service delivery under the partnership programme and the acc scheme
DESCRIPTION
Service delivery under the Partnership Programme and the ACC Scheme A comparison based on the perceptions of AE employees and ACC-managed clients injured at work November 2008. Introduction. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Service delivery under the Partnership Programme and the ACC SchemeA comparison based on the perceptions of AE employees and ACC-managed clients injured at work
November 2008
2Research New Zealand | November 2008
This is a presentation based on the opinions of AE employees who have received help and assistance from either their employer or a third party (under the Partnership Programme) as a result of an injury at work:
Surveys of a sample of these employees are completed every year
This year’s survey was completed between 23 September and 2 October 2008, with a total sample of 405 people who had been injured at work between 31 January and 22 July 2008
It is the fifth such survey that has been completed (since 2003) This year, for the first time, we also re-interviewed a sample of
employees (n=227) who had been injured in 2007 and interviewed that year, in order to establish a Sustainable RTW rate.
Introduction
3Research New Zealand | November 2008
In terms of areas of questioning, the survey questionnaire is aligned with that of ACC’s “Operations Survey” and the “Exited Claimants Survey”, both conducted on a continuous basis for the Corporation:
This has made direct comparisons possible with the equivalent group of ACC-managed clients (i.e. people who have injured themselves at work between 31 January and 22 July 2008).
Introduction (continued)
4Research New Zealand | November 2008
Key results from this year’s PartnershipProgramme Survey
5Research New Zealand | November 2008
The service experience, as perceived by employees, was as follows …
61 percent claimed they had heard of the Partnership Programme, and 88 percent of these stated their employer belonged to it
54 percent saw themselves as being “informed” or “very informed” about the type and help and assistance they could get from the organisation managing their claim before their injury
60 percent said they had contact with this organisation within 5 days of lodging their claim
70 percent claimed they had discussed what type of help and assistance they might need to recover
Of these employees, 86 percent came to an agreement about the help and assistance they would receive and 84 percent of these were satisfied with the assessment process.
6Research New Zealand | November 2008
As a result, overall satisfaction is high, and has improved on the result for previous years
7974
81
0
20
40
60
80
100
Mar 2006 (n=401) Oct 2007 (n=501) Oct 2008 (n=405)
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
7Research New Zealand | November 2008
The main reasons given for satisfactionrelated to …
The fact that the service was “smooth and complete” (43 percent of those satisfied)
“They made me feel they couldn’t do enough for me. I asked for something and they did it. They found ways for me to do things. They were just fantastic.”
“The have taken [me] right through the steps, from having the injury, and work through it and supported me all the way until I am back at work.”
There was “good communication” (28 percent of those satisfied)
“Services and info were very good and helpful. [The people were] very approachable and had answers to all the questions [I had].”
“They listened to all my problems and took on board the problems, both the manager and my mentor, and we worked together as a team to get me back to normal health again.”
8Research New Zealand | November 2008
The main reasons given for satisfactionrelated to … (continued)
Other reasons given by employees included the fact that the service was “timely” (12 percent of those satisfied), “compensation was provided” (11 percent of those satisfied), and they “received (appropriate) assistance to RTW” (10 percent of those satisfied).
9Research New Zealand | November 2008
The same reasons were given for being dissatisfied, including …
“Pressure to RTW” (20 percent of those dissatisfied)
“The way they handled my case and pushed me around. I told them I can’t go back to work and they forced me to return to work and then I got a second injury.”
“Because there was no concern, all they ever want to know [was] when I’ll return to work.”
Specific reference to “poor service received from their Case Coordinator/Case Manager” (21 percent of those dissatisfied)
“Had to chase it up, it was like they didn’t know what they were doing. They were very unprofessional. For example, they lost my paperwork, I didn’t get paid, they’d used my sick pay and then I’d have to chase it up with [provider].”
“The doctor was great but the person who is my representative from my company was totally inconsiderate and rude and put me in positions where I shouldn’t have been… he was totally insensitive.”
10Research New Zealand | November 2008
The same reasons were given for being dissatisfied, including … (continued)
(Type of, number of) “entitlements provided” (23 percent of those dissatisfied)
“I don’t know if the money I received is enough to feed my family and if it is the [same amount of] money I received when I was working.”
“If I ever get hurt at work again I won’t tell them. I’ll say I [got] hurt at home because you get nothing from them. You have to fight for everything you get.”
11Research New Zealand | November 2008
The high level of overall satisfaction was also reflected in general perceptions of the service employees had received
70
78
80
80
80
81
81
0 20 40 60 80 100
They were always thinking aheadabout how to help me recover
I understood what everyone'sresponsibilities were in the overall
claims process
The information received helped meunderstand what was going to
happen next
The claims process was fast andhassle free
The processing and receipt of myentitlements occurred in a timely
manner
I was treated like a person not anumber
I felt cared for and was treated withrespect
Percentage of respondents
12Research New Zealand | November 2008
And in their satisfaction with the specific parts of the service delivery process – claim application
4536
32
37
32
2
89
99 12
4
49
73 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mar 2006 (n=401) Oct 2007 (n=501) Oct 2008 (n=405)
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
Don't know
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neither
Satisfied
Very satisfied
13Research New Zealand | November 2008
And in their satisfaction with the specific parts of the service delivery process – information received
39 35
4443
39
23
78
7
7 10
45
2
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mar 2006 (n=401) Oct 2007 (n=501) Oct 2008 (n=405)
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
Don't know
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neither
Satisfied
Very satisfied
14Research New Zealand | November 2008
And in their satisfaction with the specific parts of the service delivery process – vocational rehabilitation
39
53
40
31
38
810 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Oct 2007 (n=285) Oct 2008 (n=209)
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
Don't know
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neither
Satisfied
Very satisfied
15Research New Zealand | November 2008
And in their satisfaction with the specific parts of the service delivery process – Case Manager
6154
2427
23
33
47
58 8
64
3
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mar 2006 (n=334) Oct 2007 (n=427) Oct 2008 (n=354)
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
Don't know
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neither
Satisfied
Very satisfied
16Research New Zealand | November 2008
However, awareness of the “Code of Claimants’ Rights” is still relatively low
3528
34
37 39
6965
27
66
0
20
40
60
80
100
Mar 2006 (n=401) Oct 2007 (n=501) Oct 2008 (n=405)
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
Promptedawareness
Unpromptedawareness
17Research New Zealand | November 2008
The ultimate measure of satisfaction is, in our opinion, the recommendation rate and this has improved
53 57
21
28
9
313
103
3
0
20
40
60
80
100
Oct 2007 (n=501) Oct 2008 (n=405)
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
resp
on
de
nts Don't know
Definitely not recommendthem
Probably not recommendthem
Recommend them, but withsome reservations
Definitely recommend them
18Research New Zealand | November 2008
13
4
Time off work76
No time off work
2483
Returned, but off work again
Still off work
Returned to work
Many had taken time off work, but the RTW rate is relatively high
19Research New Zealand | November 2008
Almost two-thirds of those RTW had returned to the same conditions
Sub Sample
2008 Base = 242*
% Returned to same employer 94 Returned to same duties 80 Returned to same hours 72 Receiving same weekly income 65 Returned to exact same conditions 61 Received follow up contact 42
*Sub-sample based on respondents who took time off work due to their injury
and had returned to work at the time of the interview.
20Research New Zealand | November 2008
Also, the Sustainable RTW rate is relatively high, with 88 percent of re-interviewed employees still at work after reporting being at work in 2007
87
0
20
40
60
80
100
Partnership Programme clients
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
21Research New Zealand | November 2008
What do these results mean?
Service delivery has improved (as far as employees are concerned)
While dissatisfaction is lower than it has been, at 16 percent it is still relatively high, especially given some of the process-related reasons given for this.
22Research New Zealand | November 2008
Comparisons with ACC’s “Operations Survey” & “Exited Claimants Survey”
23Research New Zealand | November 2008
7974
81
89
0
20
40
60
80
100
Mar 2006 (n=401) Oct 2007 (n=501) Oct 2008 (n=405) ACC Clients(n=501)
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
Despite the improvement, ACC’s clients continue to report a higher level of overall satisfaction
24Research New Zealand | November 2008
7783 82
85
93
7378
7481
64
8184
8087
64
87 8792
0
20
40
60
80
100
Claim applicationprocess
Information received Help and assistancereceived
Service received fromCase Manager
Follow-up supportreceived
Per
cent
age
satis
fied
Mar 2006 (n=401) Oct 2007 (n=501) Oct 2008 (n=405) ACC Clients (n=501)
ACC’s clients also report higher satisfaction for some key parts of the service delivery process
25Research New Zealand | November 2008
65
73
0
20
40
60
80
100
Partnership Programme clients ACC clients
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
ACC’s clients also report a higher level of awareness of the “Code of Claimants’ Rights”
26Research New Zealand | November 2008
ACC’s claimants also report a higher rate of recommendation
5766
28
24
3310 4
3 3
0
20
40
60
80
100
Partnership Programmeclients
ACC clients
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
Don't know
Definitely not recommend them
Probably not recommend them
Recommend them, but withsome reservations
Definitely recommend them
27Research New Zealand | November 2008
Return to work rate
83 82
0
20
40
60
80
100
Partnership Programme clients ACC clients
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
The RTW rate and the Sustainable RTW rate are similar to ACC
Sustainable return to work rate
87 88
0
20
40
60
80
100
Partnership Programme clients ACC clientsP
erce
ntag
e of
res
pond
ents
28Research New Zealand | November 2008
AE employees’ clients are more likely to return to their exact same conditions
27
45
63
68
69
42
61
65
72
80
94
0 20 40 60 80 100
Received follow upsupport
Exact same conditions
Same weekly income
Same hours
Same duties
Same employer
Percentage of respondents
ACC clients Partnership Programme clients
29Research New Zealand | November 2008
Assuming there are no significant differences in expectations between AE employees and ACC clients, and despite the different RTW outcomes, ACC would appear to have a better performing service delivery model.
What do these results mean?
30Research New Zealand | November 2008
A possible explanation for the improved results & a possible area in which to target
improvement
31Research New Zealand | November 2008
The service received (acknowledgment of claim, perceived informedness, etc.)
Overall satisfaction
Satisfaction with specific parts of the service delivery process
Awareness of “Code of Claimants’ Rights”
Recommendation rates
RTW rates and outcomes.
There are significant differences between employees managed by their employer and those managed by a third party, as seen in …
32Research New Zealand | November 2008
There are significant differences in service levels …
Total Sample
2008 Employer Third Party Base = 405 184 164
% % % Very informed prior to injury 24 35 22 Contacted within five days of lodgement* 60 75 57 Had discussions about what help and
assistance was needed 70 70 70 Came to an agreement about help and
assistance† 86 88 86 Satisfied with the needs assessment process* 84 91 82
*Sub-sample based on respondents who reported discussing help and assistance needed.
†Sub-sample based on respondents who had contact with a representative of the organisation managing their claim.
33Research New Zealand | November 2008
There are significant differences in terms of overall satisfaction with the service …
81
89
79
0
20
40
60
80
100
Total sample Employer managed Third party managed
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
34Research New Zealand | November 2008
There are significant differences in terms of specific parts of the service deliveryprocess …
Total Sample
2008 Employer Third Party Base = 405 184 164
% % % Satisfied with claim application process 81 92 79 Satisfied with information received 84 92 83 Satisfied with vocational rehabilitation* 76 64 78 Satisfied with Case Manager† 87 93 85
*Sub-sample based on respondents who received vocational rehabilitation.
†Sub-sample based on respondents who had a Case Manager.
35Research New Zealand | November 2008
There are no differences in terms of employees’ awareness of the “Code of Claimants’ Rights”
6562
66
0
20
40
60
80
100
Total sample Employer managed Third party managed
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
36Research New Zealand | November 2008
There are significant differences in terms of employees’ willingness to recommend
5765
2822
29
3 33
10 5 10
34
55
3
0
20
40
60
80
100
Total sample Employer managed Third partymanaged
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
Don't know
Definitely not recommend them
Probably not recommend them
Recommend them, but withsome reservations
Definitely recommend them
37Research New Zealand | November 2008
Return to work rate
83
70
85
0
20
40
60
80
100
Total sample Employer managed Third party managed
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
Sustainable return to work rate
87 89 87
0
20
40
60
80
100
Total sample Employer managed Third party managed
Per
cent
age
of r
espo
nden
ts
There are significant differences in terms of employees’ RTW rate, but the sustainable RTW rate is the same
38Research New Zealand | November 2008
There are also some differences in terms of employees’ RTW outcomes
Sub Sample
2008 Employer Third Party Base = 242* 108 104
% % % Returned to same employer 94 88 94 Returned to same duties 80 80 80 Returned to same hours 72 79 71 Receiving same weekly income 65 61 65 Returned to exact same conditions 61 65 60 Received follow up contact 42 47 41
*Sub-sample based on respondents who took time off work due to their injury
and had returned to work at the time of the interview.
39Research New Zealand | November 2008
Despite the higher RTW rate, the service experience of AE employees managed by third parties is perceived to be significantly less satisfactory than that of employees who are managed by their own employer.
This result may be a function of the contracts employers have with their third parties.
What do these results mean?
Questions & Comments?