FOI 24/25-1472 DOCUMENT 11
ndis
Section 24(1)(b)
Facilitator notes: Say Welcome to our training on Section 24(1)(b).
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 325 of 362 1
FOI 24/25-1472
Acknowledgement of Country
Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners and Custodians of the Country on which we meet today, and their continuing connection to land, sea, and community. I pay my respects to their Elders, past present and emerging.
I would like to extend that acknowledgement and respect to any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples here today.
Facilitator notes: Say
Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners and Custodians of the Country on which we meet today, and their continuing connection to land, sea, and community. I pay my respects to their Elders, past present and emerging.
I acknowledge that I am facilitating this training from the lands of the [insert name] people.
I would like to extend that acknowledgement and respect to any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples here today.
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 326 of 362 2
FOI 24/25-1472
Learning outcomes
During this session you will:
- develop an understanding of Section 24(1)(b) requirements for accessing the NDIS
- develop an understanding of how to assess permanency
- increase your knowledge of the resources used to guide decision making.
ndis
Facilitator notes: Say
Here are our learning objectives for this session.
During this session you’ll:
- develop an understanding of Section 24(1)(b) requirements for accessing the NDIS
- develop an understanding on how to assess permanency
- increase your knowledge of the resources used to guide our decision making
Please feel free to ask questions throughout the session. Let’s get started.
Page 327 of 362 3
FOI 24/25-1472
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 328 of 362 3
FOI 24/25-1472
OFFICIAL
Group discussion
What is one thing that you remember about the permanency criteria?
Facilitator notes: Say Today we are going to learn about Section 24(1)(b) which relates to the permanency of an impairment.
Before we get into today’s training, what can you remember about what you learnt previously about the permanency criteria?
Feel free to raise your hand and share one thing you remember, or write it in the chat. Pause [allow time for learners to provide their response. Discuss as a group their shared learning]
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 329 of 362 4
FOI 24/25-1472
OFFICIAL
List B conditions
Application
Section Assess from 24(1)(a) 24(1)(c) & (b) met onwards
Facilitator notes: Say
As we know from previous training modules, a condition on List A will likely meet the Section 24 Disability criteria.
In the last module we also looked at conditions on List B. Where an applicant has been diagnosed with a condition (or conditions) on List B, the NDIA will be satisfied that the condition is likely to result in a permanent impairment. This typically means that List B conditions satisfy s24(1)(a) and (b) and that we can proceed to assessing the disability criteria from 24(1)(c) onwards.
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 330 of 362 5
FOI 24/25-1472
OFFICIAL
NDIS Act 2013 - Section 24(1)(b)
Is your impairment likely to be permanent? The impairment or impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent.
OFFICIAL
Facilitator notes: Say
Section 24(1)(b) of the NDIS Act states “The impairment or impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent”.
In this criteria we are looking for evidence that the applicant will have an impairment for their whole life. This means the impairment won’t go away.
When looking at this criteria, we consider the permanency of the impairment, not the disability and not the condition. A person could have a permanent condition and it may not result in a permanent impairment. A person could also be undertaking intervention to improve their disability, but not to remedy the
Page 331 of 362 6
FOI 24/25-1472
impairment.
An example of this is the impairment of a Stroke. When someone has a stroke, their brain cells die due to lack of oxygen. If you were to take a brain scan you would see the dead brain cells, therefore a neurological impairment that is likely permanent as the dead brain cells are a “loss of, or damage to, a mental function”. Rehabilitation and intervention focuses on improving the disability and not the impairment.
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 332 of 362 6
FOI 24/25-1472
OFFICIAL
NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 Sections 5.4-5.7
provide further information on when an impairment is permanent, or likely to be permanent:
The NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 Sections 5.4-5.7 (external) provide further information on when an impairment is permanent, or likely to be permanent:
- 5.4—no known, available and appropriate evidence-based clinical, medical or other treatments that would be likely to remedy the impairment.
- 5.5—An impairment may be permanent not withstanding that the severity of its impact on the functional capacity of the person may fluctuate
- 5.6—does not require further medical treatment or review in order for its permanency or likely permanency to be demonstrated
- 5.7 —If an impairment is of a degenerative nature, the impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent if medical or other treatment would not, or would be unlikely to, improve the condition.
indis
Facilitator notes: Say
It’s a good idea to regularly refer to the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016. These rules explain how the legislative criteria is met or when it is not met. The evidence does not need to demonstrate all of these sections are met, only one or more.
Click Section 5.4 of the Rules states “an impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent only if there are no known, available and appropriate evidence-based clinical, medical or other treatments that would be likely to remedy the impairment”.
Page 333 of 362 7
FOI 24/25-1472
Pause
This means that we consider whether the impairment is likely to be permanent after all available and appropriate treatment options have been pursued. In some situations, it may be clear an impairment is likely to be permanent while an applicant is still undergoing treatment or rehabilitation. For example, they may still need treatment and rehabilitation for a spinal cord injury, but it’s clear they’ll have a permanent impairment.
Click
Section 5.5 of the Rules states “an impairment may be permanent not withstanding that the severity of its impact on the functional capacity of the person may fluctuate or there are prospects that the severity of the impact of the impairment on the person’s functional capacity, including their psychosocial functioning, may improve”.
Pause
An impairment that is episodic or fluctuates in intensity can still be considered permanent due to the overall impact on the person’s life and the likelihood that they will be impacted across their lifetime. This means that an applicant might still have a permanent impairment, even if its effects may change over time.
Click
Section 5.6 of the Rules states “an impairment may require medical treatment and review before a determination can be made about whether the impairment is permanent or likely to be permanent. The impairment is, or is likely to be permanent only if the impairment does not require further medical treatment or review in order for its permanency or likely permanency to be demonstrated (even though the impairment may continue to be treated and reviewed after this has been demonstrated)”.
Pause
Page 334 of 362 7
FOI 24/25-1472
This is slightly different to Section 6.4 in that if further treatment or review is recommended, you may not be able to determine the permanency of the impairment at that point in time.
It is important to note here that a person can still be treated and reviewed after permanency has been demonstrated. Psychosocial disabilities are a good example of this. People may engage in maintenance treatment, not to remedy the impairment but to maintain their functioning and prevent it from declining. If the evidence demonstrates the impairment is permanent but they still require treatment for maintenance, then Section 24(1)(b) can be met. If it is not referred to in the evidence, it is important to clarify whether the listed treatment is to remedy the impairment or for maintenance.
Click
The final section is section 5.7 which states “if an impairment is of a degenerative nature, the impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent if medical or other treatment would not, or would be unlikely to, improve the condition”.
Pause
This means that for degenerative impairments, or those that get worse over time, we consider them permanent if treatment isn’t likely to help or improve the impairment’s effects.
When assessing the evidence, we need to determine that the impairment is degenerative and not the condition.
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 335 of 362 7
FOI 24/25-1472
OFFICIAL
Activity — Permanency
From the below examples, which section of the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 or Our Guidelines is applicable?
- The person is living with a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease
- The person is living with a degenerative neurological impairment
- The person has been living with Schizoaffective Disorder for 20+ years with fluctuating functional capacity. Their psychiatrist has optimally treated them, they have monthly anti-psychotic medication (depot injection) and regular psychology intervention for maintenance.
ndis
OFFICIAL
Facilitator notes:
Instruct learners to: Navigate to and refer to the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 and Our Guidelines — Applying to the NDIS to answer the questions in this activity.
Say Let’s have a go at applying the Rules and OGs around permanency to some examples. You’ll have 10 minutes to review the statements, and then I’ll ask you to use the “hand up” function or pop your answer in the chat, if you are able to identify what section of the Rules or Our Guidelines is applicable.
[Give learners 10 minutes to review the statements. Paste the statements into the chat]
- The person is living with a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease
- The person is living with a degenerative neurological impairment
Page 336 of 362 8
FOI 24/25-1472
- The person is living with Schizoaffective Disorder for 20+ years with fluctuating functional capacity, their psychiatrist has optimally treated them, they have monthly anti-psychotic medication (depot injection) and regular psychology intervention for maintenance.
[After 10 minutes bring the group back together to answer the questions]
Click [to show sentence] – the person is living with a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease – we are looking for the applicable section of Our Guidelines.
Pause [Give people time to put hands up, call one someone to answer] Click [to show “List B – Is your impairment likely to be permanent?”] Advise if correct/incorrect – Parkinson’s disease is considered a permanent impairment as it is on List B – as per Is your impairment likely to be permanent? of Our Guidelines. If the person has a condition on List B, then Section 24(1)(b) is likely met.
Click [to show sentence] – the person is living with a degenerative neurological impairment – we are looking for the relevant section of the Rules.
Pause [Give people time to put hands up, call one someone to answer] Click [to show “Section 5.7 of the Rules”] Advise if correct/incorrect – this aligns with Section 5.7 of the Rules due to the impairment being degenerative in nature.
Click [to show sentence] – the person is living with The person is living with Schizoaffective Disorder for 20+ years with fluctuating functional capacity, their psychiatrist has optimally treated them, they have monthly anti- psychotic medication (depot injection) and regular psychology intervention for maintenance. – we are looking for the 2 applicable sections of the Rules for this one.
Pause [Give people time to put hands up, call one someone to answer]
Page 337 of 362 8
FOI 24/25-1472
Click [to show “Section 5.5 of the Rules” and “Section 5.6 of the Rules”] Advise if correct/incorrect – this has 2 applicable sections of the Rules – 5.5 due to the fluctuating nature of the impairment, and section 5.6 as the impairment continues to be treated after permanency has been established.
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 338 of 362 8
FOI 24/25-1472
OFFICIAL
Recovery orientated approach
Enabling a person living with a mental health condition to create and live a meaningful and contributing life in their community.
OFFICIAL
Facilitator notes: Say
The Recovery orientated approach and recovery orientated language is a principle among Mental Health, mental health clinicians, support workers and community mental health teams. The principles of a recovery-oriented approach include understanding that each person is different and should be supported to make their own choices, listened to and treated with dignity and respect. Recovery focused language is built on acceptance, hope, and respect. It focuses on a person’s abilities, rather than what a person is unable to do.
The recovery orientated approach is something you will learn more about later on in your training, when you focus on Psychosocial Disabilities.
Page 339 of 362 9
FOI 24/25-1472
The reason we are discussing the recovery orientated approach for Psychosocial Disabilities today is because the word ‘recovery’ can have different meanings, and impact upon how we assess Section 24(1)(b).
For psychosocial disabilities, “recovery” can mean clinical recovery, or it can also mean the health professional may be using a “recovery-oriented approach”.
- Clinical Recovery may mean that Clinical treatment is being undertaken in an aim to remedy the psychiatric
impairment.
- This may mean the applicant does not meet Section 24(1)(b)
- If a health professional is taking a Recovery Oriented Approach – they may use language to support Enabling a person living with a mental health condition to create and live a meaningful and contributing life in their community.
The person is likely to be receiving ongoing treatment, and it is important to review the evidence to determine if the ongoing treatment is likely to remedy the impairment, or if it is ongoing maintenance treatment. If the treatment is for maintenance and not clinical in nature, this means the impairment is likely permanent.
This would therefore meet Section 24(1)(b) based on Section 5.5 of the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016.
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 340 of 362 9
FOI 24/25-1472
OFFICIAL
Permanent impairment examples
Arthritis:
- A physical change to structure of the knee
- Available treatment is a knee replacement
Multiple Sclerosis:
- Lesions affecting central nervous system
- Evidence that person would benefit from allied health intervention
- Condition found on List B
ndis
OFFICIAL
Facilitator notes:
Say
It is important to determine the permanency (or likely permanency) of the impairment and not the permanency of the condition or the disability. Someone may be diagnosed with a lifelong condition, however the impairment resulting from this may not be permanent, or likely permanent. Note that the impairment may be permanent, while treatment is aimed at improving the disability.
Let’s have a look at some examples.
For Arthritis – A full body scan may show that arthritis causes physical impacts or damage to the structure of a knee. If the arthritis was in a person’s knee and they were waiting for a knee replacement, the impairment would not be considered permanent in line with Section 5.4 of the NDIS (Becoming a
Page 341 of 362 10
FOI 24/25-1472
Participant) Rules. This is because a knee replacement could remedy the impairment. If you took another full body scan after the knee replacement, the arthritis would no longer be causing a physical impairment.
For Multiple Sclerosis – A brain scan would show lesions on the brain and in the nervous system. MS is a neurological impairment as it causes damage to the central nervous system. Sometimes evidence may also state the person would benefit from allied health intervention. In these cases, it is likely that this intervention is to improve the disability, and not to remedy the impairment. Multiple Sclerosis is a List B impairment and therefore is likely to meet the permanency criteria.
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 342 of 362 10
FOI 24/25-1472
OFFICIAL
True or false (1 of 2)
- The delegate needs confirmation that the impairment is fully treated and stabilised to meet Section 24(1)(b)
False — the phrase “fully treated and stabilised” is not NDIA legislation or policy, therefore delegates should not be asking for this information. Delegates need to be satisfied that the impairment is permanent in line with Sections 5.4-5.7 of the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016.
- A person can meet the permanency criteria but continue treatment
True — As per Section 5.6 of the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016, the impairment can continue to be treated after permanency has been demonstrated. If the treatment is likely to remedy the impairment, then Section 24(1)(b) would not be met in line with Section 5.4 of the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016.
ndis
Facilitator notes: Say
We will now go onto a couple of True or False questions. For this one I will ask the question and then everyone can write in the chat ‘true’ or ‘false’ with what they think.
Click [to show question] The delegate needs confirmation that the impairment is fully treated and stabilised to meet Section 24(1)(b)
Click [to show answer] The answer is false - the phrase “fully treated and stabilised” is not NDIA legislation or policy, therefore delegates should not be asking for this information. Delegates need to be satisfied that the impairment is
Page 343 of 362 11
FOI 24/25-1472
permanent in line with Sections 5.4-5.7 of the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016.
Click [to show question] A person can meet the permanency criteria but continue treatment
Click [to show answer] The answer is true – As per Section 5.6 of the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016, the impairment can continue to be treated after permanency has been demonstrated. If the treatment is likely to remedy the impairment, then Section 24(1)(b) would not be met in line with Section 5.4 of the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016.
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 344 of 362 11
FOI 24/25-1472
True or false (2 of 2)
- I assessed a case where surgery was recommended for someone living with COPD. On my next case, there is no mention of surgery, should I determine Section 24(1)(b) is not met in this case?
A: False. We need to assess each case on the information provided. While we cannot recommend a treatment option, we could make a call to see if surgery is an appropriate treatment option for this person. Each applicant’s situation is different and must be assessed independently. While we can draw on our existing knowledge of an impairment, we must always apply the legislation to the evidence we have before us.
- I’m assessing an application for an 18-year-old with Schizophrenia. Their psychologist states that their impairments are permanent. I don’t have any other treatment information so will determine that Section 24(1)(b) is met.
A: False. Permanency must be demonstrated and not just stated. There is no other information on treatment options and therefore permanency cannot be determined. More information is required.
ndis
Facilitator notes: Say
Click [to show question]
I assessed a previous case where surgery was recommended for someone living with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). On my next case, there is no mention of surgery, so I should say Section 24(1)(b) is not met.
Click [to show answer] The answer is false - We need to assess each case on the information provided. While we cannot recommend a treatment option, we could make a call to see if surgery is an appropriate treatment option for this person. Each applicant’s situation is different and must be assessed independently. While we can draw on our existing knowledge of an impairment, we must always apply the legislation to the evidence
Page 345 of 362 12
FOI 24/25-1472
we have before us.
Okay, next question
Click [to show question] I’m assessing an application for an 18-year-old with Schizophrenia. Their psychologist states that the impairments are permanent. I don’t have any other treatment information so will determine that Section 24(1)(b) is met.
Click [to show answer] The answer is false – Permanency must be demonstrated and not just stated. There is no other information on treatment options and therefore permanency cannot be determined. More information is required.
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 346 of 362 12
FOI 24/25-1472
Break time
Facilitator notes:
Say
Let’s take a 10-minute break.
[Tell learners what time to be back in front of their computers] [Leave this slide showing during the break]
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 347 of 362 13
FOI 24/25-1472
Case study 1 — Josephine
- Name: Josephine
- Age: 10 years old
- Diagnosis: Autism Spectrum Disorder
- Evidence:
- Access Request Form
- Supporting Evidence Form
Facilitator notes: Say
The following 3 case studies are de-identified case studies of real cases. For the purposes of this training, all the evidence of disability (EOD) is recent.
Please note that the Access Request Form is our previous form. This information would now be collected by a partner and embedded within PACE cases.
For a brief summary of this case study:
- Josephine is 10 years old living with Autism
- The GP has ticked yes to “is there any other treatment that is likely to remedy the impairment” and stated psychologist, OT and Speech Pathology is required.
- The psychologist has completed the SEF and states that treatment has not been undertaken due to
Page 348 of 362 14
FOI 24/25-1472
financial constraints.
I’ll now provide you with 15 minutes to review the evidence and answer some questions. I will paste the case study and the questions into the chat.
Does anyone have any questions before we begin?
Paste the below questions in the chat Q: Does Josephine meet Section 24(1)(a) and (b)? If so, why? Q: After assessing Section 24(1)(a) and (b), what criteria will you assess next?
Answers on next slide
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 349 of 362 14
FOI 24/25-1472
OFFICIAL
Case study 1 — Answers
Q: Does Josephine meet Section 24(1)(a) and (b)?
A: Yes, although both the Access Request Form (ARF) and Supporting Evidence Form (SEF) state that the impairment is not permanent, Autism is a List B impairment (it falls under the category of “Pervasive Developmental Disorders not meeting severity criteria in List A or List C*). Section 24(1)(a) and (b) are met.
Q: After assessing Section 24(1)(b), what criteria will you assess next?
A: You will assess Section 24(1)(c) next. The Access Decision Tree is a tool that can support you with your decision making, and provide guidance on which criteria to consider next.
ndis
Facilitator notes: Say
We will now go through a few questions, please use the hand up function or write in the chat if you would like to answer.
Click [to show question] Does Josephine meet Section 24(1)(b)?
Click [to show answer] Correct/Incorrect - Yes, although both the ARF and SEF state that the impairment is not permanent, Autism is a List B impairment (it falls under the category of “Pervasive Developmental Disorders not meeting severity criteria in List A or List C”). Therefore, in line with Our Guidelines, Section 24(1)(a) and
Page 350 of 362 15
FOI 24/25-1472
(b) are met.
Click [to show question] After assessing Section 24(1)(a) and (b), what criteria will you assess next?
Click [to show answer] Correct/Incorrect - You will assess Section 24(1)(c) next. The Access Decision Tree is a tool that can support you with your decision making, and provide guidance on which criteria to consider next.
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 351 of 362 15
FOI 24/25-1472
OFFICIAL
Case study 2 - Annabel
- Name: Annabel
- Age: 52 years old
- Diagnosis: Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
- Evidence:
- Supporting Evidence Form
Facilitator notes:
Say
This next case study is for a 52-year-old living with Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. The local GP has completed the SEF and indicated that Annabel has been living with these conditions for over 10 years and has used pain medication. The GP states that Annie would benefit from an Occupational Therapy (OT) home assessment and physiotherapy and that her functional capacity is reduced.
I’ll now provide you with 20 minutes to review the evidence and answer some questions. I will paste the case study and the questions into the chat.
Does anyone have any questions before we begin?
Page 352 of 362 16
FOI 24/25-1472
Paste the below questions in the chat
- Does Annabel have a permanent, or likely permanent, impairment?
- What section/s of the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 are applicable?
- Should you seek further information?
Answers on next slide
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 353 of 362 16
FOI 24/25-1472
Case study 2 — Answers
Q: Does Annabel have a permanent, or likely permanent, impairment?
A: No. Although the GP has stated the impairments are permanent, they have not provided information on the treatment that Annabel has undertaken.
Q: What section/s of the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 are applicable?
A: Section 5.4 and 5.6. There are available and appropriate evidence-based treatments that Annabel could engage in. For example: pain management clinic, multi-disciplinary team intervention, specialist intervention, graded exercise and pacing program. These could potentially remedy the impairment (5.4), or as we do not know the outcome of these treatments, the permanency of the impairment cannot be determined (5.6).
Q: Should you seek further information?
A: No. As Annabel would not meet Section 24(1)(c) further information is not required. Even if permanency could be established, she does not have a substantial reduction. If the EOD indicated she had a substantial reduction, then you might seek further information on permanency.
ndis
Facilitator notes: [This is an exploration activity. Please be mindful that learners have not yet explored s24(1)(c) depth and may not be confidently able to answer the last question. Please reassure them that this is ok]
Say First question for this case study
Click [to show question] Does Annabel have a permanent, or likely permanent, impairment?
Click [to show answer] Correct/Incorrect - No — although the GP has stated the impairments are permanent, they have not provided information on the treatment that Annabel has undertaken.
Page 354 of 362 17
FOI 24/25-1472
Click [to show question] What section/s of the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 are applicable?
Click [to show answer] Section 5.4 and 5.6 – Section 5.4 and 5.6. There are available and appropriate evidence-based treatments that Annabel could engage in. For example: pain management clinic, multi-disciplinary team intervention, specialist intervention, graded exercise and pacing program. These could potentially remedy the impairment (5.4), or as we do not know the outcome of these treatments, the permanency of the impairment cannot be determined (5.6).
Click [to show question] Should you seek further information?
Click [to show answer] No. As Annabel would not meet Section 24(1)(c) further information is not required. Even if permanency could be established, she does not have a substantial reduction. If the EOD indicated she had a substantial reduction, then you might seek further information on permanency.
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 355 of 362 17
FOI 24/25-1472
OFFICIAL
Case study 3 - Jamie
- Name: Jamie
- Age: 23 years old
- Diagnosis: Borderline Personality Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
- Evidence:
- Supporting Evidence Form
Facilitator notes: Say
The final case study is for Jamie, a 23-year-old living with Borderline Personality Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The Supporting Evidence Form has been completed by the multi-disciplinary team at the inpatient unit and states that Jamie was diagnosed at 19 years old, but has been showing signs for 8 years. There is a recommendation for Dialectal Behavioural Therapy, however Jamie has not yet completed this. She has undertaken Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT), engaged with Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, has medication, undertaken Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy and had hospital admissions. They have stated the impairment is permanent but will fluctuate and that the Generalised Anxiety Disorder and PTSD are the result of childhood trauma.
Page 356 of 362 18
FOI 24/25-1472
I’ll now provide you with 15 minutes to review the evidence and answer some questions. I will paste the case study and the questions into the chat.
Does anyone have any questions before we begin?
Paste the below questions in the chat
- Does Jamie have a permanent, or likely permanent, impairment?
- Should you seek further information?
Answers on next slide
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 357 of 362 18
FOI 24/25-1472
Case study 3 — Answers
Q: Does Jamie have a permanent, or likely permanent, impairment?
A: No. Based on the information available, we can’t be satisfied that Jamie’s impairment is likely permanent. The treating team have recommended DBT, which is a known treatment option for Borderline Personality Disorder, and this has not yet been undertaken. We do not have evidence to understand what the expected outcomes are for the DBT. In addition, for her diagnoses of PTSD and Generalised Anxiety Disorder, the evidence does not indicate if any further treatments for these impairments are being recommended and what their expected outcomes might be.
Q: Should you seek further information?
A: No — given the limited information on the treatments undertaken, the recommendation for further treatment, and the evidence indicating that the PTSD was diagnosed 2 months prior, it would be most appropriate to make an Access Not Met decision. This is because it is unlikely that the applicant will meet Section 24(1)(b), and we do not want to prolong an outcome for the applicant.
Facilitator notes: Say First question for this case study:
Click [to show question] Does Jamie have a permanent, or likely permanent, impairment?
Click [to show answer] No. Based on the information available, we can’t be satisfied that Jamie’s impairment is likely permanent. The treating team have recommended DBT, which is a known treatment option for Borderline Personality Disorder, and this has not yet been undertaken. We do not have evidence to understand what the expected outcomes are for the DBT. In addition, for her diagnoses of PTSD and Generalised Anxiety
Page 358 of 362 19
FOI 24/25-1472
Disorder, the evidence does not indicate if any further treatments for these impairments are being recommended and what their expected outcomes might be.
Click [to show question] Should you seek further information?
Click [to show answer] Correct/Incorrect - No — given the limited information on the treatments undertaken, the recommendation for further treatment, and the evidence indicating that the PTSD was diagnosed 2 months prior, it would be most appropriate to make an Access Not Met decision. This is because it is unlikely that the applicant will meet Section 24(1)(b), and we do not want to prolong an outcome for the applicant.
A beneficial resource to refer to is the “Mental Health and NDIS” page on the external NDIS website. Here you’ll find different resources and information on people living with a psychosocial disability who are aged under 25 years old.
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 359 of 362 19
FOI 24/25-1472
OFFICIAL
Key points
- The NDIS Act 2013 states that a person will meet Section 24(1)(b) of the Disability requirements if the person has an impairment or impairments that are, or are likely to be, permanent
- Use the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 Sections 5.4-5.7 regularly in your decision making
- We assess the permanency of the impairment, not the disability and not the condition.
ndis
Facilitator notes: Say
The NDIS Act 2013 states that a person will meet Section 24(1)(b) of the Disability requirements if the person has impairment or impairments that are, or are likely to be, permanent
NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 Sections 5.4-5.7 will be a resource that you regularly use in your decision making. These rules help explain how to apply the legislative criteria to evidence.
Remember — when you are assessing Section 24(1)(b) you are looking for the permanency of the impairment, not the disability and not the condition.
Click [to go to next slide]
Page 360 of 362 20
FOI 24/25-1472
Questions
Facilitator notes:
Say
That brings us to the end of your training on Section 24(1)(b). Does anyone have any questions?
End of Presentation
Page 361 of 362 21
FOI 24/25-1472
Version control
| Version | Amended/Approved by | Brief Description of Change | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| v1.0 | CH0026 | New resource | APPROVED | 2023-12-15 |
Hidden Slide — Version Control
Page 362 of 362 22