Nick Smith doesn't bother to answer Annette King re: ACC Sensitive Claims Disaster

An extract from:
Questions and Answers - 14 September 2010
Tuesday, 14 September 2010, 5:28 pm
Press Release: Office of the Clerk
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1009/S00215/questions-and-answers-14-september-2010.htm

Accident Compensation Corporation—Performance

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Is he satisfied with the performance of ACC?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): Generally, yes, I am very satisfied. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has made huge progress in reversing years of huge deficits, and has markedly improved rehabilitation rates. The one area that I am not satisfied with is sensitive claims, which make up 0.2 percent of claims. That is why I instigated an independent clinical review of ACC’s processes, and I am pleased with the way that ACC has responded to the clinical panel’s recommendations.

Hon Annette King: What discussions, if any, has he had with ACC in light of the fact that there has been a drop of around 6,250 people getting elective surgery funded through the scheme since he became the Minister, and that, on the current track, that drop could reach 10,000 people by December; and is he concerned about the impact this huge reduction is having on injured New Zealanders?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In respect of elective surgery, it is true that under the previous Government ACC was funding elective surgery that was not injury-related, and that is why ACC is properly meeting its requirements. The drop in the number of claims in that area is way over the increases in elective surgery that my colleague Tony Ryall has provided for under Vote Health.

Hon Annette King: Has he received correspondence from orthopaedic surgeons like the correspondence that I have here in my hand, which states that 80 percent of patients with shoulder injuries are being refused surgery because of changes made by ACC since he became the Minister, and that when those patients do win on review 4 to 6 months after the accident, they have irreparable damage to their shoulders because of the delay?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have received some correspondence from orthopaedic surgeons, and I have met with them. We have a panel—[Interruption] Well, I might get to it, if members take the time to listen. The Government and ACC have ensured that those who are eligible for accident compensation actually get it. When we look at the cases that have been reviewed, we see that under the National Government there has been no change from the position under the previous Government in the number of decisions being overturned. In fact, approximately 80 percent of those decisions are being supported through that review process.

Michael Woodhouse: How has ACC responded to the Canterbury earthquake, and has he been satisfied with that performance?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The corporation has responded very effectively to the Canterbury earthquake. There have been 830 claims lodged for injuries associated with the earthquake, and they are being effectively managed, despite two of the scheme’s three offices in the region being closed for the first week of the civil emergency. The corporation quickly made contact with all 550 serious injury claimants to ensure their well-being over the course of the last week. ACC has deferred collection of accident compensation levies from Canterbury businesses, because they are under pressure. I also note that ACC has made 20 of its staff available to assist the Earthquake Commission, which is under huge pressure with regard to case management. I think that is the sort of cooperation we would want from Government agencies when we face a catastrophe the size of Canterbury’s earthquake.

Hon Annette King: Is he aware that the New Zealand Orthopaedic Association has reviewed the criteria that ACC experts are using to assess shoulder surgery since he became the Minister, and has found that they are grossly simplified and do not take account of the loss of function at the time of the accident; and will he ensure that ACC listens to the association’s advice? After all, they are the real experts.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I certainly accept that orthopaedic surgeons have a very real interest in their patients, but we should not be naive; they also have a very real interest in the fact that ACC pays far more generously for surgery than Vote Health does. It is my view that we need to ensure that decisions about orthopaedic surgery are made by the clinicians, not politicians.

Michael Woodhouse: Mr Speaker—

Hon Annette King: Good Lord!

Michael Woodhouse: I have never been called that.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think that was at all necessary.

Michael Woodhouse: What is the recent performance of ACC in respect of rehabilitation, and is he satisfied with this performance?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: ACC’s improved performance in rehabilitation rates has been absolutely outstanding. In fact, despite significant declines in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, over the last year there has been a 3 percent improvement in rehabilitation rates, which means that thousands of New Zealanders are back at work earlier than they would have been under the previous Government. I am surprised that members opposite are so opposed to effective rehabilitation. Those improved rehabilitation rates are one of the reasons that the scheme, rather than losing $2.4 billion in the last full year in which Labour was in office, is now in far more robust financial shape.

Hon Annette King: Has he seen the announcement from the National Foundation for the Deaf 4 days ago that ACC has also got wrong the criteria for workplace hearing injuries, and in light of the fact that it took over a year of clinical and public pressure before the Minister and ACC admitted that the had got wrong the criteria for sensitive claims for sexual abuse, will he listen to their clinicians before any more damage is done to those people who have been denied help?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have met with the Deaf Association and with the key associations with expertise in audiology. The key element that those organisations accept, which is the Government’s position, is that age is not an accident, and that it is not right that accident compensation pick up the cost of the very substantive bill associated with age-related hearing loss. That is not the function of the scheme

Sigh... I was just speaking with someone and saying that I had finally managed to finish reading the CLINICAL REVIEW OF THE ACC SENSITIVE CLAIMS CLINICAL PATHWAY Report and that I was blown away by the thoroughness of the Panel and the Document. BUT I then said that given my experiences of the last year (or even just the last month!) that I still feel gun shy when it comes to trusting ACC.
So on that note, was disappointed to see that when Annette King gave Nick Smith the opportunity to speak about the Report, Changes, and Healing that needs to happen to do with ACC Sensitive Claims, that as far as I can see he did not attempt to even make mention in his reply.
It feels like a good analogy of Nick Smith's attitude towards Sensitive Claims, not even worth a mention apparently. Shame on you Nick, BUT IT'S NEVER TO LATE TO SAY SORRY AND BEGIN TO MAKE AMENDS - CHANGE MAY BE HARD NICK, BUT IT WON'T BE HARDER THAN WHAT ACC SENSITIVE CLAIMANTS HAVE BEEN THROUGH...