Remember when reading this that the Turnbull Government is still intending to proceed with its planned further corporate tax cuts reportedly worth an est. $65 billion. Compare this policy with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) funding in Budget 2018-19 which is $43 billion over four years and no dedicated NDIS funding stream established as had been previously promised.
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE
NDIA’S SPECIALIST DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION PROVIDER AND INVESTOR BRIEF
The National Disability
Insurance Agency (NDIA) presented its latest policy position for Specialist
Disability Accommodation (SDA) in a statement to the provider and investor
market on 24 April.
People with disabilities
and developers of innovative housing for people with disabilities are pleased
the NDIA has reiterated the government’s commitment to SDA in its SDA Provider
and Investor Brief. The NDIA has confirmed that the SDA funding model is here
to stay.
However, the NDIA’s SDA
Brief expresses a vision for SDA housing with a clear bias toward shared models
of housing for people with disability, presumably to reduce support costs. This
is unacceptable. You can read our joint statement here (A Rich text format is available here).
The
Australian,
16 May 2018:
The executives of the
flagship National Disability Insurance Scheme, which received guaranteed
funding worth tens of billions of dollars in last week’s budget, have launched
a crackdown on support funding to keep a lid on ballooning costs.
The razor is being taken
to hundreds, possibly thousands, of annual support plans as they come up for
review, demonstrating a new hawkish approach from National Disability
Insurance Agency bosses but resulting in the loss of funding and support for
vulnerable families. In many cases, support packages for families have been cut
by half.
The early years of the
$22 billion program’s rollout saw wild variability in the value and type of
support being granted to participants, forcing executives to come up with a way
to claw back funding that has “an impact on sustainability”. In the process,
people with disabilities and their families have been shocked by sudden
reversals of fortune….
In its quarterly report,
the NDIA noted there was a “mismatch” between reference packages — rough
cookie-cutter guides for how much packages ought to be in normal circumstances
— and the value of annual support packages which affected the financial
sustainability of the scheme.
“The management’s
response to this is to closely ensure that significant variations away from
reference amounts (above and below) are closely monitored and justified,” a
spokesman said.
“Reference packages are
not used as a tool to reduce package amounts to below what is reasonable and
necessary. Individual circumstances are considered in determining budgets,
including goals and aspirations.
“A reference package
does not restrict the amount or range of support provided to a participant, but
acts as a starting point for planners to use for similar cohorts. It provides
amounts that are suitable for a given level of support needs that has been
adjusted for individual circumstances.”
The agency has claimed
the implementation of this process has started to reduce funding blowouts and a
hearing into the scheme by federal parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on the
NDIS last Friday heard startling evidence about how widespread the new approach
is.
Donna Law, whose
21-year-old son has severe disabilities, was told by an NDIS planner: “Donna,
watch out because your son’s next plan is going to be cut by about half.”
Clare Steve had funding
cut in half by the NDIA and wanted to do another review.
“I spoke to multiple
people, because no one would actually give me the paperwork to do the next lot
of reviewing,” Ms Steve told the hearing.
“I was told by multiple
people that it was a mistake: ‘Do not go for another review.
“If you go for another
review, you could get your funding cut again’.”
ABC News, 19 May 2018:
ABC News, 19 May 2018:
Bureaucrats are reportedly working on a strategy to curb costs by tightening up the eligibility requirements after a blowout in the number families seeking NDIS support packages for people with autism.
ABC
News, 19 May
2018:
Last December, Sam's
case was one of about 14,000 sitting in the NDIS's review backlog, according to a damning
ombudsman's report this week. Then, about 140,000 participants were in
the scheme.
The review queue has
since shrunk, but the agency in charge of the world-first scheme — a
Commonwealth department known as the National Disability Insurance Agency
(NDIA) — still receives about 640 review requests each week.
Some of those requests
do not reflect badly on the NDIA. People can request an unscheduled review if
their circumstances change, for example if their condition improves.
But the agency often is
culpable when it comes to another type of review, known as an internal review.
People ask for these when they disagree with the plan and funding package they
are given.
Some reviews come from
people who feel short-changed, given the state government support they
previously received, or because of the high expectations associated with the
scheme.
But the Government is
also to blame. The NDIS's full-scheme launch in mid-2016 was a disaster.
The computer system failed. A backlog of NDIS applications quickly emerged.
Plans were then often
completed over the phone and rushed. Key staff lacked training and experience.
There was little consistency in the decisions being made.
The scheme's IT system
remains hopeless, and elements of its bureaucracy are not much better,
according to the watchdog's report.
The agency accepted all
20 of the ombudsman's recommendations, and Social Services Minister Dan Tehan
said work was underway to bust the backlog "over coming months".
* In February 2018, the
NDIA advised around 8,100 reviews remained in the backlog and the national
backlog team was clearing around 200 reviews each week. The NDIA also advised
it continues to receive around 620 new review requests each week, which are
handled by regional review staff.
* We have received
complaints about the NDIA’s handling of participant-initiated requests for
review. In particular, these complaints concern the NDIA: (1) not acknowledging
requests for review; (2) not responding to enquiries about the status of a
request; or (3) actioning requests for an internal review as requests for a
plan review.
*Participants also
complained they had sought updates on the receipt and/or progress of their
requests by calling the Contact Centre and by telephoning or emailing local
staff. They reported not receiving a response, leaving messages that were not
returned and being told someone would contact them—but no one did.
* In our view, the
absence of clear guidance to staff about the need to acknowledge receipt of
review requests is concerning. Indeed, the large number of complaints to our Office
where complainants are unclear about the status of their review indicates the
lack of a standardised approach to acknowledgements is driving additional,
unnecessary contact with both the NDIA and our Office.
* Our Office monitors
and reports on complaint themes each quarter. Review delays was the top
complaint issue for all four quarters in 2017.
* Some participants have
told us they have been waiting for up to eight or nine months for a decision on
their review request, without any update on its progress or explanation of the
time taken.
In some instances, the
participant’s existing plan has expired before the NDIA has made a decision on
their request for review. As review decisions can only be made prospectively,
it can mean a participant must go through the whole process for the new
(routinely reviewed) plan if they remain unhappy.
