Submission No 66
INQUIRY INTO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AND THE PROVISION OF DISABILITY SERVICES IN NEW SOUTH WALES
Name: Name suppressed Date Received: 11 July 2018
Partially Confidential
My experience with the NDIS is in relation to my role as carer for my 13 year old son. He was not picked up automatically through previous disability providers. I instigated his participation in the NDIS through requesting an Access Request directly from the NDIA in 2016 when the scheme rolled out in the region. He received his first plan in February 2017 after one meeting with a LAC at our farm in rural NSW, located 58km from .
The first plan enabled him to receive a new prosthetic leg, that included a blade foot which had previously been considered extravagant to who previously approved any requested prosthetic equipment. I considered this a win for my son that would have been unaffordable for us as a family and provided benefits to his mobility and continued development.
We did not have any contact with the LAC until the following year when his plan review was due. Again, the same LAC met with us at our farm where we discussed his goals for the coming plan. Unfortunately, in both plans, we were unable to see what the LAC submitted before the plan went for approval. The key goals submitted by the LAC for him focussed on his need for a prosthetic and did not address the other goals discussed at our plan review meeting, such as his intellectual disability and need for assistance to interact in normal teenage activities and social connections in the community.
As a result, I have had to submit a request for a plan review to alter his plan goals to access supports for community based activities. Apart from the concerns about LAC’s having control over what a participant’s goals are listed in their plan, rather than the participant having ‘Choice and Control’, there are other concerns in relation to the NDIS and administrative systems. It took three months after submitting a report through the portal to get approval for prosthetic limb construction.
This is an unacceptable timeframe when prosthetic limbs are not something a person can do without if they have a limb deficiency - no leg means no walking. The communication between the LAC, the NDIA and the participants has been almost non-existent in our experience, apart from the plan letter (hard copy) which is duplicated on the portal. The plan supplied by the NDIA does not specify detailed information about what the budget is for for self-managed participants, particularly if the participant gets funding under ‘Improved Daily Living’ without explanation about what line items are funded, for how many hours and for what purpose. There is no acknowledgement of receipt in the administrative system, if files are uploaded to the portal, emailed to an address identified on NDIS form or posted and there is absolutely no recommended timeframe for actions to be completed or any way of an NDIA staff member to provide feedback about timeframes.
Overall, I think the NDIS has the potential to be fabulous and achieve excellent outcomes for people with a disability. However, good administrative technology, systems and processes are imperative to make such as huge scheme successful. Transparency for participants and their families would also reduce the frustration and anger directed at frontline staff.