Short submission regarding the ‘inquiry into independent assessments under the NDis’
carried out through the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance scheme, 2021.
This short submission addresses some specific TOR in relation to the review. I am a participant in the NDIS and do not represent any particular organisation.
How do we deal with multiple disabilities? Too often, even in the current system, there isn’t enough credence and accommodation allowed for people with multiple disabilities. As a (self) example: through no specific actions/activities I have been diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis and multiple sclerosis, two quite separate diseases. Concurrently I have a lower back issue and recently been advised I am osteopenic and also may have formed another arthritis-related issue. These are simply facts and the above statement is not a call for sympathy but to explicitly highlight that one person may have multiple issues and this complexity needs to be recognised.
Complex health situations make assessment difficult, and especially when regionally located (TOR - (j)) where matching capability of assessors with situations will be challenging. Further to this, on a ‘good day’ symptoms of MS can be reasonably well managed and seem mild. A good example is fatigue. Noting, for no apparent reason fatigue can become significant (even early in the day) and this can impact other symptoms (e.g., balance). Symptoms may express themselves differently and assessing the impact of a disability is complex. As such, there’s a need for an assessment procedure to be undertaken by skilled personnel (TOR - (d)), even in regional locations.
A series of assessment guidelines could be discussed and agreed upon with related special interest societies (e.g., MS Australia). Secondly, it’s strongly suggested that outcomes of reviews should be independently verified through processes like those used at boards from say MS Australia [or whatever equivalent]. There should be a process allowing individuals assistance meeting review requirements – interaction with experts who aren’t involved in assessments being key here. Finally, all assessment procedures require protocols enabling individual review (TOR - (I)) if they feel their situation isn’t accounted for; noting potential ramifications as outlined under TOR (f) & (g).
[END]
The committee’s role includes inquiry into implementation, performance and governance of NDIS. The Committee will inquire into independent assessments:
a. development, modelling reasons and justifications introducing them; b. impacts similar policies elsewhere or on government services.
- the human and financial resources needed to effectively implement independent assessments;
- the independence, qualifications, training, expertise and quality assurance of assessors;
- the appropriateness of the assessment tools selected for use in independent assessments to determine plan funding;
- the implications of independent assessments for access to and eligibility for the NDIS;
- the implications of independent assessments for NDIS planning, including decisions related to funding reasonable and necessary supports;
- the circumstances in which a person may not be required to complete an independent assessment;
- opportunities to review or challenge the outcomes of independent assessments;
- 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 linguastically diverse backgrounds;
- the appropriateness of independent assessments for people with particular disability types, including psychosocial disability; and
- any other related matters