Submission:
National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)
With the introduction of the NDIS, it has made a real difference to what I am able to have, to do, and to participate in. I am very grateful for the incredible assistance, which goes some way to making me feel ‘normal’ again.
Sadly, we the Participants, are often being blamed for the escalating cost of running such a Scheme, funded almost entirely by tax payer money. While there is probably a handful of Participants giving us all a bad name, the real costs of escalation can be found in many, many places, including the bodies charged with running the Scheme. Needless to say that while the NDIA/NDIS appear to be ‘consulting’ all parties involved for the current pricing review, they are probably only listening to those who regurgitate what they want to hear, thereby ending any real consultation or discussion for betterment of the Scheme. Hopefully I am wrong.
Obviously, this is only one possible instance of public opinion going against the establishment and ultimately costing the poor tax payers more money. From my ten years’ experience (and ten years of being wheelchair dependent), here are some real examples of the more recent escalation of costs in metropolitan Melbourne:
- The relevant SCHADS Award is worded very badly (and probably not even acknowledged by NDIS when allocating appropriate funding to Participants). While it covers some salient benefits for support workers who are governed by this Award, most companies will not do shifts of less than two hours as a minimum now. That may be a good option if a Participant only requires two or three shifts per week. However, for Participants like me caught in a wheelchair and who require hoist transfers for everything, paying $140 for the ‘privilege’ of going to the toilet just once (20 mins) is both obscene and ridiculous. It’s plain rude that toileting even be seen as a ‘privilege’ (and I have done well to restrict toileting to four times per day).
According to the bad wording of the Award and to company interpretation, I would be having a stranger in the house for eight hours per day to cover four toileting episodes (total $560/day x 7 = $3,420/week). Fortunately, I have managed to avoid some of this although many Participants like me are not so lucky because of where they live or the company to which they have access. The ambiguous Award wording has made it extremely difficult for all of us and I am often subject to a poor standard of Support Workers because I can’t change companies.
The NDIS also do not include support worker travel time so a Participant’s funding is further eroded by travel time, leaving less funding for the actual support work being delivered;
-
Bad Plan Managers and bad Support Coordinators are costing the Scheme a fortune. Most of the stories I have heard about Plan Managers is that they do nothing for the participants yet receive a hefty salary for doing so - and that would apply for most Participants on their books. I bet no one checks their ability, or the achievements per Participant. As for bad Support Coordinators, I have heard of them advising Participants to do unethical things under the guise of ‘totally acceptable’ deductions;
-
The ‘required’ reports for every Plan review - not only does this cost Participants (read tax payers) $2-3,000 pa for these reports, for anyone bound to a wheelchair, many of these reports of 1 3are unnecessary. We already have a fair idea of what we require for continence aids each year for example. The reports are also very humiliating to have to go through every year, costing $800+ just for this one ‘required’ report, not to mention the many others, some only of which may be necessary or relevant;
-
One company has a call out fee of $200 plus a minimum hourly rate of $200, irrespective of the job only taking 10 mins to complete. The actual part was an additional cost of less than $200 (excluding shipping). Total cost to the Participant (read tax payers…) was over $600 for a ten minute job and a $200 part;
-
Another company quoted an extortionate amount for goods and services, which many Participants would feel obliged to pay. Yet a different company quoted and charged about half that amount. Unfortunately, many Participants would probably not get a second quote because their Occupational Therapist (OT) recommended the first company. For me, the second company was actually better, measuring my size correctly, and the service was impeccable;
-
Assistive Technology (AT) is woefully underfunded for any Participants in a wheelchair. These Participants often need six or more pieces of equipment and each piece is allocated a set amount for servicing and repair. Wheelchair batteries alone cost over $1,500 a pair yet the amount set for my whole AT budget is only $1,950.00 pa, let alone if batteries are ever required for the wheelchair - there wouldn’t be time to wait the months required to obtain approval for the additional funding required. And my budget does not include the annual servicing of an automatic door;
-
‘Disability’ products through a ‘disability’ company seem to be sold at a premium yet some similar products can be found at Bunnings, or elsewhere, for a fraction of the cost;
-
Mobile therapists are able to charge travel time (up to 30 mins) and mileage. Surely it should be one or the other, not both (in other words, we the Participants pay to have their car serviced etc. so their salary goes purely on their own incidentals and other household or recreation costs);
-
Regional requirements are not adequately addressed, which in turn costs the Participants a huge amount of time and money and, in some cases, it is not even doable because of distances involved. This also affects Support Workers who charge travel time to and from shifts, which again erodes the inadequate Participant funding in these circumstances; and
-
Shortly it looks as if all Participants will have to use ‘registered NDIS providers’ for all products and services. Not only will this create yet more public service jobs, it will cost non-provider companies both time and money if they need to be registered, and also cause dubious ‘providers’ to pop up everywhere. While I understand the aim is for Participants to use trusted and reputable providers, this will neither guarantee it nor allow Participants the freedom to choose the best professional for the required task or service;
Having said the above, there are some fantastic companies where prices are not artificially inflated and they treat us like normal, intelligent people.
There are some positive attempts being made to improve our access and experience of the Scheme, however there is a long way to go to redress the apparent imbalance of the costs involved. Stop blaming the Participants all the time and look closer to home.
While I have limited experience with NDIS or NDIA management, I would hazard a guess that the organisation chart resembles an upside down triangle with not enough people on the ground doing the real work. Someone had a very good idea, which would make it simpler for NDIS/NDIA to manage by delegating some of the responsibilities to those at the coal face. Participants in a wheelchair have fairly regular requirements and knowledge of what they require each year. Why not remove all the intricate regulations and requirements, giving them about $300,00 pa each in allocated funding, which would be fine-tuned at the end of the year for each Participant? The Support Coordinator would be responsible for monitoring spending and they would have to do a of 2 3report each year, justifying the larger expenses, say over $1,000. Ultimately, the Support Coordinator would have the onus of keeping the Participant honest and on track.
My knowledge and experience is obviously not extensive nor representative of all Participants.
However, I do hope it gives you some concrete insights to the problems we as Participants face when trying to do the right thing to keep costs to a minimum for the poor tax payers. My hope is that you will take note of the few comments I have made and do your own investigations with a view to putting better measures in place so that Participants are not being fleeced by providers, suppliers, and untenable regulations or bad practises.