ACC’s great new ad campaign
I was watching the TV last night when on came ACC’s new ad. Part of the “Covered” campaign that ACC has launched in February.
I know that ACC has shafted lots of people over the years, especially when they had a culture of cutting everyone off. But I still think ACC is a fantastic idea and has gotten better since Ruth Dyson took over.
The idea that everyone should be covered by a no-fault no-sue system makes so much sense. It means that people get the medical attention they need (mostly) without the worry of medical bills and we don’t waste millions of dollars in legal fees sueing each other in the hope of getting enough of a settlement to cover the lawyers’ bills, let alone the medical bills.
Though the reverse of the coin is that we need systems like OSH to make sure that workplaces etc are safe once we remove the financial incentive of being sued if an employee is injured due to employer negligence.
The insurance industry hates it of course because it cuts them out of a lot of business, but it is a classic example of a collective system making more sense than an individualised system.
So it’s great that they are advertising to tell people about the system. They say they are advertising because people aren’t aware of how the system works, which is no doubt true. But it is also good to advertise so that people know about the wisdom of the system not just for individuals but for society as a whole.
February 20th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
“The industry hates it of course” because it’s a monopoly.
You could easily allow people choice where their ACC premium is paid to, rather than have it government controlled.
It works this way in Australia for Superannuation (mandatory for employers, but employees can choose the fund) and for third party car insurance (CTP).
And some of the shafting stories bring great shame on the organisation.
I think it terrible advertising to sell a compulsory service is a bad thing:
“We’ve taken your money, and we want to explain it’s in your favour by spending millions on TV advertisements”.
Next week, IRD probably launches a 50 million dollar campaign explaining the benefits of paying taxes.
February 20th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
I don’t think the ACC system is wise at all - I think it’s silly (unless you’re talking about the Auckland City Council - I think it’s quite sensible for Auckland to have a city council).
ACC provides certain services in relation to medical problems caused by accidents, medical misadventure and sexual abuse. It does not fund treatment for problems caused by illness. It also makes hair-splitting distinctions in the case of interaction between accident and illness in causing a problem. ACC uses a large amount of bureaucracy to determine who fits into the categories covered by ACC, and who fits into the categories that aren’t. And most of the time, that information is irrelevant to the patient’s needs. Patients whose conditions are not covered by ACC often have very similar needs to those who are.
If you are found to be eligible for ACC, you get earnings-related compensation. If you have the same condition, but aren’t elegible, you’ll probably get a sickness or invalid’s benefit, but it’s less money. If you are eligible for ACC, you get public hospital treatment funded by ACC. If ineligible, you get the same treatment, but it’s funded from the hospital’s own budget (which may mean you get it sooner cos it’s less paperwork, or get it later cos the budget is more stretched). If you’re on ACC, you get rehabilitation treatment funded by ACC. If you’re not, you may either get it on a disability allowance, pay out of your own savings, or not get it at all. The differences in treatment seem pointless and unfair, and maintaining these unfair distinctions requires a lot of bureaucracy.
I think they should abolish ACC, and provide all assistance through WINZ and the Health budget, as is already done for non-eligible conditions. This would save a lot of money in administration, and that money could be spent on improving the quality of service to people with health, welfare and disability needs, irrespective of whether or not the causes of their problems fit the silly ACC criteria.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Why advertise a monopoly? Surely it’s cheaper to hand out information to people who show up on your doorstep? After all
“There are several other reasons why we would expect ACC’s operating costs to be lower - for example, ACC does not have to provide an extensive budget for marketing, market research or other costs of inter-corporate competition.” — Andrew Stritch, from the “COMPETITION AND COMPENSATION: THE PRIVATISATION OF ACC”.
A publication that not many people will recall was fanned about when Labour reversed the “privatisation” (actually the introduction of competion) to ACC.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Tigger, Will :
There are two fundamental distinctions between a compulsory private insurance scheme and a collective system like ACC.
1) Private insurers don’t like bad risks. They will not only scrimp on pay-outs (as a collective system may also do, as we have seen) but will actively seek to divest themselves of unprofitable individual clients; and, at best, they will require a premium structure which enables them to make a profit on high-risk categories, i.e. to charge higher premiums to people who, because of their age, sex, occupation etc. appear to present a greater risk of accidents. The freedom of an individual to choose their insurance applies only to the no-risk clients, because no company will want to take on the bad risks. A collective scheme is not inherently constrained by the profit motive, and should logically be a mechanism for solidarity.
2) Private insurers require a profit. That adds, minimum, 6% on to the premium, for an equal level of service. Experience in many different countries has confirmed this. You might claim that competition lowers costs, but in fact admin costs are very similar in public and private systems, and any marginal efficiency gains are dwarfed by the expense of duplicate infrastructure (especially IT development) and advertising.
I worked on some ACC software during the aborted privatization of 1999/2000, so I have seen this at close quarters.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Kahikatea :
Your criticisms are valid, but they are not criticisms of ACC per se… they are criticisms of the rest of the health and compensation funding system. These need to be brought up to scratch, because it’s indeed unfair that the outcomes for individuals should depend on the origin, deemed accidental or not, of their health problem.
However, I think it’s good practice to provide incentives to avoid accidents or disabilities. In practice, rather than splitting things between accident/non-accident, I would prefer to split between work related (including occupational disease) / not work related. Because employers have a moral responsibility to ensure that their employees are not injured or don’t get sick from doing their job, so we need to provide economic feedback to help them to make the workplace safer.
To illustrate : a forestry worker undoubtedly has a much higher risk of work-related accident than an office worker. I don’t think it’s fair (or economically efficient) to charge them a higher individual premium. But I think it’s reasonable for the forestry company to pay more (both in base premium and in function of the accident rate), both because accidents are a part of the cost of doing business, and to give them an incentive to improve their record.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Alistair,
Why do we need the “great new add campaign”?
Do people not realise that the ACC is a “classic example of a collective system making more sense than an individualised system”?
Maybe people “aren’t aware of how the system works”, so it’s good to tell them “about the wisdom of the system not just for individuals but for society as a whole.”
February 20th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
You would be surprised at how many lawyers specialise in ACC cases. How many cases with ACC as plaintiff or defendant are before the courts at present? We have not fixed the problem, just moved it around a bit.
The one thing that is sometimes overlooked, is the fact that government have the ability to write the rulebook. You don’t need to own it to control it.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Zippo :
It’s not problem-free, but that’s the nature of the human condition, mate. I would say that if 95% of accident victims get reasonable compensation, that’s actually fixed 95% of the problem.
I’ve already pointed out the problems of the government writing the rulebook and leaving it to the private sector… both inefficient and inherently unjust. There’s no need for the government to run it, just as long as it’s run for the benefit of the collective, rather than for profit. I would suggest that a work-related health compensation structure should be run jointly by employers and unions.
Will :
I dunno. People get commercial propaganda shoved down their throats all the time. Advertising is paid for by a mark-up on the goods and services people buy. Commercial advertising can contain useful information (this is not my experience, but it’s theoretically possible). Non-commercial advertising is more of a service. An outfit that advertises so that people can make claims that will cost it money… that seems counter-intuitive, but they are performing their mission of solidarity. You can be dead sure that private insurance companies wouldn’t do that, they would be quite happy if a proportion of their clients don’t claim their entitlement.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:14 am
If ACC is such an excellent system, why does no other country in the world have it? Could it be that those with the highest risk activities get covered by everyone else (e.g. the classic All Black injured and getting paid a proportion of salary) with little incentive to perform better in relation to injuring others, whilst those with the most catastrophic injuries get what is a paltry amount of compensation? Could it be that a monopoly cannot respond quickly (or has little incentive )to lower levies to those who show consistently good practices, or penalise those that don’t?
February 21st, 2007 at 5:02 am
Woo poor little insignificant NZ, we couldn’t possibly get anything right on our own, where’s a rock I can climb under?
I’m only guessing here, but I suspect your answer would be optional private insurance? Making sure that those not able to afford it get no compensation? And that bad risks would be avoided like the plague by insurance companies?
Or would you prefer equitable government payouts relating solely to the injuries? … Sounds like socialism to me!
Inquiring minds want to know!
February 21st, 2007 at 5:08 am
Actually that’s an interesting point about income-related payouts.
In most developed countries, both unemployment and retirement payments are related to the individual’s working income. Not in NZ, which offers a flat rate for everyone.
LibertyScott would like to extend this socialistic model to accident compo, it seems. Who would have guessed?
February 21st, 2007 at 7:57 am
I am a long term ACC receipient. I acknowledge the point being made about illness as opposed to injury but that is not the fault of ACC, it is another discussion altogether.
I take part in an online forum about coping with chronic pain, a mainly Australian based group, and the trials some work injured people have with the Australian version of a work cover insurance make ACC in NZ sound very beneficial.
In my experience ACC does work to rehabilitate accident victims. I have read about and listened to Australian and American folk talk about their systems. Private or semi-private. Poor and low income workers cannot afford private insurance. The elderly, such as I am, cannot afford private insurance.
Perhaps the correspondents here might be suggesting that ACC should cover only work place accidents, because of the employer’s liability but not recreational accidents as the injured has chosen to take a risk? Joy.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:00 am
I could relate a personal experience that provides an argument for ACC advertising. Some time ago I was approached by a private health insurer and was considering signing up to it, when I thought I would call ACC and ask what they provided. Imagine my surprise when I was told they covered exactly the same things as the private insurer, and their service would not cost me anything. I saved money by not signing up with the private insurer, but I wonder how many others may have been sucked in simply because they do not know about ACC.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:42 am
The privatised accident insurance scheme under National in 1999-2000 was an unmitigated disaster for injured people. While ACC has its shortcomings, it performs far better for the injured person the the privatised scheme did.
Sue Bradford highlighted this in a recent speech in Parliament criticising the National Party’s policy supporting privatisation and its alleged financial support from the insurance industry in recognition of that policy.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:03 am
alistair Says: “a forestry worker undoubtedly has a much higher risk of work-related accident than an office worker. I don’t think it’s fair (or economically efficient) to charge them a higher individual premium. But I think it’s reasonable for the forestry company to pay more (both in base premium and in function of the accident rate), both because accidents are a part of the cost of doing business, and to give them an incentive to improve their record.”
Yes, the variable employer contribution to ACC is the one part of the scheme that I think does have some merit. You could abolish the rest of the scheme, but keep the employer contributions. Abolishing the ACC bureaucracy would mean you wouldn’t have such precise statistics to base these charges on. But I think you could still do it - they would be based on OSH statistics, they would go into the consolidated fund, and they would reflect actual costs less precisely, but still closely enough to provide the right economic incentives.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:23 am
joy Says:
> I am a long term ACC receipient. I acknowledge the point being made about illness as opposed to injury but that is not the fault of ACC, it is another discussion altogether.
I don’t think it is irrelevant, because a lot of bureaucracy goes into separating people whose cases are covered by ACC from those who are not. I find it bizarre that the government paid the whole cost (through ACC) of a physiotherapist treating me for an injury from a not-particularly-serious car crash, but will not pay any of the cost of the same physiotherapist treating we for problems stemming from a condition I was born with.
There is one case idn which I have been treated better because of not being eligible for ACC. When I was referred to the chronic pain management service at Wellington Hospital, they told be that I would have to wait 3 weeks from my initial consultation before they could start treatment, because of ACC paperwork. Then when I told them I wasn’t eligible for ACC, they realised they didn’t need that paperwork and could sntart immediately. How absurd is that!
> In my experience ACC does work to rehabilitate accident victims. I have read about and listened to Australian and American folk talk about their systems. Private or semi-private. Poor and low income workers cannot afford private insurance. The elderly, such as I am, cannot afford private insurance.
Indeed, I’m not suggesting that we should go back to suing or private workplace insurance. The ACC system was arn improvement over the right to sue, because it reduced the number of people missing out. But merging the ACC system with the health and welfare systems would further reduce the number of people missing out. And it would save some money on administration, which could be spent on more care for people. Or the money could be spent on administration elsewhere in the health system, to prevent absurd situations like the one when an appointment I had to see a doctor was delayed 2 hours because the delivery of my medical notes to the relevant department was not high enough on the to-do list of the people who were supposed to be delivering them.
February 21st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I still remember a trip to an MD in the US… back when I was in NY… there were about 6 people in the waiting room. There were 2 nurses, 2 doctors and 5 staff working out which of the medical plans applied to who and in what way for each case. The manuals from insurance agencies on the shelves covered the back wall and filled another room whose extent I never determined.
Here? One SET of rules. Complicated as they may be but at least only one.
BJ
February 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
kahikatea says:
“… a lot of bureaucracy goes into separating people whose cases are covered by ACC from those who are not. I find it bizarre that the government paid the whole cost (through ACC) of a physiotherapist treating me for an injury from a not-particularly-serious car crash, but will not pay any of the cost of the same physiotherapist treating we for problems stemming from a condition I was born with.”
Yes it does seem bizarre!
However, if we look at the history of ACC, and why it was needed, and thus how it was established, the solution seems obvious.
Let’s not diminish ACC (which was highly regarded internationally, as a “model system”, when it was set up). Rather, let’s have the courage and commitment to bring our entire Health System up to that original high standard, so that the two can intermesh “seamlessly”. This way any anomalies in treatment between accident-caused and non-accident-caused conditions will disappear.
This would mean political courage and commitment, (and would be heavily opposed by those who see opportunities to make MONEY from the further erosion of our Public Health System into a two tier (or worse!) system, one for the “haves” and another for the varying degrees of “have nots”.
For ideas, we should look further than the countries that conveniently have English as their first (or only) language. At a guess I’d say Scandinavia, Germany and a few others in the EU … Canada was good when I lived there … and some new ideas are emerging in South America.
Health gets more and more expensive as new ideas, techniques and alternatives are developed. Decisions do have to be made, but they should NOT be made on the size of a citizen’s bank balance
February 21st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I am an emigrant and have lived in this country for 7+ years. I will never get used to the “nanny state� (cradle to grave) mentality. Frankly, had we known about how this country is governed we would have likely chosen another country.
Just like WINZ, ACC consistently fails to advise claimants about their full and true entitlements. The majority of claimants lack the knowledge and education to seek out and read the IPRC Act and its regulations. ACC relies on this broad public ignorance and saves itself millions in the process.
I have first hand experience of how ACC works; the mentality and processes behind the scheme and the people who operate it. The focus is NOT on rehabilitating claimants to the maximum possible extent - as the IPRC Act requires - but on ‘exiting’ claimants as quickly as possible.
ACC is advertising because of its poor image. If you watch the advertisement you’ll see that its purpose is not education. So what benefit does the viewing public derive from ACC misleading the public with blatant lies?
If ACC was such a wonderful organisation with thousands of happy present and past claimants, why didn’t they use any of these people in their advertisement? Why use and coach actors?
February 21st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
joy says: I acknowledge the point being made about illness as opposed to injury but that is not the fault of ACC, it is another discussion altogether.
kahikatea says: I don’t think it is irrelevant, because a lot of bureaucracy goes into separating people whose cases are covered by ACC from those who are not.
Back in 1988 the Law Commission, chaired by Sir Owen Woodhouse who had earlier chaired the Royal Commission that instigated ACC, recommended that sickness should be brought under the ambit of ACC. The Labour Party, in Government at the time, welcomed the recommendation. However, the National Government that was elected in 1990 did not support the recommendation. Labour subsequently also lost enthusiasm.
The Green Party’s ACC policy continues to promote a move in that direction, supporting the principle of equitable rehabilitation for all people suffering impairment, regardless of whether that impairment has been caused by injury, illness or other disability, and moving towards a greater emphasis on social justice and equitable compensation for all people suffering impairment, regardless of whether that impairment has been caused by injury, illness or other disability.
That would eliminate a lot of the bureaucracy that is currently involved in determining whether a condition is covered or not. The emphasis should beon the effect of the injury on the perso’s life - not the cause of the injury or the type of injury it is.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:35 am
I have one major quibble with ACC, which is an old ax to grind:
Women without jobs, at home with small children, get no support from ACC if they are injured, to replace their duties in the home, or to cover household expenses - the use of a woman’s labour in the household budgeting does not equal the use of her labour for an employer’sprofit.
Even if that woman labours tirelessly, cooking from scratch and sewing clothes, cleaning and caring, her labour is invisible in public accounts until she is paid outside the home. Thus in permanent disability cases, she is not compensated for loss of earnings, nor is the household compensated financially in order to replace her labour.
But don’t take my word for it!
Marilyn Waring and Prue Hyman have both written and lectured about this, on Waikato and Victoria University campuses respectively.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I am self employed in one of ACCs high risk categories and pay nearly $40 a week to subsidize the young clowns on farm bikes etc. who get it wrong. I have never been notified in any way about training schemes that might lower my payment, I am not sure but bigger businesses get options. I have never been notified of incentives such as lower premiums if I don’t have accidents.
As I only work in the higher risk category some of my time and work in less dangerous occupation quite a lot of the time I still have to pay the high premium.
I make most of my income in the summertime so if injured at the beginning of my high earning time of year my 80% payout is at my smaller amount and not really related to the fluctuating earning - this relates to all deasonal work. I have attempted to communicate these difficulties but got a poor hearing. so I guess I have to push harder.
I agree that ACC is a better scheme than a privatised version but I feel it is quite unresponsive still, and expensive, so I object to high cost advertising that says very little of benefit, when individual electronic notification could be done a lot cheaper.
This same “Corporate Culture” has snuck in a lot of places.
An Environment Court Appeal hearing next week in Hamilton is going to be at the Novatel Hotel and I was told of a Consultation meeting being held at a hotel with breakfast, that was largely left. It used to be a local hall or school with some local school or service group catering for a donation, helping the local community instead of the private sector.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I agree with your observation that the “Corporate Culture has snuck in a lot of places”.
There is an increasing expectation of Govt/LocalBody etc functions emulating the “(deserving) Haves” at one end of the scale, going hand in hand with accepting lesser standards for the “(undeserving) Have Nots” at the other end.
We had a bizzare case of this at the local City Council Community Board level where some of the already very inadequate funding for the planned upgrade of a long neglected seriously-in-need, narrow, hillside street was channeled into such things as glossy, full colour, brochures and a lavish “celebratory barbeque” for the residents of 60 households … without the residents being consulted. (We just wanted every penny to be spent on a functional and safe road!)
I think that part of the problem is the growth in the employment of “PR” (Public Relations) personell who are being given a different agenda and a free hand at aping the Ccorporates (who are already expert at spending a slice of “everyone else’s money”… WOW I’m sounding like big bruv!)
February 24th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
katie says:
“Women without jobs, at home with small children, get no support from ACC if they are injured” …
I hadn’t realised it was that bad! Count me in for any campaign/initiatives you think would help to change this! (I had the experience of being the sole financial and practical support for my two children from the time they were five and one, though my elderly parents helped somewhat. In my case I would have been entitled to a Benefit if injured, but as you will realise, I do understand the situation!)
eredwen