Auditing the ACC Audit report

The Office of the Auditor General has released a report on the ACC The report is intended to provide an insight into the work of the ACC, with particular regard to case management and rehabilitation. Although ACC got a pass rate from the auditor-generals office, it is important to note why.

The report accentuates the good and eliminates the bad. The report says that the Office had seen no evidence that ACC selects medical providers and assessors who make decisions that
are biased towards ACC. That is because the auditors refused to see that information for the report - even though it was offered to them - and the auditors did not want to deal with individual cases.

ACC has a review process administered by ACC -owned Disputes Resolution Services based on natural justice. Before a case goes to review it has an administration review. Yet the Auditor General didn’t comment on the lack of natural justice in the review process.

Claimant satisfaction surveys were also looked into. ACC conducts several periodic surveys and the report picks out one - the network management survey. This excludes long-term claimants managed by ACC subsidiary Catalyst (until September 2003 when Catalyst was no more). Could that be because the network management survey would provide one of the most favourable results to ACC? The report would never extensively highlight the survey of claimants administered by Catalyst, as that survey noted 75 percent of Catalyst claimants were not advised of their entitlements or assistance, and nearly half the claimants were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the service provided by Catalyst case managers. Nor did the report state now many Catalyst claims went to review or Appeal.

However, the report did note that ACC was not particularly honest in the way they communicated staff survey results in the annual reports. In fact communication was pretty poor all round both between internal teams and external claimants., despite a code of claimants rights being in force for a year or so.

Individual Rehabilitation plans(IRP's) were also under the spotlight and were found to be insufficient as many were not tailored to claimants' needs, nor done on time. This was not checked as monthly file reviews were not done by team managers. However, the report noted that these plans could be reviewed - but failed to mention that the reviewer , under law, does not have jurisdiction to overturn any dodgy IRP's.

The report failed to mention a lot of the unsatisfactory work of ACC subsidary Catalyst, who dealt with long term claimants. Instead, it said that "past ACC practices" were to blame for long term claimants who were not currently receiving deserved entitlements under the ACC Act. That's a bit like blaming former staff members for cockups that your work mates are currently making. Come to think of it, that is exactly what it is.

But one thing ACC was lacking in was quality communication - both internal and external. Perhaps the way staff treat claimants is a reflection of how they treat their fellow staff members, hence the recent reports on staff bullying.

The report said nothing that these guys didn't already know, and you can bet your bottom dollar that this audit report will not be the end of the matter. They`ll be calling for an inquiry into the ACC in light of what they will call an inadequate "whitewash" by an Audit Office doing its best to provide a report designed to put the ACC in the best light possible in order to please the Government.