Calling Geeks with long memories

**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)

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.

**mikeey01** · 23rd November 2009, 18:55

Genius, pure genius!

**k2w3** · 23rd November 2009, 19:04

American mainframes I know, other than IBM, would be Perkin Elmer. NZI Insurance used to run one.

**Mom** · 23rd November 2009, 19:06

Originally Posted by Ixion

I'd like to be as sure of my facts as possible before I publicly call the man mistaken.

Provide me the ammo, I will tail gun for you all the way. I may have a few friends along too

**Subike** · 23rd November 2009, 19:07

Could it be as easy as asking a freindly doctor if he puts in an individual claim for each time he sees a patient?
Because if I went to the doctor 6 times over the time needed to heal from an injury, that could be six clams.
That would make sence of the figures,
as the pre 2000 numbers would fit the incidents that cause the claims only.
the post 2000 numbers would be the total amount of claims .
It is and easy statistic to manipulate ths way, if what I think is right, then how do you prove it to be so.
Can you access the same figures for private car claims, and comercial vehicle claims?
I think this would show a very interesting picture.
The one bike in 19 claim is so wrong its laudabile, thats 13.8 injury accedents every day of the year. I dont think so for road bikes only.
If you included off road bikes in the figures, then it would be possibile

**Ozzie** · 23rd November 2009, 19:08

Originally Posted by Ixion

I'd like to be as sure of my facts as possible before I publicly call the man mistaken.

Les, with all due respect, I don't think you thought that statement through properly before hitting submit.

Aside from that, I think he's trying to flush out the techs who actually did the job. 6 deg of separation, someone knows the guy/girl that did the data migration.......who was it....and....what was migrated?

**Subike** · 23rd November 2009, 19:10

Another thought.
With the change to main frame. as far as Hospitals were concerned, was it then that they included all Motorcycle Accedents on road and off road under one headding, so that it would be easier to set up the system for records?
Shortcuts are known to give false data

**MSTRS:Me** · 23rd November 2009, 19:11

Originally Posted by Subike

The one bike in 19 claim is so wrong its laudabile, thats 13.8 injury accedents every day of the year. I dont think so for road bikes only.
If you included off road bikes in the figures, then it would be possibile

Bingo. Anecdotal evidence already tells us that hospitals/doctors just fill in the form and state 'motorcycle' in the place provided. The place that asks if a vehicle was involved.

**James Deuce** · 23rd November 2009, 19:19

Originally Posted by k2w3

would be Perkin Elmer. NZI Insurance used to run one.

Many more than one, and they were re-branded Concurrent.

Might also be a Wang or a Sequent.

**Ixion** · 23rd November 2009, 20:16

Wasn't a Wang. I worked on Wangs. Data General ? Rings a faint bell.

Mainly looking for anyone who can confirm my memory of two separate systems

One ran case management. ACC used to have a separate Medical Claims section then, and the other ran that. And the two worlds never met.

I think they were both pensioned off coming up to Y2K, but I was gone from there well before that.