ACC targeting wrong people

The Herald has an article today about how ACC is targeting high-cost clients.

A new ACC unit has been working to cut costs by targeting long-term clients who claim more than $600 a week.

In the six months since the recover independence unit was formed, 721 people have been dropped from ACC – roughly, twice the number as would normally be expected to leave, The Press reported.

An internal document obtained by the newspaper under the Official Information Act said the unit focused on cases with potential for “quick wins through targeted intervention”.

Sure ACC has a problem with the “tail”, those people are the ones who have been with ACC for a long time. The tail was under control in 1999 but after a few board replacements the focus went off managing the “tail” to basically treating ACC as another arm of WINZ.

It isn’t these people though that are costing ACC. I know for a fact that in 1999-2000 that ACC publicly admitted to about $100 million of fraud. Privately the numbers are truly astounding. The three main accounts contribute 95% of the fraud. The Earners account fraud is admitted privately to The Whale around $100 million, the Employer Account around $80 million and the Provider Account another $100 million. ACC under the current board which were appointed by Labour is not and has not been focused on fraud since 2000. If they, even privately, admit to those levels of fraud then they must be higher and that isn’t even taking into consideration teh expansion of the scheme by Clark’s Labour.

There is far more money to be had in stopping the endemic fraud in ACC than going after teh tail and a whole lot easier to catch if only ACC would look at decent fraud detection tools. If they paid for the software out of savings then it would pay for itself in less than a month. The problem though is that one of the senior managers who put the slipper into their best fraud manager is still there albeit with a few moves sideways. This manager decided to get snaky when a large provider fraud was identified. I have seen this happen in Canberra, in Sydney and a couple of other places I can’t talk about when the software is deployed. The senior manager gets pinged and the project all of a sudden gets spiked or tripped.

Stop bashing the sick and start bashing the criminals.

Tagged:
38%
×