Submission: Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS Independent Assessment
Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS: Independent Assessments
I’m an Occupational Therapist working with people with complex disability. I have worked as an Occupational Therapist since 2008 and prior to this worked in the Disability Sector providing support to people with a variety of disabilities. The proposed changes to the NDIS, in particular the inroduction of mandatory Independent Assessments causes me to have grave concerns for the the people of Australia who live with disability.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my concerns and those of my clients, many of whom are unable to voice their concerns individually.
a. the development, modelling, reasons and justifications for the introduction of independent assessments into the NDIS;
There is no denying that the current status of the NDIS is inequitable. There is significant discrepancy and variability in decision making at access, as well as vastly different monetary outcomes in plans. However, the introduction of independent assessments is set to cause MORE inequity, as well as psychological damage and at its worst, potentially the death of people with disability in Australia. People will lose their lives over this, if that has not already occurred.
Assessment of people’s eligibility to enter the scheme is obviously necessary. However, an independent assessment, by someone with no experience, knowledge or understanding of the individual is not the solution. We know that the health professionals who work with people with isabilities are best placed to document their needs. Building rapport and a professional elationship with the participant is an important part of the process and leads to better uunderstanding of the complexity and overall picture of the person with the disability. There is no denying that an “independent assessment” is only a drop in the ocean in understanding the needs of the individual. Why should the NDIA be allowed to determine the outcome of people’s lives usng an inadequate and grossly inappropriate set of “tools”?
The Independent Assessment process can be likened to an eSafety/Pink Slip inspection for a motor vehicle. Except, a person with a disability is not like a car that needs a pink slip before being registered for another year. You cannot just give someone a once over inspection, and tick a box that says “road worthy” or “not road worthy”.
Human lives and disability support needs are far more complex, and deserve far more respect and honouring inan the Independent Assessment process will allow.
The UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, which Australia is signatory, states that:
Article 15 – Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In
particular, no one shall be subjected without his or her free consent to medical or scientific
experimentation.
Article 19 – Living independently and being included in the community
States Parties to the present Convention recognize the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in
the community, with choices equal to others, and shall take effective and appropriate measures to
facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation
in the community, including by ensuring that:
a) Persons with disabilities have the opportunity to choose their place of residence and where
and with whom they live on an equal basis with others and are not obliged to live in a particular
living arrangement;
b) Persons with disabilities have access to a range of in-home, residential and other community
support services, including personal assistance necessary to support living and inclusion in the
community, and to prevent isolation or segregation from the community;
c) Community services and facilities for the general population are available on an equal basis
to persons with disabilities and are responsive to their needs.
Article 26 – Habilitation and rehabilitation
1. States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures, including through peer support, to enable
persons with disabilities to attain and maintain maximum independence, full physical, mental, social and
vocational ability, and full inclusion and participation in all aspects of life.
I strongly believe that the Independent Assessment process is a violation of the rights of people with disabilities in Australia in particular Article 15 which states that people with disability shall not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment and that they should not be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without free consent.
Is telling someone with a disability that they must undergo a mandatory “assessment” or have their funding taken away, not a) a threat, and b) evidence of an absence of free consent? You may as well be holding a gun to their head.
b. the impact of similar policies in other jurisdictions and in the provision of other
government services;
I fear that the Independent Assessment process will be another hurdle that people have to jump in order to get the support which they are already eligible for by the nature of their disability. As a health professional, I have had countless clients go through the emotional turmoil of being denied the Disability Support Pension, having to appeal the decision and then go through the rigmarole associated with the appeal. The emotional toll is nothing short of horrifying.
Page 3 of 14
Article 10: Right to life
States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.
c. the human and financial resources needed to effectively implement independent assessments;
Given the amount of my own time that has been wasted, unpaid, in dealing with the NDIA on behalf of clients, i would imagine the financial burden of implementing the independent assessments will be high. If not from the administration perspective, then from the Appeals process that will follow.
The amount of time/human hours wasted in speaking with NDIA delegates about access applications and errors is already significant. If I could invoice the NDIA for the time i spend trying to come to a resolution regarding access requests for my clients, i would be in a much better position financially! I spent 30 minutes on the phone over 2 weeks ago, simply requesting for someone from the National Access Team to contact me about a client whose application had been rejected and who had already given permission for them to speak with me. The client had to call them 3 times with the exact same request. I also emailed them. And i am still waiting for my phone call.
If the ndia were to focus their attention on the failure of their own internal policies and procedures, we would not need the ia process.
d. the independence, qualifications, training, expertise and quality assurance of assessors;
Independence How can an independent assessment paid for by the ndia, for the express purpose of assessing a persons eligibility to access the ndis and/or their continuing funding, be independent? The pressures placed on Assessors will be such that KPIs and other measures of performance will force them to lean in the preferred direction of the Agency. It is a commonly held belief that government funded programs require professionals to decline a certain percentage of applications to ensure budgets are adhered to. That means that people who do actually meet the eligibility criteria are declined regardless. How is this OK?
Qualifications Occupational therapists are well placed to work with people with disabilities of all types, due to our specific training. The very basis of Occupational Therapy is seeing a person as a whole, and being able to work with their unique self, what they want/need to do, and the environments in which they do them. All disabilities fall within our scope of practice.
Physiotherapists work with physical body problems.
They’re not trained in cognitive, sensory, speech or mental health evaluation.
Speech therapists work with the communication and swallowing. They’re not trained in cognitive, physical mobility or mental health evaluation.
Psychologists work with people’s cognition and mental health. They’re not trained in physical mobility or speech evaluation.
Each profession has their own scope of practice, which is what the individual professional is taught and has achieved satisfactory skill attainment in as part of their degree training. It is drilled into us throughout our training, and through our professional bodies, and in fact, our insurers, that we are only permitted to practice within our scope of practice.
How is it then, that the NDIA think it’s permissible to allow professionals to work outside of scope? How is it OK for a physiotherapist to be performing an independent assessment on someone with ASD? Or a psychologist assessing someone’s physical support needs due to their spinal cord injury?
If the NDIA argue that it is not outside of scope because it is a screening tool and not an assessment, than why are they calling it an assessment? If it is in fact an “assessment” (which we know it is not), t hen it is 100% out of scope.
- The appropriateness of the assessment tools selected for use in independent assessments to determine plan funding;
Of greatest concern to me as an OT is the use of the Vineland-3 and the modification of the WHODAS.
The Vineland-3 is designed and validated for intellectual and developmental disabilities. It is aimed at helping in diagnosis and treatment planning, neither of which is the responsibility of the NDIA. It was never intended or validated for general use with other disabilities. The questions can also be highly offensive to people without an intellectual disability.
Technical Information
Benefits
- Addresses today’s special needs populations, such as individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, and ADHD
- Updated with new norms and improved items
- Useful for diagnosis, qualification for special programs, progress reporting, program and treatment planning, and research
- Offers both respected semi-structured interview format which focuses discussion and gathers in-depth information, and also offers convenient rating forms
Many applications
With Vineland-3 you can measure adaptive behavior of individuals with:
- Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
- Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs)
- ADHD
- Post-traumatic brain injury
- Hearing impairment
- Dementia/Alzheimer’s disease
IA Trials Findings
It has come to light during the IA trials that the WHODAS 2.0 has been modified by the NDIA, rendering it an invalid tool. It also is in breach of the Conditions and Agreements of use of the WHODAS 2.0.
Terms and Conditions for Use of WHODAS 2.0
- You (“User”) shall not modify, abridge, condense, translate, adapt, recast or transform the WHODAS 2.0 in any manner or form, including but not limited to any minor or significant change in wording or organization, or administration procedures, of the WHODAS 2.0. If User thinks that changes are necessary for its work, or if translation is necessary, User must obtain written approval from WHO in advance of making such changes. https://www.who.int/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health/who-disability-assessment-schedule
In addition to these gross oversights and breaches the assessment tools are not fit for purpose. It is clear that the NDIA have chosen tools to suit their criteria of having any allied health professional employed in the Assessor role being able to administer the tools, rather than choosing tools which are the best assessment for the participant and to assess their individual needs.
The “independent assessment” should not be called an assessment. This is a screening process for a particular purpose – access and planning, neither of which will be done well with the tools they have cherry picked to support the agenda of decreasing expenditure by reassessing and removing people from the scheme or preventing their access in the first place.
f. The implications of independent assessments for access to and eligibility for the NDIS;
The potential for negative outcomes for PWD is extremely significant. It is already difficult enough for people with disabilities that are not listed on the “lists” to gain access to the NDIS. While there is a cost involved in people getting reports and assessments done from existing providers to support their access application, it at least provides accurate and thorough information on which the NDIA can make their decisions. Admittedly, they still struggle to make appropriate decisions as is the case in Client Example 1 (at the end of this document), but this could be fixed by hiring adequately trained health professionals in the access team. It doesn’t require an overhaul of the entire process and the introduction of IAs. It could also be fixed by allowing health professionals to bill the NDIA for the assessment and report.
As I discussed in my submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the Implementation of the NDIS in 2020 (submission #57), fixing the NDIA procedures and employing appropriate staff would be a much more rational solution. I also discussed the need to fix these procedures anyway, because someone applying for the NDIS still needs to get past the “gate keeper” delegates, who quite obviously are unable to read/understand health professional reports outlining the very information they claim has not been provided.
Time and again, I have conversations that go like this: “have you read the occupational therapy report?” “Yes, of course.” “Ok, so what part of X do you not understand?” 4 hours later, “Sorry, our mistake, your client does meet the eligibility criteria” or “We need more information” to which I get out my highlighter tool and highlight the relevant info and send it to them! Honestly, it’s not that hard. It also really does make applicants question whether they have a quota of rejections to meet, and if so “why me?”
Page 6 of 14
Do they prey on the people who are in such a severe state of incapacity, that they are likely not to have the ability to fight? It certainly feels like it.
I have one very significant concern if the IA process does go ahead (which, to be clear, I think is the most terrible idea they could come up with). If someone is not yet a participant because they have just applied, and as part of their approval, have to go through an IA, what happens to the applicant who is denied access? At present, and as evidenced in Client Example 1, the applicant is told on the phone that they have been denied access, and if they get upset/cry, they are given the number for LifeLine and told to call them. “Yes, here you go dear, here is the number for the suicide hotline, please call them if you are going to kill yourself.”
What does this person do now?
What services are they able to access?
Where do they get support?
How are they supposed to survive in the world with their disability that “isn’t severe enough?” This is an absolute violation of the UN Convention (Article 28)
I am talking immediate support, for the trauma they have endured in the IA process, but also support for their ongoing disability, which was severe enough for them to put themselves through the arduous process of applying and being scrutinised in an IA, yet not severe enough for our government to provide them with any assistance.
How is Client Example 1, who can only work 10 hours per week, suppose to survive? To pay for her disability supports, her capacity building, on top of any medical treatment, rent, food and other expenses? How is she supposed to actually survive?
The creation of the NDIS saw the repurposing of funds from state based services. People with conditions that are deemed “not severe enough” by the NDIS have been left high and dry by the system. There is no real, tangible support for them. There are very few services they can access unless they have to be admitted to hospital.
Do we want these people taking up hospital beds?
Do we want people going into hospital for an admission, getting some help, and then being
discharged on a 6 week ComPacks, over and over and over again so they can be cared for
appropriately?
Because this is where it is heading for a lot of people. PWD who are under 65 and who cannot access the NDIS are left with no other choices.
This is a violation of Article 17, 19, 20, 26, 28, 30 of the UN CRPD.
Article 15 – Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In
particular, no one shall be subjected without his or her free consent to medical or scientific
experimentation.
Page 7 of 14
Article 17 – Protecting the integrity of the person
Every person with disabilities has a right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity on an equal basis with others.
Article 19 – Living independently and being included in the community
States Parties to the present Convention recognize the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others, and shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the community, including by ensuring that:
-
Persons with disabilities have the opportunity to choose their place of residence and where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others and are not obliged to live in a particular living arrangement;
-
Persons with disabilities have access to a range of in-home, residential and other community support services, including personal assistance necessary to support living and inclusion in the community, and to prevent isolation or segregation from the community;
-
Community services and facilities for the general population are available on an equal basis to persons with disabilities and are responsive to their needs.
Article 20 – Personal mobility
States Parties shall take effective measures to ensure personal mobility with the greatest possible independence for persons with disabilities, including by:
-
Facilitating the personal mobility of persons with disabilities in the manner and at the time of their choice, and at affordable cost;
-
Facilitating access by persons with disabilities to quality mobility aids, devices, assistive technologies and forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including by making them available at affordable cost;
-
Providing training in mobility skills to persons with disabilities and to specialist staff working with persons with disabilities;
-
Encouraging entities that produce mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies to take into account all aspects of mobility for persons with disabilities.
Article 26 – Habilitation and rehabilitation
- States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures, including through peer support, to enable persons with disabilities to attain and maintain maximum independence, full physical, mental, social and vocational ability, and full inclusion and participation in all aspects of life. To that end, States Parties shall organize, strengthen and extend comprehensive habilitation and rehabilitation services and programmes, particularly in the areas of health, employment, education and social services, in such a way that these services and programmes:
-
Begin at the earliest possible stage, and are based on the multidisciplinary assessment of individual needs and strengths;
-
Support participation and inclusion in the community and all aspects of society, are voluntary, and are available to persons with disabilities as close as possible to their own communities, including in rural areas.
Article 28 – Adequate standard of living and social protection
1.
States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability.
2.
States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to social protection and to the enjoyment of that right without discrimination on the basis of disability, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of this right, including measures:
- To ensure equal access by persons with disabilities to clean water services, and to ensure access to appropriate and affordable services, devices and other assistance for disability-related needs;
- To ensure access by persons with disabilities, in particular women and girls with disabilities and older persons with disabilities, to social protection programmes and poverty reduction programmes;
- To ensure access by persons with disabilities and their families living in situations of poverty to assistance from the State with disability-related expenses, including adequate training, counselling, financial assistance and respite care;
- To ensure access by persons with disabilities to public housing programmes;
- To ensure equal access by persons with disabilities to retirement benefits and programmes.
Article 30 – Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport
1.
States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to take part on an equal basis with others in cultural life, and shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities:
- Enjoy access to cultural materials in accessible formats;
- Enjoy access to television programmes, films, theatre and other cultural activities, in accessible formats;
- Enjoy access to places for cultural performances or services, such as theatres, museums, cinemas, libraries and tourism services, and, as far as possible, enjoy access to monuments and sites of national cultural importance.
2.
States Parties shall take appropriate measures to enable persons with disabilities to have the opportunity to develop and utilize their creative, artistic and intellectual potential, not only for their own benefit, but also for the enrichment of society.
g. The implications of independent assessments for NDIS planning, including decisions related to funding reasonable and necessary supports;The IA is the most inappropriate way to make plan decisions. The IA does not gather information about the person’s actual support needs. There is no needs assessment done as part of the IA. So, how then, are people’s needs being determined? How is the “delegate” at the NDIA making these life-altering decisions for someone with a disability, that they have never met?
Rumour has it, the scores of the questionnaires of the IA toolkit are entered into a spreadsheet
which then determines the level of disability and the “appropriate” level of funding. I’m sorry, but never have I met two people with same disability/diagnosis who have the exact same needs, let alone needs that can be determined by an algorithm. This is “roboplanning” and does not take into consideration the individual who is an actual living and breathing human, not a car needing a pink slip. It also restricts freedoms under Article 19 of the UN CRPD by limiting access to personal assistance necessary to support living and inclusion in the community and to prevent isolation:
Article 19 - Living independently and being included in the community
States Parties to the present Convention recognize the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in
the community, with choices equal to others, and shall take effective and appropriate measures to
facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation
in the community, including by ensuring that:
b) Persons with disabilities have access to a range of in-home, residential and other community support
services, including personal assistance necessary to support living and inclusion in the community, and to
prevent isolation or segregation from the community;
There are very real fears for people with disabilities having inadequate plan funding due to the an inappropriate assessment of their needs. People will then be forced to choose between supports, instead of having access to what they need. This may mean that people choose house cleaning over personal care; delivery of preprepared meals over learning how/building capacity to engage in meal preparation; or worse still, in home assistance instead of psychological supports to learn community access strategies, further compounding their impairment
When there is inadequate funds in plans, PWD will be weighing their supports against other equally as important supports, choosing in preference of what is most needed now, instead of having the chance to plan for future capacity AND be supported now. This is not empowering or enabling or capacity building, this is scarcity, poverty and fear.
h. the appropriateness of independent assessments for people with particular disability
types, including psychosocial disability;
The independent assessments are not appropriate for ANY people with disability, let alone people with psychosocial disability, or those with complex needs. Concerns exist regarding:
- Ability to interact with assessor - people with ASD, psychosis, mania are examples of people who will have significant barriers to appropriate interaction
- Rapport - Time and positive interactions are required to build trust and safety in the therapeutic relationship; you can’t do that in a one off, intense, “assessment” where someone feels they are being scrutinised by a stranger
- Trauma – triggers and causing further trauma
- Inability to accurately answer questions o Lack of insight (this is a huge issue for many people with disabilities) o Lack of appropriate support person to accurately answer questions on their behalf
Other matters:
-
The Independent Assessment panel was announced just days after the “consultation” closed. This is an unbelievable slap in the face to the people who made submissions and in good-will, spent hours ensuring the voice of people with disabilities was heard. It wasn’t heard!!!!!! In fact, they could not have even read 450 documents in the 2 days between closing and announcement. Why did they bother?
2.2 Online submissions When submissions closed on 23 February 2021 we had received 769 unique online submissions (noting submissions can respond to more than one paper). -
450 responses to Access
-
293 responses to Planning
-
192 responses to ECEI reset
Who responded• Number Percentage of total NDIS participant. family or carer 157 34.8% Advocacy, community, sector, peak body 121 26.8% Health/allied health professional/service 67 14.8% Provider 65 14.4% State & territory govemmenl/mainstream 32 7.1% Person with disability (non-participant) 12 2.6% Partners & connectors 10 2.2% Agency-assisted submissions 7 1.5% Researcher 4 Less than 1% General public 4 Less than 1%" "Respondents may identify as more than one- The 27 page document “You said, we heard: access and eligibility policy with independent assessment” released in March 2021 is a painful example of Mr. Hoffman pretending to listen to what people have to say on these issues. The NDIA have not changed their decisions or actions in response to the feedback provided in the “pseudo-consultation”. They have simply stated that “this is the way it is“ and “nothing you do or say about it is going to change it“. It actually borders on psychological abuse at a national level.
It appears that they have cut and paste their political rhetoric from the NDIA website to formulate their “response“ to the concerns raised. They literally haven’t changed their stance!
What the tools mean for participants
w….-10..i.__._10…..,,-•,..-·1ft,>b<l,t,/lot1MmwuNNOG1 11
.. u.n1-tMW~~U.“°”“••tNlk…. 0<U..,,lrNI.WIIIINlll1p,,ol“olonll
….
–wt(CMM-• …… “”-••,.,-•, -••ll-,…..1\w”
N06P1MillllU(.ekwlNWtupfllllftN,t$fflfeoa,lt,
Independent assessors, and the assessment tools do not replace the relationship a
person has with their treating medical or allied health professional. The assessment
guide provides a reliable and consistent assessment of how a person functions in their ……..a,t,–U,,.-10W•-,.,,...,..,..….,.,,._….. .-..illN!Dlpro,……,.l…. _ …. ••f’l..-.1-lltolhclw•-tunl:t10M1t1hlr0iil1L,lt.‘-t-’- l,..il(-lU01i6o daily life. For example, the activities a person can do independently, as well as the
……….,__,Wi nt’ - •••t “)’ rl’II …. ….._.. activities where they might need assistance. The assessment does not indicate what
IO!lncl(Jfwnttotltfflmlflll .. jlnlontl)ll(tll1 «1lllctlonol supports or services you may need. lolflPOIIIIIC-!llw hOIAttflMIW~“”““ll’l»”“l••dlKI~
Do they really care that little that they cannot generate an ACTUAL response to the concerns and feedback? What is the point of just saying the same thing over and over again? It’s insulting to people with disabilities and all those involved, if they think we are just going to accept this and allow it to happen.
Further information on the participant experience
## What is an independent assessment?
+No matter where you live across Australia, if you are a new or existing participant aged
7 years and over; you, your family member, or carer will be able to choose the organisation your independent assessor comes from.
Across Local Government Areas {LGAs), 90% of organisations for an in-person independent assessment. you can choose from at least three Key factsAcross the remaining 10% of LGAs, you can choose from at least two organisations for • an in-person independent assessment. • Qualified healthcare professionals from eight organisations will deliver independent assessments across Australia. You also have the option to do your independent assessment by video call. You can choose: • Across 90% of Local Government Areas {LGAs), new and existing part,cipants can choose from at where and YJhen your assessment happens least three organisations for an In-person Independent assessment.
- if your assessor is male or female
- if you’d like your assessment done in one session. or over a number of days. • Across the remaining 10% of LGAs, new and existing participants can choose from at least two Participants In remote and very remote areas of Australia will have access to organisations for an in-person independent assessment. independent assessments from two or more panel organisations, either in person or by video call. The NOIA has gone through a formal process to find the right organisations to provide independent assessments. This process is called an open tender. To conduct independent assessments fairly and consistently, regardless of Yr’here a IN8 have also created a pricing structure which reflects the higher cost of delivering services in remote and very remote areas.
We’re talking to participants, their rammes and carers, and the disability community, to provide more information about independent assessments before they start in 2021.
Page 12 of 14
Client Example 1:
Client denied access to the NDIS on the grounds that she did not meet the disability requirements of permanency, despite submitting reports to the NDIS with her access request that explicitly stated the diagnosis AND the treatments undertaken.
She was sent a letter declining her access:
I am writing to let you know the outcome of your application for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).
Decision outcome I have considered your application and based on the information provided, your circumstances do not meet the disability and early intervention requirements described in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. This means, based on current information, you are not eligible for the NDIS. As discussed with you, I am sending you this letter as written confirmation of your access decision.
Next, I considered the disability requirements. •
Disability Requirements
Based on the Information provided. you do not m eet the dlsabillty requirements as set out in Section 24 of the NDIS Act, specifically:
Permanency, Section 24(1)(b) The NDIS Act considers whether a disability is permanent, or likely to be permanent. The information provided confirms that you have Ehlers Donlos Syndrome & POTS. However, this information does not indicate that all available and appropriate treatment options that are likely to improve the impacts of your disabilities have been explored. These treatment options must be explored before this requirement can be met. It is important to note that a person may have a disability without meeting all, or even any, of the NDIS disability requirements. For example, a person could have a temporary disability, or a permanent disability that does not have a substantial impact on their everyday functioning. Next, I considered the early intervention requirements.
Page 13 of 14
Despite her documentation from her GP (and myself) indicating the following:
TI1ere i no treatment for Ehler Danlos syndrome and it is a permanent condition. The pain is managed S) mptomaucally “ith Mobic and tramadol.
For Postural onhostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) there is no known cure. Despite medication, excrci e and lifesyle changes the impairment remains.
~ has tned the following to manage her condi1ion a) Phy~iotherapy b) Podiatry c) Exercise ph) siology d) Dietitian input e) Ongoing 812 injections f) Medications by specialist i.e biologics. mctoprolol,mobic and Midocrine g) CPAP h) Diet and lifestyle modilications i) Occupational therapy j) l lydrotherapy kl Psycholof,“)”
Has the NDIA honestly employed people who cannot read and understand a letter?
Or have they put KPI’s and quotas on their delegates who despite the blatantly obvious evidence, are forced to choose which unlucky applicant will be deemed eligible, despite the evidence? How is this OK? How is it fair that this is happening to vulnerable members of our society?
The reasons given verbally by the delegate informing the applicant of the decision were different to those stated in this letter. In addition, the delegate was reported to have made some grossly inappropriate comments about the reasons why she was not eligible, including “you can stand up from a chair by yourself, and you can walk by yourself, so you clearly don’t have a mobility impairment.”“You work 10 hours per week, so obviously you’re not that disabled” and “you have a friend, so socially you’re fine”. None of these are legislated eligibility requirements. And the participant should not have been treated in such a fundamentally disrespectful way.
What was made even worse was the fact that the applicant cried on the phone when given the news, as she was understandably upset and frustrated at the outcome. The delegate proceeded to give her the phone number for Lifeline and told her to call them.
Page 14 of 14