Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS regarding Independent Assessments
Author: Graham Taylor NDIS’s relevance to the Author: Father of a young man with significant disabilities who has been an NDIS participant since mid-2018. Intent of Submission: To highlight failings in the NDIA’s proposed approach to independent assessments, planning and budgeting. date of submission: 12 March 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
1 Introduction (page 3)
2 Background (page 3)
3 Core Concerns (page 4)
3.1 An overly simplistic approach to the benefit of NDIA not the Participant (page 4)
3.2 Sympathy Bias a flawed justification for Independent Assessments (page 4)
3.3 Independent Assessment Assessors should not be sourced from an appointed panel (page 4)
3.4 An Independent Assessment must be reviewable.(page 5)
3.5 Budgets should only be developed once Goals are known (page 5)
4 What this means for the NDIA (page 6)
5 Concluding Observations (page 7)
6 Appendix – Responding to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference (page 9)
6.1 The development, modelling, reasons and justifications for the introduction of independent assessments into the NDIS (page 9)
6.2 The impact of similar policies in other jurisdictions and in the provision of other government services (page 10)
6.3 The human and financial resources needed to effectively implement independent assessments (page 10)
6.4 The independence, qualifications, training, expertise and quality assurance of assessors (page 11)
6.5 The appropriateness of the assessment tools selected for use in independent assessments to determine plan funding (page 12)
6.6 The implications of independent assessments for access to and eligibility for the NDIS (page 12)
6.7 The implications of independent assessments for NDIS planning, including decisions related to funding reasonable and necessary supports (page 12)
6.8 The circumstances in which a person may not be required to complete an independent assessment (page 14)
6.9 Opportunities to review or challenge the outcomes of independent assessments (page 14)
Page 1 of 15
Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS regarding 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 linguistically diverse backgrounds.
The appropriateness of independent assessments for people with particular disability types, including psychosocial disability.
Any other related matters.
Independent Assessments
Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the NIDS regarding Independent Assessments
The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) issued three publications in recent months:
- Consultation paper: Access and Eligibility Policy with independent assessments
- Consultation paper: Planning Policy for Personalised Budgets and Plan Flexibility
- Independent Assessment Framework: August 2020
The author has prepared this submission to provide the Joint Standing Committee with the feedback on these documents and the proposed Independent Assessments in particular.
In support of the comments offered later in this submission the author first provides some background on his son, a NDIS participant (section 2), then summarises the five flaws in the approach proposed by the NDIA (section 3). The author offers an opinion on the impact the proposed changes will have on NDIA and the current Federal Government (section 4) and then offers some personal concluding observations (section 5). In the Appendix the author offers detailed comments on the terms of reference of the Joint Standing Committee.
Background
The author’s son – referred to hereafter as ‘MJ’ – is a young man in his early 30’s. He was diagnosed with Autism at the age of two and with an intellectual impairment in his school years. He completed his schooling at a state-run special school. In 2008, during a prolonged hospital stay to battle a viral infection MJ developed epilepsy. It took over a year to get the seizures under control, during which time MJ lost further cognitive and motor function.
MJ requires a high level of support, has poor gross and fine motor skills, and consistently demonstrates a range of challenging behaviours.
Prior to entering the NDIS in mid-2018, MJ’s challenging behaviour had become so frequent and intense that his family – fatigued and stressed by the continual conflict with MJ, and tension with his service provider – feared they would have to formally implement restrictive practices (ie. admission to hospital, state-run care facilities or significant medical and chemical intervention).
NDIS enabled MJ’s family to select, hire and train the right kind of people to support MJ. NDIS also afforded access to competent experienced professionals (Speech and Language Pathologists, Occupational Therapists and Psychologists) to help the family and support team build an understanding of how MJ experiences the world and how best to help MJ make his way in that world.
MJ’s transformation in this environment has been nothing short of amazing – though he still has his moments of stress and frustration, he is a much calmer happier young man (a fact backed up by the behavioural data routinely collected by the family and support team).
Core Concerns
On reading the three publications listed above, the author saw five major issues emerge that are of concern. This section covers those concerns. The Appendix to this paper covers these concerns in greater detail.
3.1 An overly simplistic approach to the benefit of NDIA not the Participant
It is laudable the NDIA espouses easing the burden of proving a person with disability (PwD) is eligible for the NDIS. However, the breadth of changes being introduced with new IA and budgeting processes make the NDIA the clear beneficiary. A single brief assessment is supposed to provide the NDIA with everything it needs to determine someone’s eligibility and develop a budget to meet their needs.
The NDIA is yet to present clear evidence that an IA can adequately present an accurate picture of a PwD’s functional capacity and related environmental and personal factors. Indeed, there are published statements of distrust “that this assessment process will be able to accurately gauge what supports people truly want and need”[1].
3.2 Sympathy Bias - a flawed justification for Independent Assessments
Central to the case for IA is the perceived need to reduce “sympathy bias”, where allied health professionals engaged by or in some way linked or known to the PwD skew their reporting to the PwD’s advantage.
The central argument the NDIA uses unfairly draws on examples put forward by the Productivity Commission where individuals seek compensation because of traffic accidents. These scenarios typically represent the individual’s single chance to be compensated for life for injuries sustained. There seems little reason to assume allied health professionals are under the same pressure to exhibit sympathy bias (if such a thing exists) when an NDIS budget undergoes regular review and reapproval.
to further the case that sympathy bias needs to be dealt with, the NDIA cites published academic work which draws on a sample size of just 29 PwD, all located in the one residential facility[2]. Surely such significant changes to the NDIS are worthy of more substantial research and consultation. To do otherwise is displaying undue haste and disregard for PwDs.
3.3 Independent Assessment Assessors should not be sourced from an appointed panel
A assessor sourced from a panel established by the NIDA is a significant flaw in the proposed approach. It is the thin edge of the wedge that will see a stealthy return of the old block-funding
1 https://teamdsc.com.au/resources/test-drive-or-crash-test-independent-assessments 2 Guscia, R., Harries, J., Kirby, N., & Nettelbeck, T. (2006). Rater Bias and The Measurement Of Support Needs. Journal Of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 31(3), 156–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250600876459
Independent Assessments
Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the NDS regarding Independent Assessments
a model of pre-NDIS days. A model that was described in unflattering terms in submissions to the 2011 PC Review of the NDis.
A panel specialist paid by the NDIA and will focus on delivering the outcomes the NDIA wants. One is assume panel specialist who fails to do so will not be on the panel long. If the NDIA is focused on ensuring the NDIS is sustainable (trimming costs) that will ultimately be reflected in the work of the panel specialists. Outcomes for the PwD will no doubt become a lower priority to outcomes the NDIA seeks.
3.4 An Independent Assessment must be reviewable
Arguing an IA cannot be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) because it is not a decision the delegate makes under the NDIS Act is a clever policy construct that attempts to insulate the NDIA from its obligation of procedural fairness to the PwD.
The IA is not a simple numerical, formulaic assessment such as a blood test. There will need to be an avenue for querying/testing an IA, not unlike seeking a second medical opinion.
It is clear in the NDIA’s publications an IA is inextricably linked to NDIS’ decision making processes. Any decision stands – and is defended – on the logic and data that support it. If a decision is open dispute, so too must be the logic and data on which that decision stands.
3.5 Budgets should only be developed once Goals are known
The NDIA’s publications make it clear a PwD’s plan budget will be prepared from the information gathered during the IA process; before the PwD can discuss their goals with the NDIA. This is themost retrograde change being proposed by the NDIA. Currently a PwD can ensure personal goals are considered by NDis planner (or LAC) in the plan development process.
The actual process proposed by the NDIA do not reflect the balance and thoughtful consideration advocated in its publications. Deciding on the budget before gaining a proper appreciation of the PwDs circumstances and relevant environmental factors is a devaluing act and a stealthy return toto the world of block funding spoken of so poorly in the 2011 PC review.
The NDIA makes it clear that a ‘draft budget’ developed from the consideration of an IA can onlybe changed in specific circumstances. The NDIA does not do itself any favours with this word game. Abudget that cannot be changed is, for most PwD, not a draft budget.
What this means for the NDIA
The NDIA expresses some creditable policy principles in its publications.
Consultation paper: Access and Eligibility Policy with independent assessments
Page 12, section 3.1, last paragraph, “…this process will:
a) be accessible, holistic and strength-based, recognising each individual’s life circumstances and environmental factors b) involve the individual in decision making processes that affect them to the fullest extent possible, and supports them to make decisions for themselves d) acknowledge and respect the role of families, carers and other significant persons in the individual’s life where applicable”
However the actual proposed processes do not honour these principles. A process that goes from IA to ‘personalised’ budget without engagement with the PwD about their life goals:
- is not recognizing the individual’s life circumstances, and
- Is not involving the PwD in decision making to the fullest extent possible.
The limited opportunity for engagement in the IA process is not respecting the role of families, carers and other significant persons.
The clever language in these publications does the NDIA and the current Federal Government a disservice. It comes across as saying one thing and doing another. This in turn represents a reputational risk to both parties, undermining their credibility in the eyes of the PwD and the broader community. This in turn will lead to increased antagonism between PwD and NDIA planners.
5 Concluding Observations
The author watched television coverage of the Prime Minister addressing the press earlier in March 2021 regarding the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety3. Some of the findings were distressing to hear (the author has parents in aged care).
One of the things the Prime Minster said struck a nerve, he spoke of the need to “shift from a constrained system that focuses on funding to providers to a needs-based system that puts the person at the centre”. That statement seems a tad ironic as the NDIA – and the current Federal government – are heading down the “constrained system” path with its proposed changes to the NDIS.
to quote the Hon Russell Broadbent MP, “Have we not learned from the aged care debacle?!”4
the author read parts of the Aged Care Royal Commission’s final report and found one section esonated strongly. The Royal Commissioners wrote,
“Poor policy, honestly and diligently administered, may cause serious but unintended consequences. Persisting with poor policy, in ignorance of its effect or in the face of clear evidence of its failure, is another matter.”
The changes proposed for the NDIS in publications mentioned in the introduction (section 1) of this submission represent poor policy. It will have disastrous consequences for PwD and their families. It will have disastrous consequence for the trustworthiness of current and future Federal governments.
in the Prime Minister’s televised address on the Aged Care Royal Commission final report he said, “It’s personal. The care of those we love is personal.” He is indeed right. Like aged care, the care of our disabled reaches into, and affects, families directly.
the author finds re-expressing logic or arguments in personal terms a useful tool for assessing their validity. The current Federal Government has in the past extolled its aim to bring the Federal Budgetack into surplus. Was it within four years? That was before the COVD-19 pandemic struck. No doubt a focus on a budget surplus will return to the fore at some point. NDIS participants have already paid a substantial price for that goal when the NDIS lost $1.6 Billion to shore up the budget.
3 https://www.9news.com.au/national/aged-care-royal-commission-prime-minister-scott-morrison-hands-down-final-report-452m-dollar-boost/ed0d0845-cefd-41a7-b406-78aa0feca67f?app=applenews 4 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/dec/08/coalition-plan-on-ndis-assessments-has-echoes-of-aged-care-debacle-liberal-mp-says
Page 7 of 15
Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS regarding Independent Assessments
in his darker moments, this is how the author sees the Federal Government’s argument… It’s like a father explaining to his son why the family cannot afford a wheelchair ramp at home, which would benefit the son significantly, and then in the next breath turning to his wife and daughter and assuring them the family is on track to pay off the mortgage next year.
living within our means is important but compromising the health and care of loved ones to achieve a debt management goal points to a deeper more troubling compromise.
The author continues to expect better of Australia’s elected representatives.
Appendix – Responding to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference
in this appendix to the submission the author provides commentary to the 12 points in the inquiry’s terms of reference. The author points out that the statements offered in this appendix are in some cases a repeat of statements made elsewhere in this submission. There are repeated here for completeness.
6.1 The development, modelling, reasons and justifications for the introduction of independent assessments into the ndis
Central to the case for Independent Assessments (IA) is the perceived need to reduce the potential for “sympathy bias” in the assessments undertaken by allied health professionals engaged by or in some way linked or known to the Person with disability (PwD). This is drawn from Productive Commission’s 2011 inquiry on Disability Care and Support. That enquiry takes its source material from Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) dealings with the Transport Accident Commission (TAC), no doubt relating to claims for compensation because of traffic accidents. These scenarios typically represent an individual’s single chance to be compensated for life for injuries sustained. There seems little reason to assume allied health professionals are under the same pressure to exhibit sympathy bias when an NDIS budget undergoes regular review and reapproval.
The NDIA also asserts its IA proposal aligns with the original intent in the Productivity commission (PC) report. This so-called alignment is far from perfect. To quote the PC report (Productivity commission–Disability care and support Inquiry Report 2011, page 327),
“it would [be] important to involve other interested parties (a so called circle of support) in the assessment process. Ideally, these would be people who were familiar with the care and support needs of the individual, they might include family members, carers and direct support professionals. Moreover, the assessment process would draw upon existing medical reports.”
an informal support participating in the actual IA interview is a wholly inadequate reflection of what the Pc describes. Also, the proposed IA process as it stands makes no reference to accessing existing medical reports.
it appears the ndia is cherry-picking pc recommendations to its benefit, not the person with disability (PwD).
to further the case that sympathy bias needs to be dealt with, the NDIA cites published academic work which draws on a sample size of just 29 PwD, all located in the one residential facility5. Surely such significant changes to the NDIS are worthy of more substantial research and consultation. To do otherwise is displaying undue, almost unseemly, haste and disregard for PwD.
The NDIA is yet to present clear evidence that an IA can adequately represent an accurate picture of a PwD’s functional capacity and related environmental and personal factors. Indeed,
5 Guscia, R., Harries, J., Kirby, n., & nettelbeck, T. (2006). rater Bias and the measurement of Support Needs. Journal Of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 31(3), 156–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250600876459
Independent Assessments
Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS regarding Independent Assessments
published statements of distrust “that this assessment process will be able to accurately gauge what supports people truly want and need”⁶.
6.2 The impact of similar policies in other jurisdictions and in the provision of other government services
in about 2013, the United Kingdom (UK) introduced the Personal Independence Payment (PIP)⁷. The PIP has parallels with the NDIS. Associated with the PIP are medical assessments⁸, which have striking similarities with the NDIA’s IA. These medical assessments are undertaken by contractors sourced from companies engaged by the UK Government. Similar to the appointed panel mechanism proposed by the NDIA.
The UK’s experience with this approach points to a horrific future for PwD in Australia under the proposed NDIS eligibility regime.
- In three years, complaints about the medical assessment process grew 6,000⁹ with inadequate outcomes driving PwD to go through an appeal process akin to the NDis/AAT review mechanism.
- This issue has fuelled distrust among PwD in the system that is meant to help them. This has resulted in worsening health for many PwD due to stress and/or anxiety¹⁰.
- There are disconcerting claims of medical assessments misreporting and/or omitting details that impact on the eligibility of PwD for PIP¹¹.
There is ample Australian evidence of insurance-based models losing their way when they lose focus on their core mission; to care of the insured. NSW’s recent experience with iCare – its workers compensation scheme – is surely a cautionary tale. iCare is in financial crisis, with suggestions of accessors ‘gaming’ the system to their benefit, and the care of injured workers is being compromised¹².
6.3 The human and financial resources needed to effectively implement
the author observes that all the resources that have been, and will be, expended to establish and operate the IA regime are resources that do not deliver front-line services to PwD. Would the Joint Standing Committee be able to get the NDIA to express the estimated forward cost for the next five years not in AUD but in multiples of the average NDIS plan value?
⁶ https://teamdsc.com.au/resources/test-drive-or-crash-test-independent-assessments ⁷ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Independence_Payment ⁸ https://www.ms-uk.org/choices-personal-independence-payment-content ⁹ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/disability-benefit-assessment-complain-uk-government-a8894341.html tens https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/30/staggering-rise-pip-complaints-rot-system-disability-benefits ¹¹ https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/pip-investigation-assessment-reports-show-widespread-dishonesty-by-nurses/ ¹² [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-27/four-corners-workers-compensation-investigation/12477902]
6.4 The independence, qualifications, training, expertise and quality assurance of assessors
The NDIA has indicated assessors who will undertake IA’s will be drawn from a panel it establishes. This is considered a significant flaw in the proposed approach. The following should make this point clear.
Under the old State ‘block funding’ model, the core financial relationship was between the State and the service provider (SP). The SP focused on its relationship with the entity who purchased its services, the State. The SP was under no great pressure to provide a PwD a service that truly met their needs. The author and his special-needs son have direct experience of that process and uunderstand too well how it fails the PwD. The 2011 PC review contains ample evidence of poor outcomes under this approach.
One of the key benefits of the NDIS is that it turned this situation around. Funds were provided to the PwD who could chose the service they felt best met their needs. The PwD was empowered to make their own choices in how to live their life and the SP was motivated to provide a service that net the PwD’s needs/wants.
The use of a panel to source specialists to undertake the IA is a return to the old model by stealth. A pane specialist paid by the NDIA will focus on delivering the outcomes the NDIA wants. Failing to do so will mean the specialist will not be on the panel long. If the NDIA is focused on ensuring the NDIS is sustainable (trimming costs) that will ultimately be reflected in the work of the panel specialists.
There is ample evidence of other insurance-based models losing their way when they lose focus on heir core mission, to care for the insured. NSW’s recent experience with iCare – its workers compensation scheme – is surely a cautionary tale. iCare is in financial crisis, with suggestions of accessors ‘gaming’ the system to their benefit, and the care of injured workers being compromised13.
The suggestion in the PC report that “assessors should be drawn from an approved pool of allied health professionals”14 can be achieved via mechanisms other than a specialist panel. For example, an allied health sector sourced peer review program could be established.
Once the pool of allied health professionals is established, the process followed should ensure a bbalance of views are used in the assessment – encompassing the independent assessor, the allied health professionals with knowledge of the PwD, and the circle of support.
Further, there are peak bodies in the allied health sector that already oversee the competence and accreditation of health professionals … for example:
- Australian Psychological Society
- Occupational Therapy Australia
- Speech Pathology Australia
13 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-27/four-corners-workers-compensation-investigation/12477902 14 Productivity Commission–Disability Care and Support Inquiry Report 2011, page 327
- Royal Australian & New Zealand College of Psychiatrists
- Royal Australian College of General Practitioners
it is clear the NDIA has engaged with a number of these peak bodies in the past regarding ia. involving these peak bodies in the ongoing management of assessor selection and competency would aid in maintaining community trust in the impartiality and fairness of any ndia introduced process.
- The appropriateness of the assessment tools selected for use in independent as assessments to determine plan funding
the author refers the reader to the comments made in section 6.6 below.
- the implications of independent assessments for access to and eligibility for the dis
in only placing the independent assessment (ia) at the centre of its eligibility and budgeting processes, the ndia is taking an alarmingly simplistic approach to understanding a person with isability (pwd) and gaining a view on what support they need.
The ndia asserts that there “is a need to recognise that a person’s functional capacity is influenced by a dynamic and complex relationship between one, or often multiple known conditions, as well as another conditions yet to be diagnosed, environmental and personal factors”15. despite this assertion, a actual proposed ia and budgeting processes make it clear that the ndia believes a single brief ia p provides all that is needed to both understand a pwd and tailor a budget to meet their needs. two iv individuals might have similar ia ‘results’ but the same budget may not be fair because of other factors – for example, living in an urban compared to a remote environment.
an ia is undertaken by an individual who, however well trained and experienced, undertakes the asessment at a point in time. is the assessor always appropriately focused on the task at hand? has the assessors approach changed over time? is the pwd cooperative for the hour or so they interact with the assessor. at best, an ia is a first cut at building an ‘overall picture’. to argue a single ia will provide an adequate overall picture of a pwd is misguided.
6.7 The implications of independent assessments for NDIS planning, including decisions related to funding reasonable and necessary supports
the assumption that an ia that confirms a pwds eligibility for access to the ndis also provides adquate information for developing a personalised budget is one of several significant flaws in this in new approach the ndias intends to use. the ndia is yet to present clear evidence that an ia will pprovide a clear view of all the aspects of a pnds needs to support the development of a personalised budget. the brevity of the ia process suggests it would not be suitable for budget development.
15 Independent Assessment Framework: August 2020, Page 8, section 2.3, paragraph 4.
Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS regarding Independent Assessments
One of the significant benefits of the proposed IA and budgeting processes is that things are made much simpler for the NDIA, in that a single brief assessment supposedly provides everything necessary to not only determine someone’s eligibility for the NDIS, but to also develop a budget that meets their needs.
The NDIA also makes it clear that a PwD’s plan budget would be prepared before the PwD can discuss their goals with the NDIA. This is the most retrograde change being proposed by the NDIA.
The NDIA states it will “provide personalised budgets which balance individual circumstances and the sustainability of the NDIS”[16] and the “funding provided in a personalis ed budget will be informed by the participant’s individual circumstances, such as their age and where they live, and their functional capacity, including any relevant environmental factors”[17].
The actual process proposed by the NDIA does not reflect the balance and thoughtful consideration captured in the above quotes. Deciding on the budget before gaining a proper appreciation of the PwD’s circumstances and relevant environment factors is a devaluing act and a furtive return to the world of block funding spoken of so poorly in the PC 2011 review.
The NDIA uses the term ‘draft budget’ but asserts it can only be changed in specific circumstances[18]. The NDIA does not do itself any favours with this word game. A budget that cannot be changed is, for most PwDs, not a draft budget.
The NDIA asserts “the NDIS Act does not provide that a participant’s goal or aspirations determine their reasonable and necessary supports”[19]. The author struggles to see how the NDIA arrived at this interpretation of the NDIS Act (as published in 2018). Sections 4 and 33 of the Act make it clear goals, objectives and aspirations are linked in the plan with the reasonable and necessary supports (the budget).
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, section 4 clause 11(a)
“Reasonable and necessary supports for people with disability should:
(a) support people with disability to pursue their goals and maximise their independence”.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, section 33 clause 2(b)
“A participant’s plan must include a statement (the statement of participant supports), prepared with the participant and approved by the CEO, that specifies:
(b) the reasonable and necessary supports (if any) that will be funded under the National Disability Insurance Scheme” .
The Act also makes it clear that the reasonable and necessary supports (budget) must be prepared with the participant, not delivered to the participant as a ‘fait accompli’.
[16] Consultation paper: Planning Policy for Personalised Budgets and Plan Flexibility, Page 10, section 3.1, point a [17] Ibid, Page 11, section 3.2, para 3 [18]Ibid, Page 13, section 3.3, para 5 [19]Ibid, Page 17, section 3.4.3, para 2
Independent Assessments
Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS regarding Independent Assessments
6.8 The circumstances in which a person may not be required to complete an independent assessment
The author offers no comment on this issue but instead – in the spirit of involving “the individual in decision making processes that affect them to the fullest extent possible”20– asks that the NDIA publish a consultation paper on this topic for consideration by PwD and the broader community.
6.9 Opportunities to review or challenge the outcomes of independent assessments
An IA is performed by an allied health professional at a point in time, based on a brief interaction with a PwD and possibly a few informal supports. The health professional interprets what is seen and heard and completes an assessment proforma. It is possible the health professional might not be on the ‘top of his/her game’ at that point in time. The PwD might not be cooperative. Despite training, a fair degree of interpretation is required – translating what is seen and heard into the conceptual model inherent in the assessment proforma. This is not a simple numerical, formulaic assessment such as a blood test. There will need to be an avenue for querying/testing an IA, not unlike seeking a second medical opinion. A failure to accommodate the potential for disparate professional views can potentially lead to extremely poor outcomes. In Queensland Health a process called Ryan’s Rule21 was established because – at some point – a health professional felt his/her initial assessment of someone didn’t need to be revisited, at the cost of a person’s life.
Arguing an IA cannot be reviewed by the AAT because it is not a decision the delegate makes under the NDIS Act is clever policy construct that attempts to insulate the NDIA from its obligation of procedural fairness to the PwD.
The NDIA makes it clear an IA would be inextricably linked to it’s decision making processes22. Any decision stands – and is defended – on the logic and data that support it. If a decision is open to dispute, so too must the logic and data on which that decision stands.
6.10 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
The author offers no comment on this issue.
20 Consultation paper: Access and Eligibility Policy with independent assessments, Page 12, section 3.1, last paragraph 21 https://www.health.qld.gov.au/cairns_hinterland/html/ryan-home 22 Consultation paper: Planning Policy for Personalised Budgets and Plan Flexibility, Page 6, section 2.2.1, para 1
Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS regarding Independent Assessments
6.11 The Appropriateness of Independent Assessments for People With Particular Disability Types, Including Psychosocial Disability
The author offers no comment on this issue, deferring to allied health professionals with experience in these fields.
6.12 Any Other Related Matters
The author offers no further comments.