Dear Sir/Madam
Submission Concerning NDIA Assessment
I am a participant of the NDIS. I have psychological disabilities and have been a participant for about 9 months.
The scheme is unfair and there are people making decisions without medical credentials. In my experience the person I spoke with on application was from India. He had very poor English skills and was questioning my disabilities. When I applied I submitted 5 reports. Three of these reports were from independent Medical Examiners, Forensic Psychiatrists. These reports were provided at the request of the Workers Compensation Parties and for the Respondent insurance company. These professionals have 30 to 40 years experience as a psychiatrist. The reports were independent and none at my request. These reports are consistent with my diagnosis and do not dispute anything in my treatment teams plan, diagnosis and permanency of my disabilities. These reports were factual and met the guidelines of the Witness Code. They supported all my treatment and the funding and cost associated with my Assistance Animal, Hugo who a delegate referred to as a pet.
The NDIA guidelines, legislation and practice guidelines in some areas conflict with the Commonwealth Disabilty Discrimination Act (Cth) 1992. One example being requirements of what a participant is required to provide such as OT reports and other Documentation that breaches the DDA. In my circumstances it was assumed that my assistance animal was not related to my disabilities. This was ignorance by the delegate and she dismissed the content of the reports whereby independent assessments concluded he is reasonable and necessary treatment. Regardless by providing a copy of the PAT and the handler ID this satisfies that I have met my obligations under The DDA. My funding was declined and a complaint has been accepted by the Australian Human Rights Commission. It is alleged that NDIA have breached about 11 Sections of the Act. The matter has been set down for Conciliation by the Commission.
My argument being that the foundations have not been implemented properly and the system has no credibility. The DDA has precedence over the NDIA and the NDIA have a legal obligation to comply with this legislation.
Minister Robert has been written to about 12 times and not once has his office responded.
Petition
e petition of close to 200 participants was signed requesting several demands such as discrimination, the legislation conflicts and the poor performance of the agencies. Minister Robert has not responded to this.
I will now address the terms of reference-
- the development, modelling, reasons and justifications for the introduction of independent assessments into the NDIS;
The independent assessments will be carried out by people less qualified than the GP and specialists. The feedback from the pilot program has horrified most participants in that program. They have publicly spoken out. The report will have no independence as NDIS pays for the report and the OT, Physio or Psychologist are contracted by the Scheme. This does not demonstrate independence. The workers compensation system uses a similar model, however they use equal to a more qualified medical practitioner and specialist. The function of the participant is reported on the assessment period only and by a person with no expertise in the medical discipline. I have been part of the WC system for 12 years. There is no pathway to dispute the report writers opinion, the participant had no right to bring the dispute before a tribunal.
- the impact of similar policies in other jurisdictions and in the provision of other government services;
I have discussed in detail the NSW Workers Compensation System concerning this.
- the human and financial resources needed to effectively implement independent assessments;
Many applicants will have already submitted reports from multiple treatment providers who have in my case treated me for 12 years. There is no humanity in the proposed assessment methods or independence. There are over 400+ participants who have provided medical reports from experts and I don’t believe they have been financially burdened as reports are generally available by Centrelink sourced reports and the applicants treatment team reports are considered in the process. There is a dispute pathway.
- the independence, qualifications, training, expertise and quality assurance of assessors;
The qualifications of the assessor are far less than a specialist doctor in the field of expertise and not a qualified medical practitioner. DVA, Comcare and the various state Workers Compensation System are conducted by experts in the Disability. The NSW Workers Compensation System uses expert Approved Medical Specialists (AMS) appointed by the Commission and not the agency or insurer. The Arbitrator makes his or her decision based on the evidence before them from an AMS. The assessor are appropriately trained and they are bound by the Code of Expert Witness Statements. Since the introduction of AMS the system had become fairer and demonstrates independence. The previous assessment method was influenced by the insurer who was paid by the Insurer.
The appropriateness of the assessment tools selected for use in independent assessments to determine plan funding;
The assessment tools have been used in a pilot program. Many participants have not been satisfied that there disabilities are dismissed. I have not seen the assessment tools so other than the feedback from participants I have not have a direct experience. My concerns would be that the length of the assessment is not consistent with how the person’s disabilities could be determined over a period of time.
the implications of independent assessments for access to and eligibility for the NDIS;
I have expressed my opinion above concerning this.
the implications of independent assessments for NDIS planning, including decisions related to funding reasonable and necessary supports;
If a participant has had a Court determine under another system that the participants treatment is reasonable and necessary this should be considered. If a medical specialist has determined treatment or services as reasonable and necessary this should hold weight. The planners and delegates from my experience are not competent.
the circumstances in which a person may not be required to complete an independent assessment;
This should be determined by all available medical evidence and if there is sufficient supporting evidence of the disabilities from various methods an assessment should not be necessary unless there are significant improvement in the participants disabilities.
opportunities to review or challenge the outcomes of independent assessments;
Reports provided by the treatment providers and a AAT or similar tribunal should appoints an Approved Medical Specialist to review ALL available reports including the assessment by NDIS. This demonstrates fairness and independence.
the appropriateness of independent assessments for particular cohorts of people with disability, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, people from regional, rural and remote areas, and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds;
This would be dependent on what services are available for the disadvantaged and rural community. Culture related consideration holds no relevance on appropriateness of an assessment.
the appropriateness of independent assessments for people with particular disability types, including psychosocial disability; and any other related matters
The assessment should be carried out by an expert medical specialist in the Disability types that are relevant to the applicant or participants disabilities. For example a psychiatrist for a psychological disability who is compliant with expert witness code.
Access is not a simple process under any disability government agencies services. The process is not in plain English and some participants are disadvantaged by the red tape and poor processes with reasonable access in plain English and transparency.
The delegates clearly have insufficient knowledge and training in the discipline associated with the disability. In my circumstances it’s evident the delegate had no familiarity with Assistance Animals. If she did my AD would not have been referred to as a pet. The review clearly had not understanding of my file and disability or the legal requirements and legislation such as the Disability Discrimination Act. She said that my AD was not related to my disabilities. The information available to her such as 5 psychiatrist reports clearly demonstrates the relevance. If they were familiar with the PAT test and the issuing of a handler ID by GHAD that the AD would meet the requirements as defined under the DDA. I have pasted the information pertaining to the Act and published by the Australian Human Rights Commision referencing the legislation DDA and Assistance Animals.
In a recent decision by the AAT (February 2021) the Arbitrator made reference to the practice guidelines and AD templates were inconsistent with the DDA and the NDIA Legislation.
Yours sincerely
Paul Mulligan