Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme

PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Michael Curtis

NDIS General Issues Inquiry

The terms of reference indicate that the inquiry will examine the implementation, performance, governance and expenditure of the scheme.

I am an accountant and have been a participant in the NDIS since it was rolled out in my area. I have two disabilities that impact my daily living. I have been a volunteer director with RIAC Inc. for 10+ years. RIAC have had grant funding to provide NDIS advocacy in Victoria since it was trialled in the Barwon.

The Key points I will address in my submission relate to myself as a participant in the NDIS.

• A business approach toward the application for General Assistive Technology lodged and approved.
• Also a Change of circumstance application lodged and not approved.

My submission will also comment on:

• What is required for an officer of the NDIS to become a Senior Planner?
• Inconsistency in the application of NDIS requirements in regard to applications
• Officers have no medical qualifications/experience and are making decisions that require some understanding of medical terms.
• Unlike CenterLink the NDIS do not have a medical board that officers are required to refer too
• Transparency of coordinator charges
• Suggested measures that could be considered to reduce costs and abuse of the system

With regard to general assistive technology in the first instance, I requested permission to use core funds available in my plan to pay its cost. As the sum was greater than $1,500 a quote would be required and the expenditure approved by NDIS. I was told this was not able to be done and that I would need to lodge an application for General Assistive Technology accompanied by an Occupational Therapist (OT) report. The report was done by an OT firm but took 3 months to complete and cost approx $3,500 which was charged to my plan. It then went through TWO departments at the NDIS which took another 6 months. A new plan was issued with the additional amount added (New Quote [old one more than 30 days old]).

A business approach would be more flexible re my initial request. It would have wayed up the cost of the general assistive technology against the cost of the OT report + the cost for the application processed (i.e., the cost to go through two departments) + the cost of issuing a new plan + the updated quote/cost of equipment. A business approach would have determined that the cost of the NDIS process was potentially a greater cost than the cost of

• the assistive technology and only require the lodgement of the quote for approval and a report by the exercise physiologist who sees me on a weekly basis and whose cost is paid by my plan.

is a HSP Qualified Partitioner. Thus, don’t know why I need another report; the condition I have is degenerative. There is a requirement to have had a previous hearing test and hearing aids. The “SENIOR” planner had clearly not researched Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia (HSP) If she had she would have seen it was a progressive, degenrative condition that is in your DNA and one of its possible side effects is loss of hearing. Further point 4 under the heading ‘Systemic atrophies primarily affecting the central nervous system’ of table B lists HSP.

• To become a Senior Planner in the NDIS, what are the requirements?

• Time served or turnaround time for applications or the number of claims rejected/money saved, and potentially other factors.

My current plan coordinator, who has an NDIS plan based on her disability, suggested that I can reapply for a Change of Circumstance, which may result in a different planner and outcome. This highlights that the application and interpretation of the NDIS Act can differ among planners. It is worth noting that planners/officers do not possess medical qualifications or experience, yet they make decisions that require an understanding of medical terms. There is no medical board to which planners/officers can refer if they lack knowledge about a particular disability.

More transparency is necessary regarding the costs charged to NDIS plans for support coordination. In my case, when a support coordinator was replaced due to a promotion within the company, the new coordinator informed me that I had no remaining funding for support coordination. However, upon requesting timesheets, I discovered that a significant number of business costs were charged to my plan. Once those costs were credited, there was ample funding available for support coordination. Additionally, it is important to ensure that when a service is required, individuals are provided with three quotes to choose from (except in cases where only one quote is available, particularly in rural or remote areas). This requirement would help mitigate the potential for collusion between the plan coordinator and the supplier, which could lead to fraud.

Suggested measures that could be considered to reduce costs and abuse of the system are as follows:

• Participants should receive education on the fraud sections of the NDIS Act, ideally conducted by the support coordinator at the beginning of a plan.
• For existing participants, there may be a need for a one-time increase in funds to facilitate this education. Alternatively, if there is no funds in their plan for support coordination, the responsibility for providing this education should fall to the NDIS itself.
• All NDIS-accredited suppliers of human-based services (e.g., carers for daily living) should receive uniform education about the fraud sections of the NDIS Act; ensuring their awareness that assisting a participant in committing fraud makes them an accomplice to a crime. They should be informed that such actions can result in immediate dismissal.
• All NDIS accredited suppliers with turnover above $2m should be required to do a reaccreditation audit by a NDIS approved auditor every 2yrs.
• Utilizing postcodes to customize pricing guides and payments, would enable the NDIS to provide relevant and tailored pricing for each zone. For instance, living in regional Victoria, the largest regional town is Shepparton, the cost of allied health services would be lower compared to Melbourne.
• The NDIA spends billions on external legal firms for AAT cases, which could be avoided by establishing a cost-effective review panel. The panel, consisting of a GP, a NDIS participant, an experienced NDIS advocate, and a NDIA representative, could review decisions prior to involvement of the AAT. Legal advice for AAT cases, including the likelihood of a positive outcome, could be provided by an in-house NDIA legal department.

Why do the NDIS require a written plan renewal reports for conditions such as HSP, it is a genetic, degenerative condition. It is lifelong; it is not going to get better. In my case the amount of exercise I do (the NDIS enables me to do) slows down its’s progress. It would be cheaper to do a verbal plan review and a report-based review say every 5yrs.

Some NDIS participants that do not have travel in their plan use carers as a form of transport. Would it not be cheaper to have travel in their plan with tight controls, than paying carers to do principally the same thing.

If a proportion of a participant’s unused budget allowance was rolled over into the new plan (like what happened with the ISP) this would help changing the culture of use it or lose it.