Mind the Gap: Getting Back on Track

One (but not the only) way of gauging how we're doing at managing safe outcomes is to track the cost of claims paid for dealing with injuries - literally, the price we pay for the harm that follows unintended actions, unwise decisions and poorly considered responses or (sometimes) reactions.

Information from Data

In 2019 I wanted to get a handle on the cost of injuries to government (and the taxpayer) so, under the the Official Information Act, 1982, I obtained the relevant data from ACC (The New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation). For those who do not 'know' ACC: it is the sole provider of accident insurance for all injuries to people in New Zealand, and therefore responsible for paying claims for personal harm due to accidents: irrespective of where the injuries were sustained (i.e .whether in the workplace, or at home, or at play, does not matter).

That data spanned the period: Jan 2007 to June 2019. I took the data in its raw form and grouped the injuries into 7 categories:

At Home, On the Road, At Work, At School, at Play, In Hospital and Other / Unknown.

What I saw back then made me sit up and take note: that, despite all efforts, the costs of accident claims paid out have (with a notable exception) been increasing. And not just increasing a little - increasing in a (6th degree) polynomial curve.

I wanted to know whether COVID-19 has had any effect on curbing that increase ? Answering that required more current data, and so I put in a request and received the relevant data to fill in the information gap.

It seemed reasonable that, over the 14 years represented by the data, the increase in the cost of claims should at least (to some degree) correspond to the factored increase in our population.

Graphing It

I needed to put that to the test; so using the population of NZ at end on 2017 (4.2 million) and the total of ACC claims paid for that year ($2.1 Billion) as the basis for an index, I proceeded to obtain the populations for each year in the data range from Stats NZ and then, having determined the growth of population as a factor of that back in 2007, apply that to each year in the range to calculate the Expected Cost of Claims.

I tabulated and then graphed the results - shown graphically below.

The blue line represents population growth over time AND what one would be expect ACC Claims paid out to be for any year if they were adjusted for 'population inflation' - indexed always to 2007.

We'd expect ACC to have paid out claims totaling $2.6 Billion for the population of 5.1 million at the end of 2020.

The blue line also represents a track which can be used as a baseline to establish any variation from, and tell us whether our efforts at delivering safe outcomes are, in the main, succeeding, or not.

So, what does the factual picture look like ? Is there a match between expectation and reality, or to use a currently fashionable safety buzz phrase 'Work as imagined vs Work as done' ?

To readily compare, a red line has been plotted which represents the actual ACC claim costs paid out over the period of the data. In effect we've now got two lines - which, ideally, should be like railway tracks and run parallel; or be converging if our safety efforts have been worth their salt.

What we found was this:

2007 and 2008: The First Two Years

As 2007 represents the benchmark for the index, expected and actual ACC claim costs paid out over this period are the same.

2008 saw an increase in actual costs of about $287 million above what was expected (the corresponding point on the blue line); but then something positive happened: the red line dipped.

2009 to 2011: The Golden Years

The 'Golden Years' (the period Jan 2009 to Dec 2011) are an anomaly in being the only period in this graph where you will see actual ACC costs paid out (at first) declining, and then dipping below the expected costs. You'll be asking why the noticeable dip? Well, my friends, I have a theory but am open to other takes on why we see this.

I do need to state that, whatever safety campaigns were in place leading up to 2012 were working, and those folk involved in safety initiatives back then deserve credit for what they were doing; but their hard work was about to be undone - by none other (I believe) than technology.

In a nutshell (and very simply put), this is the pre-smart phone era. There are a multitude of studies that show just good smart phones have been at effectively dumbing down folk, reducing their spans of concentration and introducing distraction into their lives. For more, read my article Smartphones: the Common Factor in Road Deaths and SAD

Around 2011 / 2012 was the point in time when 'smart' phones had been adopted by more than 50% of the population of much of the 'modern world' i.e. reached critical mass leading to (as the graph so clearly shows) a tipping (or in this case an inflection) point.

So, the years pre-2011 were 'Golden' in being largely free of the destructive influences of smart phones.

Let's move on then, shall we ..

2012 to 2020: Leaping Forward: Mind the Gap !

From Jan 2012 to date shows an ever increasing upwards trend of actual costs of claims paid out by ACC for injuries. Our red and blue lines have well and truly diverged.

I'll not speculate here on all the causes - as the purpose of this article is to present the data - however, you already know how I feel about those so called 'smart phones'....

Closing the Gap - without 'Silver Bullets'

So, how do we figuratively 'get back on track' ? First off, let me say that anyone who claims they have a 'silver bullet' fix should be avoided like the plague and sent to deal with werewolves - which is the only thing silver bullets fix. Those 'silver bullet people' have self-centred agendas, egos the size of Mt Everest and are likely close-minded types willfully ignorant of alternate ways of achieving desired outcomes.

Just as government are using a range of approaches to fix our long-standing housing unaffordability crisis in New Zealand; so would a range of approaches be needed to bring us closer to what would be tolerated as being acceptable.

So, what is acceptable ?

Looking at the graph a different way - variation between the tracks as multiple - shows the first 'blip' in actual costs (in 2008) was a multiple of 1.1 times the expected costs when taking population inflation into account. Compare that to the multiple for 2020: Actual costs were 1.6 times that of the expected costs.

Going for Green: An Achievable Target

If we were to accept a multiple of 1.1 times expected costs as being a realistic on-going goal, then, when we get (back) there, maintaining parallel tracks could be achievable: as it's only a small variation. I realize that picking and then adopting a multiple of 1.1 is 'arbitrary' - but some kind of target is better than none, plus, if we've been there before we can do so again.

The green line represents the 1.1 multiple target and runs (just like a railway track) parallel to the population inflation-adjusted expected costs of injuries represented by the blue line.

The downward arrow presents the current gap from a 1.1 multiple target. It also depicts the scale of effort required on a national level to reign-in injuries to our citizens.

On this matter, I do have to nail my colours to the mast and state that I do not subscribe to a target of zero injuries. To do so would be denying our very humanness and create a noble but utterly unsustainable target.

Right now with the tracks having diverged to the extent they have, it will require superhuman efforts to bend that red line downwards towards a convergent track; but clearly, this is something we have to do - for a country with a small population we have one helluvah bill for injuries ! 1.3% of GDP : ($322 Billion, Dec 2020) that should much rather be spent on addressing our housing unaffordability situation and many other worthy causes and endeavours.

So, Where to From Here ?

What I am prepared to say is this: "Clearly, what we have been doing since 2013 has been largely ineffective in the long run." Bear in mind the data paints a picture of how we've been re doing as a nation - it's 'the Big Picture'. There are plenty of individual concerns and entities that do a sterling job of preventing significant injuries and their efforts are acknowledged.

If more leaders understood that the costs of performing a task unsafely are up to

36 times

?that of doing so safely, we'd be at, or below, the green line....

Despite the introduction and adoption of the relatively new-fangled concepts of Safety II or Safety Differently (not convinced of either, but certainly support the sentiment of doing things 'differently';) continuing as is will only continue to bear the same fruit: the costs associated with harm will continue to rise out of proportion to any increase in our population...

So, What Will Help ?

Coming to the party without some proposal would simply be poor form. I think the answers to the question "What will have the most impact on accident rates in coming years?" posed in the Face of the Profession survey by the 674 respondents to the Health+Safety At Work magazine, August 2019 issue, give us some clues as to where we should be focusing our efforts to get best bang for our buck, and to begin closing the gap between expected and actual costs of harm.

The top 3 items all focus on people - not systems. Systems are seldom (if ever) designed 'as people' think, act or do; yet it is people who enact safety systems. People are motivated to act on emotion: generally to either avoid pain (think taking a short cut) or to gain pleasure (obtain recognition). Now show me one system that considers emotion ....

It's no co-incidence that 'software management systems' ranked 2nd lowest in their perceived effectiveness in reducing accident rates.

I'm advocating teaching people life-enhancing soft (non-technical) skills - remember, it is people who (though their interactions) enact safety systems, SOPs, checklists etc. are only good for the situation they've been written for; but take no account of variations and the rapidly changing world we now live in ... Dealing with variation from the norm requires human intervention and either continuing as is, or changing the on-going course of action following a considered response.

Next Station Ahead

So, going back to my original question: has COVID-19 reduced the actual cost of injuries to New Zealanders ?

For 2020, the first year COVID-19 has been a factor in injury claims costs, for all but two categories, the actual costs of injuries have increased

The two categories that have reduced actual costs compared to that of the previous year (2019 free of COVID) are: At Play (down by roughly $6 million) and At School (down by about $3 million). It would be reasonable to deduce that time away from schools and sports grounds because of COVID-19, was a downward driver of injury claims costs; however, for the remaining categories the data shows that there has been no reprieve.

If you want to do the smart thing, invest in your people - with meaningful life-enhancing skills: ones that enable:

• Dealing with distraction and change;
• Having resilience and a mindset of anti-fragility that allows personal growth as a consequence of adversity and failure;
• Being open to conscious change though humility and curiosity:
• Communicating effectively;
• Thinking critically by questioning expertise and the ;
• Having the confidence to voice concerns and challenge on-going actions;
• Being able to dynamically assess risk by recognizing and responding to cues and then change intended actions when appropriate, despite organizational expectation and momentum; and
• To make wise decisions that ultimately, lead to safe outcomes.

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. 

Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. Lao Tzu

And remember, (actively) 'Mind the Gap'.....

For those who would like a detailed breakdown of the data; please contact me at:

[email protected]