ACCforum: Acclaim Press Releases - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Acclaim Press Releases

#1 Guest_NoRehab_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 26 January 2004 - 09:23 AM

Posted Image

ACC Performance Success Disputed
Monday, 26 January 2004, 8:34 am
Press Release: Acclaim


ACC Performance Success Disputed
PRESS RELEASE
Acclaim Otago and Acclaim Canterbury

Earlier this week the Accident Compensation Corporation's Chief Executive Officer, Garry Wilson, said the ACC scheme had "performed well" with improved processes benefiting both claimants and providers to ACC alike.

However claimants tell a different story. To start with there was David Caygill's speech, complete with graph in 2002, in which he fairly crowed about the success being made in reducing "the tail" from 30,000 to 15,000 mostly by virtue of the work capacity testing procedure. Then there were the documents obtained last year by the Sunday Star Times which listed every ACC Branch's KPIs - (Key Performance Indicators) and the nationwide ACC branch "EXIT Targets" from 2000 to 2003. These add weight to the evidence of a scheme that is denying claimants their legal entitlements whilst continuing to increase its investments.

All claimants are entitled to rehabilitation, the current act says so. It also says claimants with cover are entitled to treatment, must be rehabilitated to the maximum practicable extent and must be assessed to identify the needs and levels of social and vocational rehabilitation entitlements. It also says, that only those funds not immediately required for rehabilitation, may be invested.

What Mr Wilson failed to mention in the press release was the huge push that has been going on for the last several years to "EXIT" claimants (otherwise known as stock), thereby reducing the on-going costs and liabilities of the scheme. "This is clearly evident with information coming through from Acclaim support groups around the country" said an Acclaim spokesperson. Claimants are not receiving their rights under the current policy and it could be said that people's rehabilitation and well being is taking a back seat to the almighty dollar and profits.

The big question now is: To what purpose will ACC and Gary Wilson now put the surplus $273,000,000?

ENDS


http://www.scoop.co....0401/S00061.htm
0

#2 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 15 February 2004 - 09:41 AM

The reason he uses 80% is 90% go back to work after a cut of bruising or something within a couple of weeks. These are the ones they name for telephone surveys. So he is telling the truth. Most of these people are happy. They probably narrowly missed being seriously injured and stuck with ACC as a long term disability insurance.

Now if a survey was done of the permanently disabled or better still, they were granted an enquiry. Then we would see a very different pecentage of claimant satisfaction. Mind you Gary Wilson is such an idiotic buffoon, he probably believes they are all happy.

I wonder how many hours community service he will get when Don Brash starts on Labours own private work insurance scam. Helen can not blame the opposition on this one. It is her and Cullens personal vision of ACC. Promoted by such illustrious Ministers as Lieanne Dalziel and Ruth Dyson.

You think the corruption is bad with the scampi? Southern Bluefin Tuna (STN) have just been brought in to the quota system. The total allowable catch for this species was set at 420 tonnes a year. Based on catch histories set by many fishermen here on the deprived coast in the eighties. Over the last several years the TAC of 420t has been caught by surface longliners four months before the season was ended. The season comes on here in june and that is when the guys here who use traditional handlining methods and only run 4 lines at a time get a chance to have a go at them. Each year we have been shut out by the longliners with forty miles of line and thousands of hooks that kill hundreds of seabirds.

The years the catch history for entitlement to quota has been based on are the ones that suit these longliners. We get none. Most of these long liners work out of Tauranga. Who owns these liners? I caught 105 KILOS in the qualifying years and have been offered $15,000 for it. That TAC of 420 tonnes is worth six billion dollars, it has gone mainly to Winston Peters electorate.

Sorry for getting sidetracked but this issue is another of labours dirty deals. I have sent the story to the Independent.
0

#3 User is offline   accvictim 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 04-November 03

Posted 24 February 2004 - 12:38 AM

Jocko, if you think acc is bad now , just wait till Brash gets in, it will
be a re-run of shipleys acc reforms in the early 90`s that caused me to
lose my house and family.
Brash will immediately privatise and it will be absolute chaos again, as if
it`s not now with the dirty tactics this gov`t is using to unjustly remove claimants
onto sickness benefits.
ACC has always been a play thing for these MPs, they just can`t leave it alone.
WELL AT LEAST THE TRUTH WILL BE OUT SOON.
0

#4 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 24 February 2004 - 09:07 AM

Right on ACCvictim. We can expect nothing from them especially remembering the "Memo to McCully." Show no mercy to any party,politician or ACC employee. They are all fully aware of what is going on and their silence is an admission of guilt.
0

#5 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 27 March 2004 - 09:43 AM

Posted Image

ACC's Attitude Slammed as a Disgrace

Press Release
ACCLAIM Support groups

ACCLAIM support groups from around the country are calling for the General Manager of ACC Healthwise, David Rankin's, sacking for his denigrating, discrediting and demonising comments about ACC claimants reported in several newspapers this morning.

"People with serious injuries get into the habit of watching TV all day, getting up at midday, and lose the routine, lose some of the self-presentation skills." Rankin went further in an attempt to justify his incompetence and ineptitude. He said "Before doing these courses they had all been on ACC for six months or more, had become dependent on ACC benefits and were showing no motivation at all about looking for a job or finding a job."

Support groups would like to remind the ACC that payments are not benefits. They are entitlements for injured people who have had cover accepted for an injury.These claimants remain injured and have medical certificates that state they are still affected by their injury, to the extent that they require continuing cover from ACC, by GPs and specialists.

A spokesperson for the support groups said "We are incensed with this absolutely unacceptable attitude and culture at the top level of ACC management which clearly permeates throughout the entire ACC system and our people are again calling for a public inquiry. We expect greater levels of accountability from a corporation that collects more than 2.3 billion of public m
oney annually from NZ levy payers, which by the way includes claimants and their families."

Despite ACC's motto of Prevention, Care and Recovery claimants say that they are not receiving specialist recommended aids and appliances which will assist them. They are not even receiving appropriate rehabilitation, despite having signed and agreed Individual Rehabilitation Plans.

David Rankin has also failed to mention the "financial incentives" linked to Key Performance Indicators for ACC Staff to remove injured claimants from ACC assistance, clearly exposed on www.Accforum.org. and published in the media in 2003. It would appear from Ruth Dyson's comments that work preparation programme providers are also rewarded financially for 'successful outcomes'.

An ACCLAIM spokesperson commented "This leaves us wondering whether the Work Preparation Programmes are just another exit strategy designed to remove people's rightful entitlement to rehabilitation and compensation whilst padding the government's coffers. Comments made by the General Manager certainly do nothing to waylay our concerns."
0

#6 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 29 March 2004 - 11:56 AM

Posted Image

ACC's Attitude Slammed as a Disgrace

Monday, 29 March 2004, 10:19 am
Press Release: Acclaim

ACC's Attitude Slammed as a Disgrace
ACCLAIM Support groups

ACCLAIM support groups from around the country are calling for the General Manager of ACC Healthwise, David Rankin's, sacking for his denigrating, discrediting and demonising comments about ACC claimants reported in several newspapers this morning.

"People with serious injuries get into the habit of watching TV all day, getting up at midday, and lose the routine, lose some of the self-presentation skills." Rankin went further in an attempt to justify his incompetence and ineptitude. He said "Before doing these courses they had all been on ACC for six months or more, had become dependent on ACC benefits and were showing no motivation at all about looking for a job or finding a job."

Support groups would like to remind the ACC that payments are not benefits. They are entitlements for injured people who have had cover accepted for an injury.These claimants remain injured and have medical certificates that state they are still affected by their injury, to the extent that they require continuing cover from ACC, by GPs and specialists.

A spokesperson for the support groups said "We are incensed with this absolutely unacceptable attitude and culture at the top level of ACC management which clearly permeates throughout the entire ACC sy

stem and our people are again calling for a public inquiry. We expect greater levels of accountability from a corporation that collects more than 2.3 billion of public money annually from NZ levy payers, which by the way includes claimants and their families." Despite ACC's motto of Prevention, Care and Recovery claimants say that they are not receiving specialist recommended aids and appliances which will assist them. They are not even receiving appropriate rehabilitation, despite having signed and agreed Individual Rehabilitation Plans.

David Rankin has also failed to mention the "financial incentives" linked to Key Performance Indicators for ACC Staff to remove injured claimants from ACC assistance, clearly exposed on www.Accforum.org. and published in the media in 2003. It would appear from Ruth Dyson's comments that work preperation programme providers are also rewarded financially for 'successful outcomes'.

An ACCLAIM spokesperson commented "This leaves us wondering whether the Work Preparation Programmes are just another exit strategy designed to remove people's rightful entitlement to rehabilitation and compensation whilst padding the government's coffers. Comments made by the General Manager certainly do nothing to waylay our concerns."

ENDS

http://www.scoop.co....0403/S00187.htm
0

#7 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 31 March 2004 - 02:47 PM

ACCLAIM Questions Identity Interest

Wednesday, 31 March 2004, 2:32 pm
Press Release: Acclaim

31 March 2004

ACCLAIM Questions Identity Interest

Press Release - ACCLAIM Support Groups

ACC claims there is no public interest involved in the fact that an ACC employee, a former case manager for the ACC subsidiary Catalyst, is using a pseudonym to hide his real identity.

Acclaim support groups beg to differ.

"James Sowman" was writing to accident victims under a false name. An accident victim giving a false name to ACC would be accused of fraud, but not the so-called James Sowman. He has the minister's support. She said so. "I support him," she said. According to the Minister in her reply to questions in Parliament yesterday, the so-called "James Sowman" is using a pseudonym because he is too afraid to use his own name as he fears for his own safety. There are several questions that ACCLAIM feels need to be asked:

If the claimant's behaviour has been so awful that the employee is concerned for his safety, and he feels the need to use a false name, should not that claimant be managed by the Remote Claims Unit that the ACC have set up for this very reason and/or the police advised so that charges could be considered? It is Acclaim's understanding that an employer has a legal statutory duty to do so under OSH regulations if an individual is this dangerous. The public are now asking, "Why has this not been done?"

Could it be that it is the case manager's conduct has been such that he thought he may no longer be safe because of the way he has handled people's files? What particular cases was "James Sowman" handling that put him in such perceived danger? ACCLAIM is well aware that Catalyst was used as a means to 'aggressively rehabilitate' the tail. Perhaps therein lies the answer.

Meanwhile, ACC has been threatening to cut people's compensation should they fail to produce photo identification to prove they are who they say they are. One example, cited recently by ACCLAIM, shows that Yvonne Wood, case manager of the Hutt Valley ACC office, wrote in a letter dated 23 Dec 2003 " If I do not have a copy of photo identification on file by 16th January 2004 I will hold and not pay any further payments until you have supplied the information requested."

The section of the Act quoted by Yvonne Wood does not give ACC the authority to decline or deny an entitlement for not supplying photo identification. The actual requirement is proof of identity. This can be done by producing a certified copy of a person's birth certificate. Yvonne Wood demanded photo identification or she would not pay further entitlements. This is not within the legislation, in fact it is an obvious attempt to threaten a claimant, two days before Christmas, that unless they complied they would have their rightful entitlement stopped.

As the above shows there is cogent evidence that ACC is not acting ethically and within the law despite the Minister's assertions and, in fact, is fettering the exercise of discretion and going behind the law on every occasion that it can. Case managers using pseudonyms, minister's making misleading statements in the house, third party medical assessors going against previous medical reports in order to remove 'the tail', spending thousands of taxpayer's dollars on Work Preparation Programmes of dubious usefulness. Where will it end?

Claimants are again requesting the opportunity to give their documentary evidence on oath to a select-committee. Only then will the real identity of current ACC practises be revealed.

http://www.scoop.co....0403/S00207.htm
0

#8 User is offline   Stumpy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 31 March 2004 - 09:22 PM

I would like to point out that according to ACC's Customer Relations Cheif Advisor that the following Identification will be accepted by ACC.
A photocopy of Driver's Licence or Passport
A Certified copy of a birth certificate
a letter or document identifying the claimant that has been certified bya any of the following:
a) Justice of the Peace
B) Solicitor
c) Notary Public
d) Registrar or Deputy Registrar of High Court
e) Member of Parliament
f) Certified testomony from a relative, or from a person known to the ACC Branch( eg Vicar or kaumatua

So there you go. You don't have to use your Driver's License you have it on Kuritia Seymour's advice.

Stumpy :ph34r:
0

#9 User is offline   roamy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 02 April 2004 - 01:46 AM

Great work stumpy, this guy sent an e-mail to my cm and told him to cease and desist from demanding photo licence, so he will enforce this if asked.So there you go folks this is the definitive word on this issue, they don't have the right to demand photo id, give them a document validated by justice of the peace etc.. and that will do it, if you have any problems after that, ring this guy at SHAMrock house and ask him to give your cm the message.Again well done stumpy, great to see we are allowed some privacy still.I declare this issue solved.roamy
0

#10 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 02 April 2004 - 11:10 AM

This is a real break through folks. Well done..............I just have to say "get F.....!" and they know its me! Without any ID. Cos i'm a ringtailed, rip snortin jocko you see!!!
I cuss and I swear and they jump out of their chair to run to the phone for the coppers.
By the time the cops come, after tea and a bun, ACCs ears are all numb and they are wondering where the hell Jock is?
0

#11 User is offline   accvictim 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 04-November 03

Posted 02 April 2004 - 05:34 PM

ACC and their ASSESSORS will stop at nothing, including lying and offering incentives for assessors to report mistruths on the claimants reports, in order to unjustly exit an injured claimant., and thats just the start.

I will soon expose my entire case on site and let you be the judge.

Attached File(s)


0

#12 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 08 April 2004 - 03:02 AM

Posted Image

Effective Rehabilitation Questioned
Wednesday, 7 April 2004, 1:05 pm
Press Release: Acclaim


Effective Rehabilitation Questioned

More revelations in the media about "bizarre" practises within the Work Preparation Programmes used by ACC have prompted support groups to canvas members about their own experiences. Some are being asked to write their own epitaphs, some are being sent out on treasure hunts with the winners being rewarded with chocolate bars, some are asked to go out 'cold calling' for employment whilst still on 'Fully unfit for work" medical certificates. Where is the justification or accountability for the usefulness of these programmes?

ACC claims that some of the techniques used are simply trying to engage the groups. ACCLAIM says that if these programmes were designed to really rehabilitate injured people to the 'fullest extent practicable' they would not be required to 'engage' with a group. Rather they would be focussing on the specific needs and skills of the individual.

President of ACCLAIM Otago, Denise Powell, said "It is our understanding that some aspects of the courses are seen as useful but, by and large, the feedback has been that most participants feel intimidated and belittled. Several have had verifiable and documented aggravations of their injuries. To be treated as though all that is required is to learn how to present oneself at an interview, or to learn how to write an effective application letter is ignoring the fact that some people are able to obtain employment but are unable to sustain that employment for 35-plus hours a week due to the nature of their injury."

ACCLAIM Canterbury President Murray Jorgensen expresses similar sentiments adding that the true purpose of the Corporation's ill-conceived Return to Work and Work Preparation Programmes is to hoodwink claimants, reviewers and indeed even the courts into believing that it is now OK to exit the claimant because "vocational rehabilitation has been completed".

"Such programmes", Mr Jorgensen says, "should be implemented only after a claimant has received meaningful, genuine training/retraining, i.e. has been rehabilitated to the maximum extent practicable provided for by legislation - not to some low-paid, low-skilled, low-paid, soul-destroying, non-existent job. The reality is that no long-term claimants are currently receiving retraining if they are unable to return to their former occupations and all who do have the gall to request training are turned down flat."

Meaningful rehabilitation should be individually tailored to maximise that person's particular circumstances. "All New Zealanders were entitled to real rehabilitation as part of the deal when they gave up the right to sue. The current legislation allows for up to three years vocational rehabilitation but unfortunately ACC seems to find six-week group courses preferable." Ms Powell said.

http://www.scoop.co....0404/S00032.htm
0

#13 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 08 April 2004 - 05:03 PM

Posted Image

"Press Release...ACC Support Groups."
written by Rod Hinchco - 7 April, 2004


Press Release
ACCLAIM Support Groups

Effective Rehabilitation Questioned

More revelations in the media about "bizarre" practises within the Work Preparation Programmes used by ACC have prompted support groups to canvas members about their own experiences. Some are being asked to write their own epitaphs, some are being sent out on treasure hunts with the winners being rewarded with chocolate bars, some are asked to go out 'cold calling' for employment whilst still on 'Fully unfit for work" medical certificates. Where is the justification or accountability for the usefulness of these programmes?

ACC claims that some of the techniques used are simply trying to engage the groups. ACCLAIM says that if these programmes were designed to really rehabilitate injured people to the 'fullest extent practicable' they would not be required to 'engage' with a group. Rather they would be focussing on the specific needs and skills of the individual.

President of ACCLAIM Otago, Denise Powell, said "It is our understanding that some aspects of the courses are seen as useful but, by and large, the feedback has been that most participants feel intimidated and belittled. Several have had verifiable and documented aggravations of their injuries. To be treated as though all that is required is to learn how to present oneself at an interview, or to learn how to write an effective application letter is ignoring the fact that some people are able to obtain employment but are unable to sustain that employment for 35-plus hours a week due to the nature of their injury."

ACCLAIM Canterbury President Murray Jorgensen expresses similar sentiments adding that the true purpose of the Corporation's ill-conceived Return to Work and Work Preparation Programmes is to hoodwink claimants, reviewers and indeed even the courts into believing that it is now OK to exit the claimant because "vocational rehabilitation has been completed".

"Such programmes", Mr Jorgensen says, "should be implemented only after a claimant has received meaningful, genuine training/retraining, i.e. has been rehabilitated to the maximum extent practicable provided for by legislation - not to some low-paid, low-skilled, low-paid, soul-destroying, non-existent job. The reality is that no long-term claimants are currently receiving retraining if they are unable to return to their former occupations and all who do have the gall to request training are turned down flat."

Meaningful rehabilitation should be individually tailored to maximise that person's particular circumstances. "All New Zealanders were entitled to real rehabilitation as part of the deal when they gave up the right to sue. The current legislation allows for up to three years vocational rehabilitation but unfortunately ACC seems to find six-week group courses preferable." Ms Powell said.

http://www.kiwinews.co.nz/cgi-bin/editor/p...pl?article=4098
0

#14 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 19 April 2004 - 03:14 PM

Posted Image

ACCLAIM Support Groups
Monday, 19 April 2004, 2:48 pm
Press Release: Acclaim


Press release
ACCLAIM Support Groups

Revelations in today's media that ACC staff are bullied in the workplace only serves to reiterate what claimants and their advocates have been saying for a long time now. The culture within ACC is inappropriate and out of control. Janice Gemmell said "It is our view that the management culture in this organisation uses both bullying and standover tactics, making the work environment unsafe."

It doesn't take much to understand what the flow-on effects are if employees of ACC are working in this environment.

There is more than adequate research to show that people who are bullied will often then turn into bullies themselves. "Accident victims have consistently been subjected to similar tactics as the ACC staff are claiming happens to them." ACCLAIM spokesperson Murray Jorgensen stated. " To hear ACC staff stating that their work environment is one of persecution and bullying doesn't surprise us at all. What is interesting though is that they are referring to their own persecution and not that of their clients'.

This culture and adverse attitude quite obviously comes from management. This is further evidence that a full select-committee or other indpendent inquiry is needed into ACC starting with the Board, senior management staff including Wilson, McGreevey and Rankin and cascading down through all operational staff. This allegation about the way management treats ACC staff is very serious indeed because it has significant impacts on claimants and their families. There needs to be a full inquiry into ACC and its practises before more people's lives are destroyed.

http://www.scoop.co....0404/S00119.htm
0

#15 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 19 April 2004 - 11:09 PM

Posted Image

"Who Would Have Guessed...ACC Has A Glass Jaw."
written by Rod Hinchco - 19 April, 2004

The following is the latest up-date from ACClaim Support Groups.The Main-stream media have joined the chase as ACC begins to breakdown.

19th April 2004

Press release

ACCLAIM Support Groups

Revelations in today's media that ACC staff are bullied in the workplace only
serves to reiterate what claimants and their advocates have been saying for a
long time now. The culture within ACC is inappropriate and out of control.
Janice Gemmell said "It is our view that the management culture in this
organisation uses both bullying and standover tactics, making the work
environment unsafe."

It doesn't take much to understand what the flow-on effects are if employees of
ACC are working in this environment.

There is more than adequate research to show that people who are bullied will
often then turn into bullies themselves. "Accident victims have consistently
been subjected to similar tactics as the ACC staff are claiming happens to
them." ACCLAIM spokesperson Murray Jorgensen stated. " To hear ACC staff
stating that their work environment is one of persecution and bullying doesn't
surprise us at all. What is interesting though is that they are referring to
their own persecution and not that of their clients'.

This culture and adverse attitude quite obviously comes from management. This
is further evidence that a full select-committee or other indpendent inquiry is
needed into ACC starting with the Board, senior management staff including
Wilson, McGreevey and Rankin and cascading down through all operational staff.

This allegation about the way management treats ACC staff is very serious
indeed because it has significant impacts on claimants and their families.
There needs to be a full inquiry into ACC and its practises before more
people's lives are destroyed.

http://www.kiwinews.co.nz/cgi-bin/editor/p...pl?article=4134
0

#16 User is offline   accvictim 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 04-November 03

Posted 27 April 2004 - 01:40 AM

This allegation about the way management treats ACC staff is very serious
indeed because it has significant impacts on claimants and their families.
There needs to be a full inquiry into ACC and its practises before more
people's lives are destroyed.


JUST THINK HOW THE INJURED CLAIMANTS ARE TREATED THEN!!!
THESE CALLOUS CRETINS ARE BLATANTLY FLAUNTING THEIR THEIR
CORRUPTED POWERS ON THE MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN OUR
SOCIETY,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,SHAME ON YOU ACC!

Attached File(s)


0

#17 User is offline   BillyBob 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 27 April 2004 - 09:14 AM

you know the stress is bad when you wake up screaming only to find out you havent been to sleep yet.

cheers
0

#18 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 27 April 2004 - 10:02 AM

Just keep those cards and letters coming in folks. Don't worry. There are some shiny arses in Shamrock house who are beginning to learn the meaning of stress.
0

#19 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 30 April 2004 - 01:31 PM

Posted Image
Auditor General's Report verifies concerns

Friday, 30 April 2004, 1:11 pm
Press Release: Acclaim

Press Release

ACCLAIM Support Groups

Auditor General's Report verifies claimant's concerns.


ACC's claims management was not given a clean bill of health by the Auditor General's report released yesterday as purported by ACC in their press release. In fact the report validated what claimants, their advocates and lawyers have been saying for several years.

The report echoes claimant's long held concerns regarding Individual Rehabilitation Plans. These are often seen as a token effort to comply with the legislative requirements. The report says:

"Other case managers prepare an IRP, and then send a letter that outlines the content of the plan and asks the claimant to sign a final decision letter"

"We also found instances where the content appeared to have been copied, with little to differentiate them in detail from other plans."

"It was also sometimes offered on a 'take it or leave it' basis, along with the reference to statutory consequences of non-compliance with ACC directions."

The report recommends that - "ACC ensure that all case managers tailor the content of each individual rehabilitation plan to the claimant's rehabilitation needs." It also recommended that- "ACC case managers make sure that the claimant fully understands their goals, rights, and responsibilities before the claimant is asked to sign the Individual Rehabilitation Plan."

The Auditor General's report also says that the lessons from Catalyst need to be heeded and "have relevance to ACC's future dealings with long term claimants." Catalyst had business goals "to return 2000 long term claimants to independence during the 2002-2003 financial year." The expectation of vocational independence being achieved with a time frame of 12-15 months and the "pressure on case managers to have a set number of claimants leave the scheme may have affected the level of service they could provide to each claimant." Advocacy groups say this relates directly to the 'exit of the tail' initially brought to the public's attention by the media in 2002.

"We find it very coincidental that this report was due out in Oct 2003 and Catalyst was disbanded in Sept 2003." said ACCLAIM spokesperson Murray Jorgensen.

Many claimants speak of their frustration when after winning a review decision or District Court appeal ACC seems to drag the chain before reinstating entitlements. The Auditor General shared the "Ombudsmen's concern about any delay, because this can have severe consequences for the claimant, and cause significant disruption to their life." Therefore a further recommendation was that "ACC prioritise action to implement a reviewer's decision as quickly as possible in cases where ACC decisions are overturned and it elects not to appeal."

ACCLAIM support groups are welcoming ACC's CEO Garry Wilson's assurance that "Most of the Auditor-General's suggestions for improvement are being addressed. The report will be circulated to all ACC branch staff so they can take on board its recommendations." Support groups and advocates only hope this is not just lip service and ACC will actually address the issues outlined.

"ACC is not applying the principles of natural justice and complying with the NZ Bill of Rights Act when making decisions which is a fundamental issue of fairness that the Auditor General has missed in the report. Support groups remain of the view that a public select-committee inquiry is needed so that all people have an opportunity of making submissions and for the select-committee to examine the Auditor General's report in that context." Mr Jorgensen stated.

http://www.scoop.co....0404/S00216.htm
0

#20 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 02 May 2004 - 11:32 AM

Posted Image

Auditor General's Report Echos ACC Claimant's Concerns."
written by Rod Hinchco - 29 April, 2004




Auditor General's Report verifies concerns
Friday, 30 April 2004, 1:11 pm
Press Release: Acclaim

Press Release
ACCLAIM Support Groups

Auditor General's Report verifies claimant's concerns.

ACC's claims management was not given a clean bill of health by the Auditor General's report released yesterday as purported by ACC in their press release. In fact the report validated what claimants, their advocates and lawyers have been saying for several years.

The report echoes claimant's long held concerns regarding Individual Rehabilitation Plans. These are often seen as a token effort to comply with the legislative requirements. The report says:

"Other case managers prepare an IRP, and then send a letter that outlines the content of the plan and asks the claimant to sign a final decision letter"

"We also found instances where the content appeared to have been copied, with little to differentiate them in detail from other plans."

"It was also sometimes offered on a 'take it or leave it' basis, along with the reference to statutory consequences of non-compliance with ACC directions."

The report recommends that - "ACC ensure that all case managers tailor the content of each individual rehabilitation plan to the claimant's rehabilitation needs." It also recommended that- "ACC case managers make sure that the claimant fully understands their goals, rights, and responsibilities before the claimant is asked to sign the Individual Rehabilitation Plan."

The Auditor General's report also says that the lessons from Catalyst need to be heeded and "have relevance to ACC's future dealings with long term claimants." Catalyst had business goals "to return 2000 long term claimants to independence during the 2002-2003 financial year." The expectation of vocational independence being achieved with a time frame of 12-15 months and the "pressure on case managers to have a set number of claimants leave the scheme may have affected the level of service they could provide to each claimant." Advocacy groups say this relates directly to the 'exit of the tail' initially brought to the public's attention by the media in 2002.

"We find it very coincidental that this report was due out in Oct 2003 and Catalyst was disbanded in Sept 2003." said ACCLAIM spokesperson Murray Jorgensen.

Many claimants speak of their frustration when after winning a review decision or District Court appeal ACC seems to drag the chain before reinstating entitlements. The Auditor General shared the "Ombudsmen's concern about any delay, because this can have severe consequences for the claimant, and cause significant disruption to their life." Therefore a further recommendation was that "ACC prioritise action to implement a reviewer's decision as quickly as possible in cases where ACC decisions are overturned and it elects not to appeal."

ACCLAIM support groups are welcoming ACC's CEO Garry Wilson's assurance that "Most of the Auditor-General's suggestions for improvement are being addressed. The report will be circulated to all ACC branch staff so they can take on board its recommendations." Support groups and advocates only hope this is not just lip service and ACC will actually address the issues outlined.

"ACC is not applying the principles of natural justice and complying with the NZ Bill of Rights Act when making decisions which is a fundamental issue of fairness that the Auditor General has missed in the report. Support groups remain of the view that a public select-committee inquiry is needed so that all people have an opportunity of making submissions and for the select-committee to examine the Auditor General's report in that context." Mr Jorgensen stated.

http://www.kiwinews.co.nz/cgi-bin/editor/p...pl?article=4197
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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