NDIA Accountability Project

Son's Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis and specialist support needs

‹ PrevPage 1 of 2 · Source p. 1Next ›

To

Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme

My key points are the following: -

  • Implementing “independent assessments” on all NDIS participants is excessive and needlessly causes increased hardship to NDIS recipients
  • The evaluation of independent assessment pilot referenced in NDIA’s submission to the inquiry provides insufficient justification for implementing independent assessments for all NDIS participants
  • NDIA should do further pilots to identify criteria for areas where independent assessments should be carried out, rather than implementing the current approach of “independent assessments for all”. NDIA should also publish an appropriate framework acceptable to it for future qualification to the NDIA.
  • While I work in the disability sector myself, I am submitting this in a personal capacity. My employer does not know that my son is an NDIA recipient, nor have they any knowledge that I am submitting this or suggest that I submit anything.

Background:

My son has Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and was diagnosed with this condition in 2013 when he was three years old. This required multiple sessions with a psychologist, specialist pediatrician, speech therapist and an occupational therapist before they eventually diagnosed him with ASD. My son receives some funds to pay for continued support from specialists such as a speech therapist and an occupational therapist.

In detail: -

I question the requirement to inflict assessments on all the NDIS recipients and their families who have already been disadvantaged by circumstances. As a parent, nothing would make me happier if my son didn’t have this condition in the first place.

If the original result was, in my layman words, “my son needs help from specialists”, I struggle to see the result change to anything different from the same – if the independent assessments are implemented in his case. As time has gone by, his needs and abilities have changed. His specialist needs, his NDIS plan/budget and his sessions with the specialists have changed as well to match it.

I’ve read the “Independent Assessment Pilot Evaluation Findings” and couldn’t see sufficient quantitative data to support a 100% re-assessment justification. While it notes deficiencies in the previous approach, it fails to provide sufficient evidence that a re-evaluation will result in significantly different outcomes when compared to the existing processes. Additionally, the pilot was not completed as it was interrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Perhaps the NDIA should identify further the circumstances where the current set of documentation is sufficient to not require an independent assessment. Similarly, it should identify conditions in which an independent assessment must be carried out. Use of independent assessment should be targeted and evidence based rather than done on a blanket approach basis. If the NDIA believes that there are flaws in the testing approach, then it should publish requirements on the annual reviews, where NDIA

  • participants have to get new reports anyway from the specialists.

If they are concerned about quality, t hen again, they can request specific criteria or get a statutory declaration from the specialist preparing he reports.

Assuming a cost of ~$4,000 per participant assessment cost (excluding Medicare rebates), the cost of carrying these assessments for 432,000 (NDIA participant count in 2020 per the NDIA’s submission), there is an implied cost of ~$1.728 billion (or approximately 9.8% of the 2019/20 NDIS budget amount).

Providing equity is important. One way would be to offer the independent assessments to people who are struggling to get access to, or afford, the specialist assessments.

To effectively throw out all the assessments out carried out to date for all the NDIs participants appears to be an ill-considered outcome. This would be equivalent to discarding the billions spent in assessment costs to date in the bin.

As an Australian, I support the NDIS and efficient use of taxpayer money. If there is something that can derive a win-win for both the NDIS participants and taxpayers, I would support that outcome.

However, based on the documents published by the NDIA and their submission to the Committee, I am struggling to see sufficient evidence to support the 100% re-evaluation of all the NDIS participants.