It’s a week where junior doctors are on strike, and strike they should. But it’s bigger that. Should you care if your local doctors’ clinic is not owned locally and independently?
You are absolutely right Jodie. A family member worked as data entry staff for one of these medical corporates in Tamaki Makaurau that just grew and grew, swallowing up many small GP practices. In the end he just couldn't ethically continue working for a firm whose business model was solely for profit at the expense of health - for both staff and patients. I am really fortunate to be able to afford a GP who has managed to stay independent, but he has had to raise his fees and is well known for going over time so that patients wait for hours beyond their booked slots!
Exceptional analysis, Jodie, top work , and for the record ACC are sitting on $47 Billion of reserves [ invested in various market portfolios ] effectively over charged levies , for which they are loath to pay out on treatment injuries.
you are not the first GP to mention both ACC's extraordinary wealth and ACCs institutional reluctance to acknowledge and financially support Kiwis who have suffered from chronic environmental (including workplace) harm (i.e. toxic exposures) and/or iatrogenic injury.
ACC might be considering their core business is to maintain their asset portfolio. That is contingent upon not setting precedents which lead to domino treatment claims.
So, in other words, it might appear that their primary concern, rather than the health of the New Zealand population, is in defence and rebuttal in order to sustain the size of their asset portfolio.
One might suspect that this not only sustains illness in potentially productive populations, but it also buttresses the corporate sector. I.e. not setting precedents to claim harm reduces the evidence base for experts and citizens seeking to raise attention for regulation that moves away from harmful activities. It then makes government, academia, research and society less nimble - i.e. in regulating harms, but also in developing technological innovations that might prevent or mitigate harms.
Are ACC abusing their powers, setting aside their obligations, by dismissing environmental (including medical) chronic harms? We cannot know. Seeking judicial review to understand the extent to which such claims have been rejected, against such a powerful organisation is all but impossible. So, I guess the harms will continue, and mount up, and fail to be recognised and regulated.
The purpose of this Act is to enhance the public good and reinforce the social contract represented by the first accident compensation scheme by providing for a fair and sustainable scheme for managing personal injury that has, as its overriding goals, minimising both the overall incidence of injury in the community, and the impact of injury on the community (including economic, social, and personal costs), through—
(a) establishing as a primary function of the Corporation the promotion of measures to reduce the incidence and severity of personal injury:
(b) providing for a framework for the collection, co-ordination, and analysis of injury-related information:
(ba) ensuring that the Corporation monitors access to the accident compensation scheme by Māori and identified population groups in order to deliver services under this Act in a manner that supports access to the scheme by injured Māori and injured persons in those population groups:
(c) ensuring that, where injuries occur, the Corporation’s primary focus should be on rehabilitation with the goal of achieving an appropriate quality of life through the provision of entitlements that restores to the maximum practicable extent a claimant’s health, independence, and participation:
(d) ensuring that, during their rehabilitation, claimants receive fair compensation for loss from injury, including fair determination of weekly compensation and, where appropriate, lump sums for permanent impairment:
(e) ensuring positive claimant interactions with the Corporation through the development and operation of a Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights:
(f) ensuring that persons who suffered personal injuries before the commencement of this Act continue to receive entitlements where appropriate.
oh wow, jodie, what a sweeping indictment! well done
You are absolutely right Jodie. A family member worked as data entry staff for one of these medical corporates in Tamaki Makaurau that just grew and grew, swallowing up many small GP practices. In the end he just couldn't ethically continue working for a firm whose business model was solely for profit at the expense of health - for both staff and patients. I am really fortunate to be able to afford a GP who has managed to stay independent, but he has had to raise his fees and is well known for going over time so that patients wait for hours beyond their booked slots!
Exceptional analysis, Jodie, top work , and for the record ACC are sitting on $47 Billion of reserves [ invested in various market portfolios ] effectively over charged levies , for which they are loath to pay out on treatment injuries.
Thanks John,
you are not the first GP to mention both ACC's extraordinary wealth and ACCs institutional reluctance to acknowledge and financially support Kiwis who have suffered from chronic environmental (including workplace) harm (i.e. toxic exposures) and/or iatrogenic injury.
ACC might be considering their core business is to maintain their asset portfolio. That is contingent upon not setting precedents which lead to domino treatment claims.
So, in other words, it might appear that their primary concern, rather than the health of the New Zealand population, is in defence and rebuttal in order to sustain the size of their asset portfolio.
One might suspect that this not only sustains illness in potentially productive populations, but it also buttresses the corporate sector. I.e. not setting precedents to claim harm reduces the evidence base for experts and citizens seeking to raise attention for regulation that moves away from harmful activities. It then makes government, academia, research and society less nimble - i.e. in regulating harms, but also in developing technological innovations that might prevent or mitigate harms.
Are ACC abusing their powers, setting aside their obligations, by dismissing environmental (including medical) chronic harms? We cannot know. Seeking judicial review to understand the extent to which such claims have been rejected, against such a powerful organisation is all but impossible. So, I guess the harms will continue, and mount up, and fail to be recognised and regulated.
Accident Compensation Act 2001
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/DLM100100.html
Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to enhance the public good and reinforce the social contract represented by the first accident compensation scheme by providing for a fair and sustainable scheme for managing personal injury that has, as its overriding goals, minimising both the overall incidence of injury in the community, and the impact of injury on the community (including economic, social, and personal costs), through—
(a) establishing as a primary function of the Corporation the promotion of measures to reduce the incidence and severity of personal injury:
(b) providing for a framework for the collection, co-ordination, and analysis of injury-related information:
(ba) ensuring that the Corporation monitors access to the accident compensation scheme by Māori and identified population groups in order to deliver services under this Act in a manner that supports access to the scheme by injured Māori and injured persons in those population groups:
(c) ensuring that, where injuries occur, the Corporation’s primary focus should be on rehabilitation with the goal of achieving an appropriate quality of life through the provision of entitlements that restores to the maximum practicable extent a claimant’s health, independence, and participation:
(d) ensuring that, during their rehabilitation, claimants receive fair compensation for loss from injury, including fair determination of weekly compensation and, where appropriate, lump sums for permanent impairment:
(e) ensuring positive claimant interactions with the Corporation through the development and operation of a Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights:
(f) ensuring that persons who suffered personal injuries before the commencement of this Act continue to receive entitlements where appropriate.