Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Quote from the post above: "(NB: Since this post was submitted the ministry has published its “first internal actuarial report produced in relation to the forward liabilities of the welfare system.”)"
I guess it is this:
http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/evaluation/investment-approach/key-findings.htmlSo was this due to someone at MSD working on Sundays, or did you (the author) submit this "post" in draft form to them, before publication today?
As for these welfare "reforms", indeed there is a lot of secrecy about them, and I know a few people who have requested further details by way of OIA requests, and were denied information. One has a complaint before the Ombudsman, which is now under "review" for about 10 months, and they seem to be seeking further info from MSD, who are reluctant to be transparent.
One request was also for details about numbers of designated doctor referrals, and how many of those were were overruling clients' own (Host) doctor reports. Also asked was the salary paid to Principal Health Advisor Dr Bratt, who is one key player in managing, directing and guiding medical examination and assessment processes, who himself has repeatedly likened benefit dependence to "drug dependence". He is in charge of the Regional Health Advisors and also Regional Disability Advisors in the MSD Regional Offices, and he "mentors" them, and he also has input in "training" designated doctors.
It seems to me, that the unwillingness to present sought reports, also about the evaluation of reform outcomes by MSD, is due to ideology having flowed into policy, for instance by adopting "findings" by controversial UK professor Mansel Aylward, who developed his research and recommendations while being "sponsored" by UNUM Provident insurance corporation, one of the largest health and disability insurers in the world. UNUM had substantial input in policy development in the UK also, where Aylward was for years Chief Medical Officer at the DWP.
It is very worrying, that under former ATOS staff member Dr David Beaumont, now President Elect of the AFOEM (Australasian Faculty of Occupational and Environmental Medicine), the AFOEM has without much questioning fully adopted the disputed "research" by Aylward, on the supposed "health benefits of work" (in open employment, on the job market). They basically set the framework, guidelines and standards for medical training and practice in Australia and New Zealand.
Earlier reports by Aylward, Waddell and a few other similar minded "experts" from the UK display at least hints of a bias, where allegations about "illness belief" in too many persons on benefits are incessantly repeated in their reports.
Looking at Principal Health Advisor Dr Bratt's "presentations" to GP conferences and training providers and so forth, they often contain references to "experts" like Aylward, Waddell and Burton, and present some very selective, at times bizarre data, with little solid scientific basis.
Hence it seems that the partly ideologically driven welfare reforms (remember the rhetoric from Paula Bennett and others re a "relentless focus on work", and her own references to UK experiences) are stuff that now have MSD worried. The reports and evaluations may well reveal how rather simply COST focused the reforms are, and how questionable science has been relied on, to simply use as a justification of certain measures, like moving sick and disabled from certain benefits.
Again, like under another topic, I suggest people study a bit made available via the following links and forums:
Bratt's presentation 'Ready, Steady,. Crook. Are we killing our patients with kindness?'
http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP%20CME/Friday/C1%201515%20Bratt-Hawker.pdf
(see pages 13, 20, 21 and 35) -
Quote: "Inevitably, some concern will focus on what could be seen as a demotion of the position of news – and perhaps a move to news managerialism. The General Manager of Content will have very broad responsibilities, from news to drama and music."
TVNZ has been "dismantled", so to say, as a "public broadcaster", and was forced to follow the "market direction" determined by the private competitors.
I fear that Radio New Zealand may be turned into a similar kind of broadcaster, having little resemblance to true public broadcasting. Of course they need to move more into the digital age, but do not fix what may not need fixing, I'd say.
Radio NZ is the last rather good quality and independent, balanced media source we have, in public hands, and all these moves must be viewed with great suspicion.
News and independent, balanced, fact based reporting is becoming rare, do not abolish this at Radio New Zealand, please, we are already being "dumbed down" too much elsewhere.
-
This new survey appears to be more inclusive than earlier ones, but it is probably fair and reliable enough, to say that at least one in five - to one in four - New Zealanders has a disability. These include many conditions and impairments suffered due to that, and there will be various degrees of severity also. Many affected also have a number of conditions.
What concerns me is how disability is interpreted and how persons with impairments get treated, by employers, same as government agencies and departments, not only here, but also in places like the UK. From there we have with the more recent welfare reforms been confronted with supposed new "findings", claiming that many persons on benefits are merely suffering forms of "illness belief" and perhaps are even "malingerers", so they stand kind of challenged or accused of not making enough efforts to overcome own issues, and try to get into paid work on the open job market.
A Principal Health Advisor for MSD and WINZ, Dr David Bratt, has in many "presentations" to GP and medical trainee meetings even likened benefit dependence to "drug dependence". It is astonishing that such a public servant can apply such bias and use selected, one sided statistics to make his points.
Of course there is a strong lobby movement supporting people with disabilities into "suitable" employment, by supporting them and also making employers behave less discriminating. I am worried though about the new approach now applied by Work and Income, where they adopted approaches already promoted and introduced in the UK by a controversial "expert" called Professor Mansel Aylward, which means they now rather look at what a client "can do" rather than what they "cannot do". In the UK the reforms with a rigid, harsh and demanding "work capability assessments", actually designed by Mansel Aylward, led to many appalling recommendations and decisions that their DWP relied on, upon getting them from the outsourced assessor ATOS. There were cases of self harm and suicide, reported on in their media.
We are told the approach WINZ use is different and less draconian, but I am not so convinced, as I have heard of some horrible stories some had to tell me. Especially those with mental health issues will be prone to potentially flawed diagnosis, and I am not convinced that WINZ case managers, or even their health and disability advisors, are qualified and trained enough to avoid making dangerously wrong recommendations and decsions on persons' ability to work.
So now WINZ have outsourced so-called "mental health employment services" and also "work ability assessments" to private, contracted providers, who earn nice fees for referring clients into work, or for assessing them on work ability. With such "rewards", and with questions remaining on the quality of scientific findings all this is based on, and with many professionals involved possibly lacking needed qualifications and expertise, I expect that there will be some horror stories coming our way soon. By the way, all these providers, and WINZ staff, are expected to meet TARGETS, and they are also getting paid by MSD. So what does that mean for supposed "independence" of their decisions?
For more researched and collated details on all this, perhaps have a study of the following:
-
Quote: "Firstly, the word “suffer” is disliked by many people with disabilties and it’s regarded as offensive by some people on the autism spectrum, who do not regard themselves as “suffering”. In general, it’s best to be cautious about describing anyone as “suffering” from the disability."
Does anybody here now understand how WINZ now these days interpret "disability"? Has anybody heard of the flawed "science" and purchased "evidence based" "research" by one "Professor Mansel Aylward" from the UK, who happily signed up with UNUM Provident insurance, one of the largest health and disability insurers in the world, who have very vested interests, and who were also convicted in various courts in the US for breaking the law by how they used "assessments" and denied insurance payouts to rightful insurer claims?
Well, the truth is out, and it is not pleasant. The UK followed a welfare model that is geared to dis-entitle disabled and other beneficiaries from the support they used to get, and now we get the same here, thanks to the "servants" coming from the UK, that "sell" the "medicine" here. It is disgusting, and it appalls me, that no mainstream media is catching on, and researching and exposing all this. At least some people do research and use other forums to publish what goes on:
WORK ABILITY ASSESSMENTS DONE FOR WORK AND INCOME – PARTLY FOLLOWING ACC’s APPROACH: A REVEALING FACT STUDY
So have a read, study and get back to honesty and do your jobs, please, MSM.
-
There was in 2008 at least a government that signed the convention by the UN, that was supposed to deliver on the rights of disabled persons here. Sadly, as the government changed later that year, it seems to have become a bit of a neglected matter. I am rather furious about what goes on, and the mainstream media has also failed to put focus on what matters.
We have quietly had an introduction of welfare reforms that treat sick, injured and disabled with little respect now, although officially MSD and WINZ claim the opposit. It is not about "support", "help" and "empowering", when you swing the cleaver about to chop your entitlements off. That is though what is happening in a cunning way, similar to what the governments have done in the UK.
I must appeal to the public, to take note and to inform themselves, and certainly also the MEDIA must feel compelled to do the same, and study stuff like this:
WORK ABILITY ASSESSMENTS DONE FOR WORK AND INCOME – PARTLY FOLLOWING ACC’s APPROACH: A REVEALING FACT STUDY
Treating those on benefits, who are sick, injured and disabled, as if they are perhaps malingerers, like one Professor Aylward from the UK suggests, that is at least close to breaching human and disability rights. I wonder whether anyone out there cares to take note of this, and take a bloody stand, thanks.
Marcus
-
OnPoint: #WTFMSD: "Damning", in reply to John Holley,
John - You are soo right! The same is happening at ACC. There was all this fuss about the privacy leaks, and Pullar going into a meeting with management to negotiate a settlement, while telling them she was sent sensitive info about so many hundreds or more other clients. Heads were rolling. But what else came out and was to some degree proved. They use hatchet doctors, getting paid hundreds of thousands a year, paid to travel all over NZ to do assessments and recommendations on difficult, complex clients that can cost ACC a lot.
Those medicals and rehab professionals were exactly the ones that were known to be on the hard line, and to give ACC the reports and recommendations they wanted. Now has there been much debate about this? No, not the mainstream media did dig into this much, some editorial in the NZ Herald even warning to not go too far in criticising ACC's policies to contain costs.
So all that has now gone under the radar again since September, and privacy, privacy, that is the usual topic.
It stinks, for sure, and poor journalism (being the victim of restructuring, cost saving and focus on mainstream, commercial interests) has something to answer to all this.
-
Welcome to "Ringfenced MSD" and "Ringfenced WINZ"!
This is a hugely sick joke and scandal what is going on. So 4 junior staff members are to blame for it all, for supposed "sloppiness"? How many did warn them (MSD) over the last 2 years, and who was in charge? How above all did the problem start?
This stinks, it stinks, it smells really bad, and it is scandalous. Brendan Boyle and Bennett, same as their top management, they are all just covering up, protecting their possies and salaries. The whole system was set up in a totally flawed manner, then a beneficiary advocate AND the company that was involved in setting up the system, and last not least Bailey and others all warned MSD, and nobody took note and any action?
Of course it is bulls to say the data is only about 10 people. Then they also admitted the other day, it is better not to let the 1 thousand plus people know about them having been affected, as it would cause more harm than good.
This is a bit like the old "Eastern Bloc" kind of mentality and processes being followed at MSD. Or is it the mega corporate approach, covering up a scandal? Shut off, close every communications, hold well timed, brief, highly censored media conferences, cover up and blame the underlings for it all.
I have NO faith in this Ministry, the Minister, her lackey CEOs and how WINZ is run. Trouble is, this is causing a big embarrassment, right when Bennett and the government want to push trough highly controversial welfare reforms.
They do not want that being affected and mud stick on their skirts and trousers.
Dig deeper, dig up all the rot and crap from under there!
-
What an excellent bit of research and legal analysis this is! Thanks for that. We know by now, that Key picks and chooses whatever arguments may suit his agenda. Was it not similar with the 100 per cent pure defence in the Steven Sakur interview on BBC a couple of years back? One scientist says what matters (backed by the majority of scientists), but Key would have nothing of it, saying that is just what one scientist said about NZ's poor environmental record.
He does it with every topic and issue. No-one owns the water is another one. That may well be so under traditional common law, but with the Treaty of Waitangi being accepted under law to at least some fair degree now, he forgets any customary Maori law that may at least in certain cases overrule the old British common law.
The list could go on, and if the mainstream media would bother to look at Key's comments more closely and disect them, this man would not get away with half he gets away with. Sadly most in the wider public just shrug it all off, cannot bother looking at details, and they let him get away with it.
A thorough inquiry into the Dotcom Affair is justified.
-
OnPoint: H4x0rs and You, in reply to Russell Brown,
Russell - Of course I expressed an opinion, but it is also based on personal experiences with a number of "main stream" journalists I corresponded with and in some cases met personally. Then I may add my observation of how certain journalists have conducted interviews and gathered information at certain public events, including some protest actions.
The stories were often presented in a poor manner, interviews were cut so to present comments out of context, often raising eyebrows, facts are reported on selectively, and the list goes on.
Naturally there is a degree of internal evaluation of stories to broadcast or write about, which also results in self censorship, or in being forced follow the particular media employer's "standards" and "priorities", which editors enforce.
Looking at most the "news" presented, I miss real news about real issues facing real people, apart form road deaths, crime cases, weather stories, the inevitably high volume of sports, celeb gossip and what you have. Yes, there are of course reports on politics, but too little goes into matters of detail and substance, and sadly some is misrepresented, as was the report by Heather on One News the other day (re the supposed "hacker"), what this blog is about.
Yet, of course, some journalists are good, principled, take their jobs very serious and offer some good journalistic work.
So, with all respect, there is much left to be desired. I worry also about (former Media7) Media3 now perhaps facing some "pressure" from TV3, when it comes to content and critical issues. Maybe I am wrong, but you will know more about that.
-
Keith - you must have known before, at least in your gut, that the bulk of journalists in NZ are shallow, two faced, opportunistic and principle lacking folk. I am sorry to say so, but it is the bloody truth. NZ media has sunk close to gutter level, when you bother to look at the news and information presented. It is NOT information, most of it is "infotainment" of little value, of little substance, and there is almost NO investigative journalism left. So you learned the hard way.
There are still a few journos about that do the hard work, but they are far and between, do not get the credit they deserve, are mostly underpaid and also often disillusioned with the commercialised environment now ruling the whole "business".
You are making sense, are right, I believe, in saying that many stories like that on TVOne are just not worth even broadcasting, but they do. They get away with all this, because sadly too many are ill informed, brain-washed and ignorant.
We need more blogs, more alternative reporting and investigating, we need more guys like you and your mates, to dig up the shit that happens every day.
Also we need a new attempt at alternative, independent, "public" or at least less commercially focused broadcasting media, to show that it can be done, without wasting money on over-paid, over-painted and manicured newsreaders on crappy channels dominating the scene. Get back to basics. We still have Triangle here in Auckland, for how long? Stratos is gone, so TVNZ7.
I hope we get something good again soon. The existing crap is indigestible and an insult to intelligent consumers. Your blog is refreshing and worth following.