"If this is supposed to be the gravy train, I'm on the wrong train." So said a colleague of mine about her experience of being part of the so-called "sexual abuse industry".© Fairfax New Zealand Ltd 2010
I echo her comments, applicable now to an even greater extent with the introduction last October of the New Pathway in the Sensitive Claims Unit of ACC. As a provider of treatment for injury from sexual abuse I am seen to benefit from this industry. It is, however, this experience which enabled me (and others) to predict with sickening foreboding likely developments if the proposed changes to the service went ahead. Every effort was made to warn the Minister of ACC, Dr Nick Smith, that the changes would be disastrous. He chose to rely on his policymakers, who appear to be pursuing ideological agendas which are favoured by this Government.
Chaos reigns in the SCU with staff overwhelmed, with therapists demoralised and many withdrawing their services, with potential clients left totally bewildered and lost. A tiny fraction of new claims only has been accepted since October. It has taken the independent review panel appointed by the Minister to intercede last week on behalf of clients to force the reinstatement of 16 hours to support each new claim. There is much confusion about who can submit claims, who can provide treatment or what will happen next if more sessions are needed. Apart from one media release, no further information has been forthcoming from ACC.
As ACC Minister, Dr Smith spent considerable time and energy blaming the previous minister for allowing policymakers to make apparently unwise property purchases and investments. Under his watch, the SCU has been all but destroyed.
Dr Smith has continued to claim that this process was begun under Labour. Indeed Massey University was asked to develop guidelines as a basis for therapy for treatment of sexual abuse. Under the current National Government, the guidelines were so badly misused that the authors of the report wrote to every newspaper in the country to distance themselves from the new pathway.
Dr Smith has repeatedly stated that "These changes are not about saving money." Presumably this is correct, as the result of deciding to require assessment for mental disorder for each new claim is that psychiatrists and psychologists have been flown around the country at vast expense to establish that the claimant is mentally ill rather than mentally injured. This gives each person accessing the service a mental diagnosis which goes with them for the rest of their lives. This policy still applies.
ACC is taking months to communicate decisions about whether they will or will not pay for sessions for clients in the system. Therapists face the dilemma of continuing to work at the risk of not being paid, or breaking our own ethical codes by stopping work with clients and leaving them feeling abandoned, isolated and unsupported.
For years now, sexual abuse clients have been specifically excluded from accessing mental health services because funding for their treatment was available though ACC. A proportion of our population has been abused, through no fault of their own and which untreated, can detrimentally affect them as individuals, as partners and as parents for the rest of their lives. The apparent overall plan under National is to cut back on social services to the community. Many such cuts are under the radar except for those people directly affected. More radical changes have been promised in their second term, should they win the next election.
Many therapists with specialist skills and years of experience in the treatment of sexual abuse have withdrawn their services and will not work for ACC again while current conditions apply.
Regrettably I am one of these. I am off the train.
(Susan Hawthorne is a registered psychotherapist, a member of the NZ Association of Psychotherapists, and a campaigner against injustice.)
http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/nelson-mail-the/mi_8062/is_20100821/sexual-abuse-treatment-shambolic-disarray/ai_n54911803/
It's a double edged sword... we need people like Susan to remain as ACC therapists... we need their expertise, ethics and skill... but those qualities also mean that these therapists are less likely to stay under the current ACC system.
ReplyDeleteI found this when I was searching for a new therapist, so many said that they were no longer doing ACC work. This, despite me having a DSM diagnosis and an accepted claim under the old system. Most of the therapists that I contacted didn't have the skills to assist with my DSM diagnosis. I was lucky to find one who was willing to see me and navigate the ACC pathway to establish whether I would still get assistance or not.
No matter what the outcome of the review, I fear that many of the highly skilled therapists who left ACC, won't return. Leaving vulnerable clients with few, or no, options.
Take care,
CG