ACCforum: Conditional Consent Refusal. - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Conditional Consent Refusal. Head Office Say No...?

#1 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 01 June 2006 - 05:30 PM

Greetings,
Posting on behalf....
Seems like "They" cant make up their minds clearly on this...
No consistancy around the branches, on this AND OTHER ISSUES.

page 1.

Attached File(s)


1

#2 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 01 June 2006 - 05:31 PM

Page 2.

Attached File(s)


1

#3 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 01 June 2006 - 09:37 PM

Could someone please refer these clowns to their OWN internal newsletter "The Update" Issue no 81 dated 26th Feb 2004.

Item 2 Supplementary consent sheet - written by John Roberts
1) Can these claimants require ACC to obtain their consent on each occassion ACC collects health and personal information?

In general, yes. Claimants can provide a limited rather than general consent to the release of information. It is reasonable for these claimants to limit their consent in this way.

Go to page 1 of the consent section

http://www.accforum....p?showtopic=323

and scroll down to see a scanned version of ACC's OWN Operational approach.

Print it off and send it back in
0

#4 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 01 June 2006 - 10:00 PM

A reply to the Author would be needed to show that the requesting of consent each time is not unreasonable.

there are a few reasons

1. when the case managers request the claimant to attend a specialist , assessor or any provider, a claimant that sees what is being put forward to the assessors and providers is doublechecking that all relevant information is going to these assessors.
case managers could be proscuted if an exit was obtained if it was done purley on the given documents that was not all of the relevant information.

2. the consent form 167 is ambigious in what it is and the case managers abuse the prilave of having an open consent form.

3. the supplying of information from assessors can be interperated in many ways. claimants need to control the explaination and correct any information that they know is wrong before being filed in the ACC file.
0

#5 User is offline   rippedoff 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 05-January 05

Posted 02 June 2006 - 07:02 AM

:P :D :rolleyes: EXECUTED would be a LOT better that PROSECUTED!
0

#6 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 02 June 2006 - 07:39 AM

ACe's what does this standfore?.
0

#7 User is offline   Tomcat 

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

Posted 02 June 2006 - 08:56 AM

Greetings,
ACC memo re Cond. Consent... PDF file.

Attached File(s)


1

#8 User is offline   Limoges 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-November 04

Posted 02 June 2006 - 10:08 AM

Fairgo and others,


As Fairgo quoted " Could someone please refer these clowns to their OWN internal newsletter "The Update" Issue no 81 dated 26th Feb 2004."


ACC have changed their thinking since this issue of The Update in 2004 as I have drawn that to their attention when I had the fiasco with them over Consent.

This will be one of the top priorities for me to give to one of those members of the Forum going to the meeting with ACC. THE REAL REASON WHY ACC WILL NOT PASS BY US THE DOCUMENTS THEY WISH TO SEND TO THE ASSESSORS BEFORE THEY ARE SENT OUT TO THEM IS BECAUSE THEY WISH TO BE ABLE TO SKEW THE ASSESSMENTS TO GO IN THEIR FAVOUR. THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN WITH CLAIMANTS. IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH DOING THINGS IN A TIMELY MANNER AS ACC ALWAYS PURPORTS!

As you are no doubt aware I have just been through all of these assessments and exactly what I said happens happened regarding what ACC sent the Assessor, - that is they send off documents which have nothing whatsoever to do with the claim I am being given my ERC for, further, they withheld other very pertinent documents (Scan Reports and Xray Reports as well as recent Specialist Reports regarding my spinal problem) so that the outcome of the assessments could become skewed. I THEN SENT ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS TO THE ASSESSORS WHICH THEY HAD DEVIOUSLY AND DELIBERATELY WITHHELD which obviously then had ACC having to reply to their (the Assessors')letters regarding this situation, making more work for ACC.

WAKEUP ACC - THESE ASSESSORS MUST SURELY BE ABLE TO SEE THAT YOU ARE MERELY ATTEMPTING TO DISTORT THE SITUATION! SO THE TIMELY MANNER EXCUSE IS NOTHING BUT A CHARADE - A COVERUP! I have had a gutful of their devious ways! .....and things are supposed to be changing!!!!! That has to be a fallacy in an attempt to placate us!

Thankfully some of these Assessors are finally cottoning on to ACC's devious ways it goes about having assessments carried out it seems, but still there are those who are 'in' on this whole adversarial attitude towards claimants! THIS MUST BE STOPPED!
.
0

#9 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 02 June 2006 - 10:20 AM

OK ACC may have changed THEIR thinking but the reality is that LEGALLY we are entitled to provide consent on a case by case basis. Acclaim Otago members use a conditoional consent letter that was drawn up by a lawyer. ACC don't like it but they grudgingly have to accept it. Don't confuse ACC policy with legality. ACC are very good at making their policy sound as though it is written in stone. It is not.
0

#10 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 02 June 2006 - 03:07 PM

Gerard McGreevy issued a general instruction to all staff in November last year that a supplementary sheet sent in by claimants was not to be accepted as a valid document and case managers were to refuse to accept it and send it back to the claimant, with the usual threats.

However, in the next breath to a source close to me, he confided that ACC is bound by the Privacy Act 1993 and The Health Information Privacy Code 1994 but would ignore it anyway when it suited.

After his next breath he further confided that ACC hates conditional consents but MAY abide by such a consent provided that it did not interfere with management of a claim - yeh, right.

I'm trying a slightly different tack, let you know how it is received.
0

#11 Guest_I love chocolate_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 02 June 2006 - 05:40 PM

watcha, on Jun 2 2006, 03:07 PM, said:

Gerard McGreevy issued a general instruction to all staff in November last year that a supplementary sheet sent in by claimants was not to be accepted as a valid document and case managers were to refuse to accept it and send it back to the claimant, with the usual threats.

Where does Gerard McGreevy get his power/authority from to overturn the legislature?
0

#12 User is offline   freefallnz 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29-June 04

Posted 06 June 2006 - 09:12 PM

And another slant on the subject - 24/02/06

Quote

Dear ....

As you know I have been seeking further clarification for you regarding the Corporation’s request for a signed ACC 167 Claimant Authority for the collection and disclosure of information and your own supplementary sheet.

ACC will accept a signed genuine ACC 167 form, even if amendments have been made to it, if ACC considers that the amendments made are reasonable and will not duly impeded the claim from being managed appropriately. The signature should appear on the ACC167.

The criteria for ‘reasonableness” should be applied to conditions associated with genuine ACC167's only, even if those conditions are written into a supplementary sheet attached to the genuine ACC 167. Supplementary consent sheest can remain attached to a genuine ACC 167.

Sections 55 (1) ©and 72 (1) (3) require a person who has lodged a claim for ACC to authourise ACC to pay medical and other records that are or may be relevant to the claim. In setting certain requirements for how that authorisation should be provided to ACC, ACC relies on the broad powers now provided by sections 16 to 18 of the Crown Entitles Act 2004 to discharge its function in a way which is consistent with the purpose of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 (IPRC 2001) (section 3), is consistent with its statutory function (section 262 of the IPRC Act), and meets an overriding criterion of reasonableness.

ACC believes that its status as a responsible Crown entity with specific statutory functions, the specific oversight of the Ombudsman and Privacy commissioner (amongst others). And a prescribed mechanism for redress through review and appeal all obviate the need for a specific policy on ensuring information supplied to providers is true and correct. ACC would certainly reject any suggestion that it would knowingly provide any untrue or incorrect information. As far as completeness is concerned, the requirement to provide relevant details to providers is so entrenched and dispersed in ACC policy as to make it impractical (and potentially misleading) to select specific examples for your perusal.’


from policy

So I guess that answers the question.. ACC cannot provide a consistent answer..
0

#13 User is offline   Hatikva 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 12-June 05
  • LocationWop Wops

  Posted 07 June 2006 - 07:00 AM

Freefalll... just a quick question ... or two


Quote

Sections 55 (1) ©and 72 (1) (3) require a person who has lodged a claim for ACC to authourise ACC to pay medical and other records


1: How to you pay a medical or other record? I thought a record was a document (or a recording... as in LP's)

2: Does Section 55/72 authorise a RECORD TO BE PAID?

3: If we collect a bunch of records (all those from our doctors) or the old LP's - and send them to ACC, will they be paid?


The insanity continues...
0

#14 User is offline   freefallnz 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29-June 04

Posted 07 June 2006 - 10:37 AM

ROFL - Complete BS isnt it.

A Genuine ACC167 form?
  • I just find it odd that several different examples of an ACC167 form exist, and shameful that different branches use different forms!
  • ACC isnt professional enough to produce a standard printed ACC167 form
  • ACC certainly isnt professional enough to produce a standard ACC167 form which complies with the current legislation (Privacy & Health).
  • For example the authoristation requiring a claimants signature on the botttom of ACC055 forms differs to that printed on the bottom of ARC18 forms.
  • It is not a legislative requirement for Claimants to complete an ACC167 form!

Bottom line ACC do not have the statute nor mandate to refuse to accept a claimants consent.
0

#15 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:32 PM

Still recon that ask what information are they wanting to collect and from whom, what information they want to release and too whom is the best way around.

sections 55 and 77 do not say that you have to give blanket consent but consent on case by case

that way the corporation has to inform you what they want to do.

as said earlier keep the case manager honest by restricting there power but do not restrict there job.

I know the answer and the opinion of the review officer. Just waiting to see if ACC are going to appeal there decision.
0

#16 User is offline   Shapeshifters 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 11-February 08

Posted 19 February 2008 - 06:59 AM

Has this changed since Acclaim Otago's report Dated June 2007 Regarding the Public Version of Claimant's Perspective's on the Review of the ACC Fraud Unit
This report States the ACC's legal team has approved the Informed Consent's being used by claimant's to revoke the ACC2 form and provide consent on a case by case basis are acceptable by them and the privacy commisioner also
Is anyone having their informed consent's accepted by acc at present successfully?
0

#17 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 19 February 2008 - 08:33 AM

Good question?
I currently have this issue with the Privacy Commission.
0

#18 User is offline   Shapeshifters 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 11-February 08

Posted 19 February 2008 - 08:49 AM

Spacecadet that's very interesting to hear
Keep us posted to the out come
The more verification to the position the merrier
Perhaps some of the southern members can shine some light on this matter
Not trying to encroach on Acclaims good work
But wish to be fully informed when considering this option for myself
Luv to have a copy of acc confirming that ???
The proof's in the pudding so to speak
0

#19 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1218
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 19 February 2008 - 08:51 AM

I am in ACCLAIM Otago and they accepted by conditional consent to be done on case by case basis.
0

#20 User is offline   Shapeshifters 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 11-February 08

Posted 19 February 2008 - 09:15 AM

Huggy
Thankyou
Good luck with the Pi stuff etc
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