Mrs Helen Mabbutt
23rd February 2022
The Hon. Kevin Andrews MP Chair Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
Delivered by email to ndis.sen@aph.gov.au
deeply sorry for any inconvenience caused. Dear Chair Andrews,
Inquiry into Current Scheme Implementation and Forecasting for the NDIS (the future of the NDIS)
This submission focuses on terms of reference c. ii., c iii. and h. Presentation is in a summarised format. It is informed by 5 years’ experience managing my young adult son’s plans. Additional information has been obtained through media research, work related and informal interactions with other carers and participants. I submit: c. The reason for variations in plan funding between NDIS participants with similar needs, including: i i. whether inconsistent decision-making by the NDIA is leading to inequitable variations in plan funding
-
It is reasonable to infer inconsistent decision making contributes to a minor amount of plan inequity. However, Scheme administration plays the larger role. Planning decisions, particularly since 2021, are highly regulated. The NDIA could be asked to disclose how regulated. Over time, work associated with preplanning, particularly the specificity of reports, makes preparation difficult for participants. Repeatedly needing to provide evidence meeting the current threshold for the “reasonable and necessary” test for each requested support, creates barriers. It follows that difficult and burdensome process and proofs mean participants with less resources and support, achieve poorer results (inequitable plans).
-
There seems to be a consistent and mandated application of Section 34, by staff, Australia wide. Open-ended in nature, the reasonable and necessary criteria are used increasingly, more deliberately and systemically by the NDIA to reduce plan funding and refuse S100 appeals. The increasing volume of Administrative Appeals Tribunal applications are testament to this practice. In the past 6 months, appeals have increased by 400%. Personally, and reportedly the participant/representative experience is of disability advocacy providers completely overwhelmed by participant need. Clearly, increasingly, the NDIA is being challenged on the adequacy of funding decisions. Again, the ability of a relative few to navigate an onerous process, creates inequality. This is not the fault of those who can persevere. Rather, the Scheme is set up to fail the most vulnerable (including at the access stage).
-
Recent funding cuts to participants with autism, intellectual disability and psychosocial disability, mid- plan, highlight the use of algorithms in decision making. These more “consistent” decisions, with a machine learning component, cannot account for individual complexity. Algorithms create a false “appearance of equity.” Any application of algorithms to individual plans, is problematic and raises the appearance, if not the substance, of “Robo-planning.” This inquiry should investigate current and forecast NDIA use of algorithms in panning decisions. Additionally, the participant experience associated with these and any other funding cuts to plans, needs to be reported on and understood.
-
Examine the NDIA’s understanding and use of the terms “similar needs” and “inequitable variations in plan funding.” Even when participants have similar disabilities and circumstances, there needs to be some variation in funding. No two individuals are the same. Absolute equity is neither desirable nor possible.
iii. measures that could address any inequitable variation in plan funding
- Reduce the frequency and burden of the preplanning process. Make the standard of proof needed transparent and easy to understand. Ensure vulnerable participants have access to the support needed to successfully navigate preplanning requirements.
h. Any other related matters
-
Invest more in the oversight of quality service delivery (making the funding investment worthwhile). Helping participants maintain capacity can delay the aggravation or deterioration of disability and subsequent need for increased support. Recent initiatives to address provider fraud goes part-way to quality assurance. Participants need more protection and the public deserve more confidence.
-
Stop scapegoating participants. NDIS entry requirements (permanent and significant disability) make the NDIA’s claimed insufficient exit rates, unrealistic. Likewise, refusing or underfunding reasonable participant requests for additional funding associated with disability deterioration or change of circumstances, “saves” money in the short term. Funding needs subsequently increase in the absence of earlier intervention.
-
Examine the Scheme’s spend on consultants and “task forces” to-date (including the spend on the now, scrapped, Independent Assessment initiative). Redirect some consultancy funding, going forward, to more oversight of service provider standards and practices (quality assurance).
-
Reduce the increasing spend on legal costs associated with defending appeals. Invest in the provision of quality, adequately funded, individualised plans.
I welcome any questions in relation to the matters raised in this submission.
Yours Sincerely,
Helen Mabbutt 2