- My mother was a program manager in a disability organisation when she had a major hemorrhagic stroke.
- Before this, she regularly advocated for clients and assisted them in navigating the NDIS.
- She is now an NDIS participant as the stroke left her profoundly disabled. She is unable to walk or talk. Our family is very concerned about the implementation of independent assessments and do not think the change is well justified or considered.
- Independent assessments may be a useful tool if they are one of many. People with complex disabilities cannot be assessed effectively in one appointment, and the opinions of familiar medical and allied health personnel should not be excluded.
- Our primary concern stems from what happens if the independent assessments get it wrong. If people with complex disabilities are underfunded it could mean a significant reduction in their quality of life and independence, and in some instances may in fact worsen the participants health or disability. The NDIS is not perfect currently, but it allows many disabled people to live with dignity and purpose, and to stay out of nursing homes, which, as we have seen recently, are often ife with abuse and neglect.
- If independent assessments are implemented there need to be thorough and complete options of review and appeal. Assessors can and will get it wrong. One set of questions cannot be relevant to 100% of disabled people. Any review should take into account other evidence provided by medical professionals and be able to adjust the outcome of funding. Anything else will be a huge backwards step and may have dire consequences for people with a disability, their families, and the communities in which they live.
- Independent assessments were never recommended to be implemented in a way that excluded other information or evidence. They may be a useful tool for people trying to access the NDIS for the first time - especially if there are financial constraints limiting the availability of medical and allied health reports - but they should not be used in place of all other evidence, particularly for existing participants.
- Without knowing the specific details of the assessments, we have real and ongoing doubts that they have scope to work effectively for all participants, especially those with language limitations like my mother, who is essentially non-verbal, but often repeats specific words out of context (one of them being, ‘yes,’ which may cause confusion to someone not intimately familiar with her individual cognition and language deficits).
-
We also have limited confidence in the true independence of the companies that have been tendered
-
to provide the independent assessments, as it seems many large disability companies have simply
-
started a new arm of the company to avoid conflict of interest. This does not seem good enough.
-
It also appears that the trial of independent assessments was not thorough, and did not let
-
participants comment on whether the outcome of the independent assessment gave them the
-
supports they needed, which is the most important factor and should not be ignored.
-
A major justification for the introduction of independent assessments in their present form seems to
-
be financial, and to reduce unnecessary government spending. This is a valid concern, but it does
-
not seem that the opposite has been considered. What are the consequences of underfunding NDIS
-
participants? We worry that this is the greater waste, and has not been adequately addressed. It will
-
mean a loss of independence, of dignity, of freedom, of staying out of a nursing home, of family
-
income and work participation, and at the most extreme end may result in serious health
-
consequences and even death.
-
NDIS independent assessments - as they stand - are not in the best interests of people with a
-
disability, and could have huge and devastating consequences if implemented without significant
-
changes and safeguards.