If ACC is privatised...

[mashman]

does this mean that we're in for a refund? From what i've read, we pay our levy for the past, present and future... if that's the case how do I find out how much i'm gonna get back???

[p.dath]

I've been reading a lot about ACC. The Owens Reports, the founding principles.

Can someone tell me what percentage the administration costs make up to total revenue. Is it 10% or less?

[slofox]

I've been reading a lot about ACC. The Owens Reports, the founding principles.

Can someone tell me what percentage the administration costs make up to total revenue. Is it 10% or less?

I know a dude gets work from the "sensitive cases" unit of ACC. According to him and his ilk, for every ONE dollar they get paid, ACC uses EIGHT dollars internally....

No wonder they hafta stick the levies up...

[p.dath]

I know a dude gets work from the "sensitive cases" unit of ACC. According to him and his ilk, for every ONE dollar they get paid, ACC uses EIGHT dollars internally....

No wonder they hafta stick the levies up...

But that's OK if it only makes up a small percentage of the overall costs. I've been searching the ACC web site, and from what I can, operating costs look like they make up around 8% of levies - but I can't find something which simply says the total levies collected, and the total operating costs. The reports I can find keep breaking it down by ACC account.

[MSTRS:Me]

Which is just the way they want it. Muddy the waters. Make it difficult to find/follow. You can be sure that the info is somewhere...just not where you/I can get at it.

[Ixion]

This help ? From their annual report. Can only grab it as a screen shot but

[p.dath]

This help ? From their annual report. Can only grab it as a screen shot but

That's better. So it seems the administration cost is around 10 to 11% - assuming those total figures really are total figures, and haven't been distorted by attributing current costs in the future, or other such tricks.

That being the case, I think the administrative cost of running ACC is fine (aka - the administrative cost of running ACC is not sufficient reason to privatise ACC).

The question in my mind with regard to privatisation would be could private insurers drive down the medical and rehabilitation cost of treating those injured compared to ACC.
In my mind, they would need to drive it down a minimum of 20% before a business case could be established.

Or the flip side, a private insurer could offer lower fees to those who are low risk, leaving only high risk individuals being looked after by ACC, which is likely to cause a big rise in their ACC payments.

I keep reflecting back on the Owens Report, and the comparison they made of many systems around the world, and the good and bad points of each. Our ACC system was certainly world class when it started (or lets say, shortly after it started as it needed a tiny bit of fine tuning).


I guess ultimately we need to decide what we want first, what we are prepared to pay, and try and make the two meet in the middle.

[MacD]

I've posted the PriceWaterhouseCoopers 2008 Review of ACC previously, but it is essential reading for anybody interested in the benefits and efficiency of the ACC system.

As it currently stands ACC spends less on administration than comparable private insurance-based schemes in Australia and Canada. The American entirely private insurance-based health system is reknown for spending the greatest proportion of GDP for the least total benefit for its population.

See Section 4, starting on p20 of the attached PDF from my reply in this thread.

PWC 2008 ACC Report