Accident Compensation Corporation Claims Research Articles

New Zealanders with low back pain seeking health care: a retrospective descriptive analysis of Accident Compensation Corporation-funded low back pain healthcare service usage.

Introduction Most New Zealanders experience low back pain (LBP) at least once throughout their lifetime and many seek help from the large range of health providers in primary care. Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) funds a significant proportion of those claims, but which services are they funding and what are the costs? Method This was a retrospective audit and descriptive analysis of ACC-funded, non-public hospital healthcare service use by people with LBP in New Zealand (NZ). Outcome measures were the healthcare services accessed by people with ACC-funded LBP,the claims (all occurrences for a service that has generated a payment/year), single contact (with a service), and costs (NZ$) for services between 2009 and 2020. Results The number of claims for services were 129 000 for physiotherapy, 105 000 for general practitioner and 59 000 for radiology services. Per single contact, elective surgery and radiology services were the most expensive. During 2009-2020, there were 3.3 million ACC claims for LBP with a total cost of NZ$4 billion. Over this time, there was an increase in claims, costs and single contacts. Costs decreased slightly during 2010 due to changes in healthcare funding and in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion Consumers have considerable choice in where they access health care for ACC-funded LBP services. This study shows the services they use most frequently and the cost to NZ for those services. These data can inform service planning for ACC-funded LBP health care in NZ.

Does support received for subsequent injuries differ between Māori and non-Māori? Findings from a cohort study of injured New Zealanders.

To examine if differences exist between injured Māori and non-Māori in accessing and receiving support from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) for treatment and rehabilitation of subsequent injuries. This cohort study utilised participants' self-reported data from the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study, and ACC claims data. Approximately one-third of Māori (32%) and non-Māori (35%) who self-reported a subsequent injury had no associated ACC claim. Statistically significant differences in this outcome (i.e., self-reported subsequent injury but no ACC claim) were found between Māori and non-Māori when comparing across occupation type and severity of participants' sentinel injuries. Few differences were observed between Māori and non-Māori in the percentages of ACC claims accepted that compensated various treatments and supports; this was similar for average compensation amounts provided. Māori and non-Māori who received support from ACC for a sentinel injury prior to sustaining another injury appear to have received equitable ACC compensation for the treatment and rehabilitation of the subsequent injury with two potential exceptions. Further research is needed to determine how generalisable these findings are. Establishing routine systems for collecting data about the support needed, treatment pathways and outcomes once accessing ACC support is vital to ensure positive and equitable injury outcomes for Māori.

Concordance between sentinel and subsequent injuries: A prospective study of injured New Zealanders

ObjectivesTo describe: 1) settings, activities and types of injuries for an ‘initial’ (sentinel) injury and subsequent injuries over 24 months, and 2) concordance between sentinel and subsequent injury events. MethodsParticipants (n = 2856) were recruited to the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study (POIS) following their sentinel injury event, an injury event resulting in an Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) entitlement claim. Subsequent injuries were those from additional ACC claims in the following 24 months. Injury settings, activities and types were from electronic ACC claims data. The risks of having a subsequent injury of the same type as the sentinel injury were estimated. ResultsOverall, 1653 (58%) participants had 3444 subsequent injury events in 24 months, resulting in 4470 injury diagnoses. Twenty one percent had at least one subsequent injury event of the same type as their sentinel injury; 33% with a spine sprain/strain had at least one subsequent spine sprain/strain. Many participants had at least one subsequent injury event at same setting (26%) as their sentinel injury; of note, 36% of participants whose sentinel injury occurred at home had at least one subsequent injury at home. Seventeen percent of participants had at least one subsequent injury involving the same activity as their sentinel injury; 28% of those whose sentinel injury was a result of contact in sport had at least one subsequent injury also involving sport. ConclusionsSubsequent injuries among people presenting to healthcare providers are common. Greater emphasis should be placed on maximising such healthcare provider contact as an injury prevention opportunity.

Does injury claim status and benefit status predict low back pain outcomes?

In New Zealand the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is a state-funded insurance agency that accepts claims for accidental injuries, including lumbar spine injuries. It is unknown whether ACC claim status (accepted, not accepted) affects low back pain (LBP) outcomes, or whether benefit status (e.g., sickness, disability) further affects outcomes in patients without ACC cover. This study aimed to determine whether ACC claim and benefit status are likely to influence a range of outcomes for people with LBP in New Zealand. A prospective survey of low back pain patients was performed (April 2008-October 2010). ACC claim status was recorded, and individuals without accepted claims indicated benefit status. Surveys were sent at multiple time points; pain, functional limitation, psychological factors, and general health were assessed. Statistical analysis was undertaken using ANCOVA and ANOVA (p<0.05). In total, 168 patients completed the study. Six-month measures showed individuals with no ACC claim for LBP to overall have poorer outcomes (mental health, p=0.039; pain, p=0.045; functional limitation, p=0.049); sub-group analysis (no ACC claim) between those with or without a benefit showed those on benefits to have significantly higher functional limitation (p<0.001), poorer physical health (p=0.002), greater pain (p=0.027), and stronger fear avoidance behaviours for both work (p=0.047) and physical activity (p=0.35). Findings indicate individuals with accepted ACC claims for LBP have significantly better outcomes than those without, and patients on benefits with no accepted ACC claim for LBP have even poorer outcomes.

USING CROWD-SOURCING TO DRIVE INNOVATION IN INJURY PREVENTION—RESULTS OF A PILOT PROGRAMME

BackgroundInjuries outside of work and road make up 80% of claims to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), about half of which are for injuries sustained in a fall. ACC claims...