National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 [Provisions]
Submission 193
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.
1) Bill 2024
Submission in response to the Amendments.
Context: I am an NDI participant. I am j2 years old, live with my mother who is my primary carer due to the challenges I experience in receiving supports under the existing system, despite it’s flexibility. I have a neurological condition, every aspect of my life is impacted, and I need to rest for approximately 22 hours per day.
l have concerns about some of the proposed changes to the NDIs These primarHy centre around the loss of choice and control for participants.
Re Registration:
Currently, NDIS participants are able to purchase disability-related items from mainstream stores and online, including from Amazon, Ebay, Bunnings, etc. These purchases are often significantly cheaper than purchasing from disability-specific stores. For example, a shower chair can be purchased at a much lower price from Bunnings than a disability store. This provides value for money for the scheme, as well as allowing participants to maximise their budget by not unnecessarily being forced to purchase a more expensive option. Forcing purchases to come from registered stores and providers will take away this option.
Currently, NDIS participants are able to use non-NDIS registered service providers. In the case of allied health professionals, these providers have all the appropriate qualifications and registrations for their discipline. My physiotherapist clinic does not hold NDI registration, and do not intend to. They have a large client base, and have no need to go through this process. The complexity of my condition requires a specialty knowledge, and very few physiotherapists possess this. Not being able to use this physio would severely impact my functional capacity, ultimately increasing my support needs. Also, being able to use non-NDI registered providers allows me to use mainstream services for things such as cleaning and gardening. If they were required to complete even a basic level of NDIs registration, this would mean that A) I would have to disclose my disability and NDI status (which generally results in providers speaking down to me, treating me like a child, and providing a lower quality service), and B) providers trying to charge extra for things such as administration and travel (something that does not happen with mainstream clients).
Re Declared supports:
By only allowing declared supports, this takes away flexibility and innovation. A range of the low cost assistive technology items that I use to support my daily living are being used in a way that is different than the original intended purpose. This means that the items that I am after are actually not available in disability stores, and will not fall nicely onto a list of approved supports. People with disabilities are used to being creative and innovative with our supports, and setting a list of declared items and providers restricts this, our choice and control, and ultrmately the quality of supports that we are able to access.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 [Provisions]
Submission 193
A list of declared supports also fails to tak~ into account individual needs and circumstances. Assistive technology and supports that are appropriate for someone with a physical disability are very different to what would be appropriate for a psychosocial ‘disabil.1ty.’
It is difficult to tell from the information available so far, but I also have concerns about potential changes to the determination of accepted impairments. Some disabilities and impairments fall nicely into a particular specialty. This is not the case for all, particularly when there are multiple impairments involved. If specialist evidence is going to be required for all impairments, this would necessitate me seeing a cardiologist, neurologist, sleep physician, and pain specialist again, purely for the purposes of gathering paperwork. My condition is stable and does not require ongoing specialist input, therefore it would be inappropriate for my general practitioner to be referring me to these specialists again, when there is no medical justification.