At a time when ACC finances are coming under growing scrutiny, a Dunedin family is worried about what they see as excessive equipment-related costs being charged by a provider firm.
John Kaye is a tetraplegic and University of Otago classics graduate, who is pursuing his strong interest in the classics through further study, for an MA.
An electric hoist, which he uses for moving in and out of his wheelchair and bed, needs to be replaced. ACC has agreed to pay for the hoist, which is attached to an existing overhead gantry beam in the family home.
Mr Kaye's parents, Vincent and Elwyn Kaye, are concerned about what they see as the excessively high cost of installing the hoist.
ACC was late last year quoted $2929 for this work by national firm Rehab Equipment Co, which provides specialist equipment, including for the ACC and district health boards.
The Kayes believe the existing overhead rail for the hoist can be reused, and that little more is needed than several heavy-duty bolts and brackets to attach the new hoist.
"Installation specifications indicate the rail is fixed by three 100mm-by-10mm lag bolts. This equates to $1000 per bolt," Mrs Kaye said.
The existing hoist had been installed previously by the owners for the cost of six bolts, and the installation quote was "exorbitant and highly questionable".
The Kayes say they have also been left in a "bureaucratic dilemma" by ACC's insistence they must give signed approval for a "housing modification" before the hoist is installed.
The Kayes believe attaching a hoist to an existing gantry is not a "housing modification", and providing such approval could potentially also allow other unspecified changes to be made to their house.
ACC campaigner Denise Powell, of Dunedin, said it was ironic some providers of ACC equipment and services seemed to be under less cost scrutiny than ACC claimants.
Rehab Equipment Co Canterbury-Otago regional manager Isaac Bishop said the firm provided high-quality equipment and service and also emphasised transparency and honesty.
The quoted installation charge was not excessive and many factors were involved, he said.
If the firm undertook the installation, it would bring in a specialist installer from out of town, and the cost also included testing and certification.
The installation would be under long-term warranty and the firm carried full liability if anything went wrong with it.
A fatality had occurred - not involving the firm's equipment - after a patient hoist failed in the North Island last year.
If equipment users wanted to organise the installation, the firm was happy to provide the required equipment, Mr Bishop said.
ACC National Serious Injury Service acting manager John Payne said ACC was "working hard to support a young man to achieve independence".
Installing specialised hoist equipment was an important part of helping him achieve that independence and was "a good use of money".
ACC was " fully satisfied" the quoted costs "fall within reasonable, cost-effective parameters for this type of project".
Asked if contract costs for ACC equipment providers were being adequately scrutinised at a time when ACC claimants were under cost-reduction scrutiny, Mr Payne said ACC carefully monitored "the amount paid to providers" carrying out home-modification work for ACC clients.
Asked about the "building-modification" concerns, he said some hoist-related work could require structural changes to a house.
It was "essential that ACC receives the written consent of all owners of the property", he said.
