Blog

Hi all,

Following the sessions at OPAG and SIAG last week we asked that ACC provide a brief summary regarding the information they shared with the groups of ACC’s interpretation of the Public Health Acute Service (PHAS) agreement

ACC has now met with and confirmed Ministry of Health’s position which is outlined as below:

• Under this agreement all needs of the patient are covered by the DHB, including attendant care
• During acute hospital admissions, funded under the PHAS agreement, all care, including attendant care, is included. Therefore the Ministry of Health believes requests from DHB’s, for ACC to continue to fund attendant care during these periods of admission, to be a breach of the PHAS agreement.
• The Ministry of Health considers there are health and safety concerns if carers are working within the hospital environment: for example all staff and contractors would be required to undergo a security check, among other requirements
• ACC is unable to confirm the background of individual carers who are employed by clients.  ACC does not employ carers

Any request that  ACC does receive for funding of attendant care during hospital admissions will continue to be reviewed at National Consistency Panel to make sure there is consistency with decision making and that all case owners have a clear understanding of the intent of the PHAS agreement.

The Elective Services contract does not include provision for attendant care, therefore ACC is able to consider attendant care needs, on a individual basis, if the client has an existing package of care in the community.

We haven’t finished working with ACC on this Issue, and we hope to come back to you with a much better outcome very soon, because at this stage I believe it is still puts our members (us all) at risk, where we all have to individually push the DHB management to insure they put a care package around us while we are in hospital care. I will keep working to try and get a standard attendant care package protocol for everyone that is admitted to any hospital in NZ ,as I know many of our members are not the best at advocating for there own wellbeing, particularly when we are very unwell.

If you have any questions about the above information please contact [email protected]

Regards Brendan Tourelle

VP TASC

Hi Everyone

We are still looking for more evidence to help build a stronger hypothesis with our Awareness of ACC entitlement issue.

You don’t have to answer all the questions, any input can help, so send it in.

There is a lot of confusion around what ACC clients are entitled to from ACC.

Should ACC promote themselves to NZers to help build an understanding of what they do?

How should ACC inform you of all your entitlements better?

Do you have stories about missing out on entitlements you should have received?

And how did this impact on you?

we need your real life stories, as these tend to form a good base for evidence to back up our hypothesis.

The more Evidence the stronger the voice of the Customer

Regards Brendan Tourelle

VP TASC

Hi everyone

To date we have had a good response from some of you, on the issue that ACC currently doesn’t fund any outdoor maintenance and only some indoor maintenance for client’s homes, which was great,

THANK YOU if you have already replied. Below are the potential issues we have received at least 2 or more responses on from our networks, but if possible we would like to try and build a stronger evidence base. If this list helps jolt your memory on a problem you have had around your home we would love to hear your story, which could help all of us to get a better deal from ACC.

• There are tasks that clients used to perform pre-injury.
• Expectation on friends and family to perform home and grounds maintenance.
• Financial burden of paying for tasks that could be completed pre-injury.
• Health and safety risk to clients when attempting external maintenance.
• Health and safety risk to clients when attempting internal maintenance e.g. changing light bulbs, smoke alarm batteries etc.
• Clients could re-injure themselves attempting maintenance leading to increased liability for ACC.
• Inconsistent application of legislation and / or policy.
• Potential risk to client’s homes.

Regards Brendan Tourelle

TASC, VP

Serious injury Advisory Group
+64210554929