As part of the committee’s role to inquire into the implementation, performance andgovernance of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), the committee will inquireinto and report on NDIS Planning, with particular reference to: a. the experience, expertise and qualifications of planners; b. the ability of planners to understand and address complex needs; c. the ongoing training and professional development of planners; d. the overall number of planners relative to the demand for plans; e. participant involvement in planning processes and the efficacy of introducing draft plans; f. the incidence, severity and impact of plan gaps; g. the reassessment process, including the incidence and impact of funding changes; h. the review process and means to streamline it; i. the incidence of appeals to the AAT and possible measures to reduce the number; j. the circumstances in which plans could be automatically rolled over; k. the circumstances in which longer plans could be introduced; l. the adequacy of the6planningSeptemberprocess2019.for rural and regional participants; and m. any other related matters.SubmissionA 5 Year overviewclosingof datethe experienceis of an NDIS Participant and The Care Planning Process
The participant was accepted into the scheme ACT Trial site in October 2014.The participant has Multiple Sclerosis and is now over the 65year age limit for entry. Prior to entry into the scheme the participant independently funded his own care and supports especially after an exacerbation of Multiple Sclerosis resulting on invalidity retirement from 32year career in Federal Public Service.
Prior to being accepted into the scheme the participant and his spouse who is his fulltime carer, attended several information and planning sessions and utilised the services of Multiple Sclerosis Australia to assist in preparation of the original application and for attendance at the first planning meeting.
Plan 1 2014-2015 The first planning meeting was attended in NDIS in Belconnen ACT and the planner was a qualified social worker with relevant background experience in disability.
This first meeting provided the opportunity to discuss in detail goals aspiration and objectives with a comprehensive plan being developed. The planner had a good knowledge of local services and how they could be utilised with plan funding.
This planner was available for advice after the plan was approved to discuss any queries and conducted a review meeting during the year.
Plan 2 2015-2016 Planning meeting attended at NDIS Belconnen ACT. Participant found the first planner was no longer employed by NDIS as her contract had expired and advised NDIS was not reemploying previously contracted staff.
The second planner was also a social worker with relevant experience who worked with participant and carer to develop the second plan.
1
Plan3 2016 -2017 Planning meeting attended the Northbourne Avenue offices of NDIS in the ACT. Planner was employed by NDIS and a qualified social worker. Arrived 20 minutes prior to our appointment time to find the disabled and other parking spots were occupied. The participant uses a fold up wheelchair and is unable to manoeuvre it himself or be left unattended. The offices are located up a long ramp, so we were put in a position where we needed to exit the car parking area and circle a busy city business area until there was a vacant spot. We were then 15 minutes late for the planning meeting.
Regardless of this parking issue the planning meeting was well conducted by the planner and participant was satisfied with the plan.
Plan4 2017-2018 August 2017 we were phoned by a planner named claiming to be from NDIS and she acknowledged that we had found parking an issue for the previous meeting so offered a phone review which we accepted.
The review was undertaken by phone a week later and we found this planner difficult to understand as her English was very poor, she stated was also training someone and did not appear to be focussed on the planning process previously experienced. She appeared more focussed on training the other person.
We found we were the ones who had to walk her through the planning review process. She asked few questions. Fortunately, we had spent considerable time preparing and the carer is from a professional background with care planning experience.
When this review session was nearly completed, the planner then disclosed to us that she was not an NDIS employee and worked on contract for a company we had never heard of.
She then advised that she was intending to make this plan run for 2 years. Immediately objected as we had only prepared the proposal for one year and pointed out that with Multiple Sclerosis, 2 years is not viable for planning as changes in Multiple Sclerosis condition can vary considerably during that time.
Arranged a meeting at NDIS ACT Northbourne Avenue office to discuss concerns in regard to this plan review. During this meeting it was disclosed that had been given the contract to undertake the plan reviews although they are a direct service provider. It was also disclosed that an estimated 30% of NDIS ACT office staff were employees on contract.
The person who we met with also disclosed she was a contract employee and that she was not an Australian Citizen, which is a requirement for Australian Public Service employment and was at the time, clearly noted within guidelines for prospective employees of NDIS.
Resulting from this review the participant found the approved plan was a cut and paste of the previous 2 plans and did not in any way reflect the goals, aspirations and objectives put forward by the participant for funding for the following year.
The new plan was approved 4 weeks ahead of the expiry date for the 2016-2017 plan and the remaining funding was cut off, so the participant had to cancel some previously contracted services. While these dates remained on the digital copy, a paper one was received by post 4 weeks later with the original expiry date noted.
This decision was eventually reversed but we were forced to cancel some services as there was no access to funding until this was sorted out.
2
Resulting from this we were further advised that due to the problem with any future plans would be undertaken by NDIS employed staff.
Plan 5 2018-2019 In 2018 we received a call from (Canberra) to organise a further plan
review, the phone call was registered from a Queensland Gold Coast location and on questioning the caller admitted she was in Queensland not the ACT. When she was advised the participant had been told by NDIS that the review would be undertaken by NDIS staff she advised the participant had no choice but to have undertake the review or the plan would be cancelled.
The participant therefore agreed to attend a plan review at at Phillip in the ACT. Information was requested as to the qualifications of the planner and it was stated the planner was a registered nurse with experience in aged care and Multiple Sclerosis.
When the participant attended the review meeting, he noted the planner was dressed in a dirty t shirt, jeans and sneakers. During the review the planner disclosed she had been out undertaking direct personal care prior to the plan review and was also in a hurry to pick up her children.
The review commenced with the planner using a small laptop and asking questions which turned out after being queried, to be an aged care plan assessment. When asked why she was doing that she claimed her company thought the participant might like to be showered and dressed.
The planner was spruiking for business for her company with disregard for the planning process and the wishes and needs of the participant. As the interview continued it was obvious, she had not even taken the time to review the previous plan. She also made a mistake in discussing current funding for assistive technology which she failed to identify that the funding she was looking at on her laptop as was in fact a quote submitted by a provider for the new plan.
The planner did not take any notes and when the plan was approved it was found that she had failed to note the verbal comments made referring to changed goals and future funding. The participant had also advised he had changed neurologists and when the new plan copy was released it was another cut and paste of the previous plan with the changes notified not made. It was lacking in detail as to what the participant had put forward. The participant was surprised to find the funding had been increased over and above what the participant had budgeted for. With 6 weeks to remain on the current plan expenditure which equates to the participants needs will only run to approximately 60% of the funds allocated.
Following this meeting it was discovered that the planner was not actually a Registered Nurse experienced in Multiple Sclerosis and aged care planning. She is an Enrolled Nurse who is required to be registered by AHRPA to work in the ACT. She was first registered in 2014 in Queensland so has minimal experience or qualifications to undertake a planner role.
Plan 6 2019-2020 (Current Plan expires 23 October 2019). Messages have been received for plan review via Text to the mobile phone number of the participants carer. To the participants knowledge this number has never been given as the contact number as the participant only uses the home phone where all previous phone communication has been conducted. This number is used only for MyGov access on behalf of the participant.
Emails also received and on contact it was found these contacts are coming from the Gold Coast Office of . There is no way to contact the ACT office at Phillip ACT by phone. It is designated to be a Local Area Coordination area for most ACT NDIS participants. The participants carer waited for 17 minutes on phone hold while the Gold Coast staff tried to find someone in the
3
ACT office. It was fortunate the participant did not travel all the way to Phillip to find the office unoccupied during core business office hours and being monitored by a “virtual” office interstate.
So much for one’s security and privacy as Queensland and the ACT have different privacy and security requirements.
When the participant was eventually contacted the next morning by a person claiming to be a local staff member it was on a mobile phone with the caller ID blocked. The caller who claims to be the person who will be undertaking the plan review claims his name is but will not disclose his surname or alternate NDIS Id code. As it has been advised this employee only works on a limited basis for this leaves open the question of him having access to the participants file and personal details and obviously storing them on his mobile phone that is accessed elsewhere.
The participant has contacted NDIS and is awaiting an outcome in regard to the problems experienced with so as to participate in a planning review that can ensure the new plan is finalised prior to 23 October 2019.
The participant and his carer have now made a complaint to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission only to discover that the details of the complaint are allegedly uploaded directly to the participants file for anyone with access to read.
Questions and Comments
Why has NDIS handed over plan review contracts and a Local Area Coordinator contract for the ACT to an agency that operates primarily out of Queensland where NDIS rollout has commenced after the ACT?
Conflict of Interest operates an office in the ACT that has a large direct care component of the business which designates a conflict of interest in undertaking plan reviews as the participant has personally been offered their direct care services only because they have contractual access to his NDIS Plan and personal details.
Local Area Coordination is constrained if the contractor is unable to offer services to NDIS participants during normal business hours in the ACT and have available a local phone contact service in case of emergency. Daylight saving comes into effect in October in the ACT and this can cause problems for efficient service delivery across different time zones.
To note enrolled nurses are not trained to do complex care plans especially those requiring funding.
Recommendations
NDIS Planners be direct permanent employees of NDIS, have professional qualifications and or relevant experience in disability and financial management relevant to NDIS Care Plans.
NDIS Planners not to be involved in provision of direct care or provision of allied services to any NDIS participants.
Local Area Coordination Centres to operate independently of any other service provision.
If NDIS services contracted out personal information of NDIS participants not to be accessed or held by individual employees on personal phones, computers and other devices.
Australian Universities develop speciality undergraduate and post graduate courses for Planners.
4