National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill

Submission: ‘clarify definition permanence introducing concept “all-appropriate treatment”’

My disability lacks known well-evidenced cures/treatments right now; minimal research exists towards anything hopeful. NDIS denies applications from people with my condition saying they haven’t tried everything despite there being none listed/reliable evidence provided about which ones exist. This denial process already harms lives before suggested changes make things worse due lack clear criteria for determining if someone’s had ‘tried’ treatments. The flawed study suggests possible treatment but other studies warn against its dangers causing severe permanent loss function/potential death; patient experiences confirm this danger/harm too. Australia’s national organization has clearly stated how dangerous such a course is, majority countries are updating recommendations in line with these findings yet NDIS ignores this information completely. Requiring individuals undergoing this treatment could result losing ability sit up/get out bed/eat/think/interact socially/sustain life itself— it disgustingly demands risking what little quality of life one might have just to check off having attempted every available option. Lack access support also causes similar harm over time when forced act beyond capacity, leaving no good options: either try risky new treatment potentially ruin our lives hoping enough supports funded by NDIS prevent us dying once it renders unable care ourselves or be without appropriate NDSS funding continue declining lose functionality force acting outside own capacities sustain life end same place kill slowly painfully leave others needing 24x7 lifelong care take people who maybe maintained some employment or at least community participation isolate home bed instead disability shouldn’t cause death however without adequate support can lose so much functioning eventually we cannot digest food starve death terrified future. This doesn’t even consider accessibility financially geographically etc. My condition leaves me largely housebound often confined bed bound if discovery new cure needed fly somewhere get it probably couldn’t afford do otherwise lack necessary supports nearby medical appointments wheelchair affordable treatments since pension below poverty level already spending money medications many other services should fund but must pay privately because otherwise survive not possible. The only requirement is for health professional state all-appropriate treatments trialed further unlikely remedy the disability therefore permanent; his/her opinion matters more than an untrained/underqualified NDIS employee’s based on generated list lacking understanding science involved individual person’s needs. doctors shouldn’t spend hours writing detailed reports managing disabilities better (many won’t and those that will likely charge significantly).

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 1969 can afford). Their medical opinion should be what matters, not the opinion of a NDIS staff member who maybe didn’t read or didn’t understand the documents provided.

“clarify the requirement for support needs to be directly related to a participant’s eligible impairments” I have multiple disabilities with overlapping impairments and no one could possibly determine which support needs are needed for which disability. I need to be treated holistically as a person with support needs, not left squabbling over which need is caused by which disability. If we only cared about the impairment and not the diagnosis that might actually work but that’s not how the NDIS actually functions. I have obvious impairments but unless I can prove I fully treated every possible cause of those impairments then I only get funding for the accepted cause even though that support need is caused by both the accepted disability and the disability that hasn’t been accepted. This is the news to slash funding even when that support need might be exactly the same if I only had the one accepted disability because NDIS argues that the other disability is also contributing but they weren’t fund supports for that disability so even if I need X due to my thunder disability still cant’get it adequately funded It s really ridiculous way approaching disability most disabled people know more than 1disability complex interplay unique different You shouldn t separate out something mixed into who am person you should say yes see life sustaining activities but we’re goingnto support haven’t proved difficulty “limit unscheduled plan reassessments” My first NDIS planning meeting was traumatizing causing substantial loss function from never recovered now years later terrified happen stop rolling inadequate needs rightfully afraid next plan meeting lose more function don’t survive Having an unscheduled plan reassessment risk directly because without time prepare access would need won’t advocate small amount rely on moment. as a disabled live fear ability taken NDIS at any moment. “expand National Disability Insurance Agency’s powers identify, investigate respond fraud non-compliance ensure integrity” This absolutely not targeting individual disabled people like robodebt Centrelink completely unethical unjustifiable government will responsible deaths NDIS less fraud happening most departments primarily by providers ripping off participants using funds inappropriately. Just adequate funding plans probably cost agency wasting lot of time effort trying demonise disabled many disabilities have cognitive difficulties navigate all We shouldn’t

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 1969

have to have a degree in India yes to feel safe using our plan for the things that we need. Often the rules unclear or constantly changing or dependent on who you ask. Other rules dake no logical sense so they may not occur to people, such as when people are penalized\norusingacheaperoptionthatisavailabletoeveryoneinsteadofamoreexpensivedisabilityspecificitemthatdoestheexactsamethingandmeetstheiurdisabilityratedneeds.Itsabsolutelyridiculoustosuggestthesomebodymustuse$a$10{comma}000dedicatedAA Cdevice(theymightwaityearstogetfundingfor)i nsteadoffundinganiPadandaACappjustbecausetechnicallyaniPadcouldalsobeused forsomethingelse.