Ixion
23rd November 2009, 18:46
OK. Since our meeting with him, the Nickster has been making much noise about numbers
Motorcycle accident record cannot be ignored
ACC minister Nick Smith responded to today’s motorcycle protest over proposed ACC levy increases by highlighting the significant increase in fatalities and claims from motorcycle accidents
...
These increases cannot be explained away by the increase in motorcycle numbers. In 1998 there was an accident claim for every 69 bikes whereas today there is a claim for every 19 bikes.
...
Calendar Year/Number of motorcycles/Claims accepted for injuries/Claims for fatal injuries/Number of motorcycles per claim
1998/60,458/871/38/69
1999/59,390/684/26/87
2000/58,566/1,072/29/55
2001/57,836/1,757/36/33
2002/57,454/1,636/31/35
2003/56,047/2,433/32/23
2004/58,659/2,670/33/22
2005/63,756/3,659/34/17
2006/75,171/4,265/38/18
2007/85,356/5,013/38/17
2008/96,952/5,044/46/19
(The crappy table format was original)
Firstly, note that the figures shown are TOTAL CLAIMS. ie those where maybe ACC has not paid you anything. Fall over putting bike on stand, burn leg on exhaust etc, , go to doctor, he says you're OK, doctor claims the cost of the visit. Different matter to the entitlement claims , which is what costs them money. So don't get hung up on those numbers.
Now, the figures from around 2002 CAN simply be explained by rising motorcycle numbers. They come through as a fairly consistent 43 - 50 per 10000 bikes.
Entitlement claims fairly well match the MoT (ie Police) figures for injury crashes. As you'd expect. The non-entitlement figures don't show in the MoT figures, again as you'd expect
But I didn't understand the very low figures for 1998 AND 1999.Much lower than later years, and making us look bad
They LOOKED like entitlement only figures 9and matched quite closely) , and made us look bad. But I couldn't see ACC deliberately suppling him with fudged numbers.
Then I found this quote (from a reputable source (http://www.nohsac.govt.nz/techreport2/index.php?section=sec3:s4:p063:))
Thirdly, not all claims received by ACC are fully registered on the database. For a minor claim, even where a form has been completed in full, ACC avoids unnecessary data entry costs by only entering the information that is needed to administer the claim. More detailed data entry is carried out for high-risk, serious and complex claims. Since 1999, this detailed data entry applies to all work-related injuries and motor vehicle accidents.
OK. That might explain it.
Then I put my brain into reverse gear. Many years ago I actually worked for ACC. Not in the claims area, BUT I do remember they had TWO computer systems. Both ageing mainframes. One handled medical claims ONLY. One handled case management. And I'm almost certain that ONLY entitlement claims were entered in both (because of the extra work needed to duplicate the data).
And around 1999 , 2000 one , or both, were replaced by a system called Pathway (now itself about to be replaced by a system called Fineos).
So, the scenario becomes clear. The 1998 and 1999 figures ARE only entitlement claims, because the non-entitlement ones never got entered into that system. And over 2000, 2001 they gradually merged over.
I think one of the mainframes was a Fujitsu. The other was American.
So, any ageing geeks here that can remember anything about that? Must be someone in this geek madhouse that was involved with mainframes back in the late 1990s.
I'd like to be as sure of my facts as possible before I publicly call the man mistaken.
Motorcycle accident record cannot be ignored
ACC minister Nick Smith responded to today’s motorcycle protest over proposed ACC levy increases by highlighting the significant increase in fatalities and claims from motorcycle accidents
...
These increases cannot be explained away by the increase in motorcycle numbers. In 1998 there was an accident claim for every 69 bikes whereas today there is a claim for every 19 bikes.
...
Calendar Year/Number of motorcycles/Claims accepted for injuries/Claims for fatal injuries/Number of motorcycles per claim
1998/60,458/871/38/69
1999/59,390/684/26/87
2000/58,566/1,072/29/55
2001/57,836/1,757/36/33
2002/57,454/1,636/31/35
2003/56,047/2,433/32/23
2004/58,659/2,670/33/22
2005/63,756/3,659/34/17
2006/75,171/4,265/38/18
2007/85,356/5,013/38/17
2008/96,952/5,044/46/19
(The crappy table format was original)
Firstly, note that the figures shown are TOTAL CLAIMS. ie those where maybe ACC has not paid you anything. Fall over putting bike on stand, burn leg on exhaust etc, , go to doctor, he says you're OK, doctor claims the cost of the visit. Different matter to the entitlement claims , which is what costs them money. So don't get hung up on those numbers.
Now, the figures from around 2002 CAN simply be explained by rising motorcycle numbers. They come through as a fairly consistent 43 - 50 per 10000 bikes.
Entitlement claims fairly well match the MoT (ie Police) figures for injury crashes. As you'd expect. The non-entitlement figures don't show in the MoT figures, again as you'd expect
But I didn't understand the very low figures for 1998 AND 1999.Much lower than later years, and making us look bad
They LOOKED like entitlement only figures 9and matched quite closely) , and made us look bad. But I couldn't see ACC deliberately suppling him with fudged numbers.
Then I found this quote (from a reputable source (http://www.nohsac.govt.nz/techreport2/index.php?section=sec3:s4:p063:))
Thirdly, not all claims received by ACC are fully registered on the database. For a minor claim, even where a form has been completed in full, ACC avoids unnecessary data entry costs by only entering the information that is needed to administer the claim. More detailed data entry is carried out for high-risk, serious and complex claims. Since 1999, this detailed data entry applies to all work-related injuries and motor vehicle accidents.
OK. That might explain it.
Then I put my brain into reverse gear. Many years ago I actually worked for ACC. Not in the claims area, BUT I do remember they had TWO computer systems. Both ageing mainframes. One handled medical claims ONLY. One handled case management. And I'm almost certain that ONLY entitlement claims were entered in both (because of the extra work needed to duplicate the data).
And around 1999 , 2000 one , or both, were replaced by a system called Pathway (now itself about to be replaced by a system called Fineos).
So, the scenario becomes clear. The 1998 and 1999 figures ARE only entitlement claims, because the non-entitlement ones never got entered into that system. And over 2000, 2001 they gradually merged over.
I think one of the mainframes was a Fujitsu. The other was American.
So, any ageing geeks here that can remember anything about that? Must be someone in this geek madhouse that was involved with mainframes back in the late 1990s.
I'd like to be as sure of my facts as possible before I publicly call the man mistaken.