27 AM

Greetings,
Old posting explains it.

http://www.accforum....t=ST&f=87&t=855

Performance+Hay=Pay.
0

#9 Guest_lorilye_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 12:34 PM

I reckon "White" wash could make great news headlines.

Lori
0

#10 User is offline   MadMac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 07 July 2006 - 10:02 AM

:wub: Hi everyone ...

:D Interesting ...

Have a bueatiful day ...
0

#11 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 08 July 2006 - 06:13 PM

"Purpose - To ensure that branches operate a control environment that mitigates the chance ACC will pay, process, accept or approve an action that could result in a loss."

I gather that the loss is to the claimant. A real play on words.
0

#12 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 16 September 2007 - 12:25 PM

well here is the 2007/08 level of KPI's

Attached File(s)


0

#13 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 16 September 2007 - 04:15 PM

Attached File  1.jpg (87.73K)
Number of downloads: 0

Attached File  2.jpg (82.44K)
Number of downloads: 0
0

#14 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 16 September 2007 - 05:22 PM

and for the past year. Did your branch do well or was it a poor performer.

Attached File(s)


0

#15 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 16 September 2007 - 07:26 PM

I reckon the branches who don't achieve the targets are the probably the ones providing rehabilitation, compared to the quick exit branches who do not. It seems ACC is having trouble shafting claimants off the scheme in less than 70 days although it maintains its ability to shaft long term claimants. It would be interesting to know how many claimants who received weekly compensation for one year or more and then "achieved independence" [sic] actually obtained fulltime work in an identified job option paying at least as much as weekly compensation. Of course, ACC says it doesn't keep these figures; if it does, it certainly refuses to release them. Based on Hazel Armstrong's study of 160 or so long term claimants, the results would be a disgrace to ACC and the government.
0

#16 User is offline   MadMac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 16 September 2007 - 08:16 PM

:wub: Hi everyone ...

Interesting about Whangarei ...

All 5 Not Achieved errrrrrrrrr does that mean 100% failed ... opppppppppps Bugger !

;) Have a great day ...
0

#17 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 16 September 2007 - 09:20 PM

It be interesting on how the head office worked out the 650 that will become long term claimants. That 650 had all ready had an accident and was in the process of there rehabilitation, but did that 650 include the ones that are in work and receiving an income.

notice that there is a drive to get claimants into work were they are receiving some sort of earnings.
0

#18 User is offline   waddie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-August 06

Posted 16 September 2007 - 09:42 PM

The outcomes achieved only reflect what has happened in terms of weekly compensation being stopped. It does not differentiate between claimants exited as a result of a genuine successful rehabilitation outcome and that of the flawed results of the type I come across. Both ACC Head Office and Ruth Dyson are aware of this. ;)

Of course for the local Branch offices, the ends justifies the means, because achieving the targets means reward. So as always, its a matter of "follow the money".

In fact, I put this offer out to ACC (no doubt they are following this thread with interest) - Dear Dr White and Mr McGreevy - You can engage me to audit the Branch's VIA decisions to stop weekly compensation on a commission only basis, where I am only paid for each decision that I can show is fatally flawed. ACC can have the ones I identify independently verified. It sounds fairly reasonable doesn't it, what do you have to loose? Please feel free to ring me if you wish to discuss it.
0

#19 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 17 September 2007 - 06:19 PM

Waddie I don't think you get rich offering to carry out such an audit.

now if you did carry out such an audit ACC wouldn't make the amount very much as they hate paying out money.
0

#20 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 26 June 2012 - 01:34 AM

Refresh
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users