Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS
Inquiry into the provision of services under the NDIS for people with
psychosocial disabilities related to a mental health condition
27 February 2017
Peak Body in the ACT for the Community Mental Health Sector
Room 1.06, Level 1, Griffin Centre
20 Genge Street, Canberra City, ACT 2601
t: (02) 6249 7756 f: (02) 6249 7801 e: admin@mhccact.org.au
w: www.mhccact.org.au abn: 22 510 998 138
About Mental Health Community Coalition ACT Inc.
The Mental Health Community Coalition of the ACT (MHCC ACT), established in 2004 as a
peak agency, provides vital advocacy, representational and capacity building roles for the
community-managed mental health sector in the ACT. This sector covers the range of non
government organisations that offer recovery, early intervention, prevention, health promotion
and community support services for people with a mental illness.
The MHCC ACT vision is to be the voice for quality mental health services shaped by lived
experience. Our purpose is to foster the capacity of ACT community managed mental health
services to support people to live a meaningful and dignified life.
Our strategic goals are:
To support providers deliver quality, sustainable, recovery-oriented services To represent our members and provide advice that is valued and respected To showcase the role of community managed services in supporting peoples’ recovery To ensure MHCC ACT is well governed, ethical and has good employment practices.
Page 1 of 24
Executive summary
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is a worthy initiative and one with the
potential to improve the lives of thousands of people living with disability, their families and
carers. As such, it has the potential to contribute significantly to future economic growth and
the wellbeing of all Australians.
MHCC ACT and its members and stakeholders remain committed to working towards the
success of the scheme.
However, the NDIS is not, and cannot be, a replacement for the mental health system and
both disability and psychosocial rehabilitation and recovery services must be part of a
continuum of support for people living with a mental illness.
‘Watch out - the baby is disappearing with the bath water!’
‘Look look – what wonderful new clothes the Emperor is wearing!’
Where the NDIS is working well it is changing the lives of participants. Concerningly, however,
there are many areas where the NDIS is not working well. Even those people who ultimately
experience positive life change as a result of the NDIS, often have encountered significant
issues and barriers before reaching this point. People are disengaging as a result of the extent
and ongoing nature of these difficulties. Services are being withdrawn. Highly skilled workers
are leaving for more job security and better pay.
People are being left worse off as a result of the introduction of the NDIS; a two-tier system of
service access and quality is starting to emerge; downward pressure is being placed on
service and workforce quality; inconsistencies in the value and types of supports offered
abound; the ground is constantly moving beneath the feet of service providers; and in many
fundamental ways the NDIS does not easily accommodate psycho-social disability (PSD).
The NDIS is becoming overly bureaucratic and lacking in transparency. Risk is being
unreasonably shifted onto service providers. There are no apparent systems in place to
measure outcomes (as opposed to outputs). Communication with stakeholders is woefully
inadequate.
Page 2 of 24
The NDIS is desperately in need of a partnership approach whereby the expertise of
Consumers, Carers and Providers is sought out and valued.
The issues raised in this submission need to be addressed if the NDIS is to deliver on its
stated goals and in the process leave no one worse off. Psychosocial rehabilitation and
recovery must be part of the NDIS.
MHCC ACT strongly endorses the Submissions made by its State and Territory
counterparts, and our peak body, Community Mental Health Australia. We also endorse
the submission of Mental Health Australia.
In support of our submission we have attached the following documents
Letter to then Minister for Health, The Hon Sussan Ley, MP et al
from Simon Viereck, EO, MHCC ACT
dated 27 June 2016
Response to this letter from Anne Skordis,
GM, Scheme Transition Division, NDIS,
dated 17 August 2016
Presentation made by Leith Felton-Taylor,
Manager, Policy and Sector Development, MHCC ACT
to ACTCOSS Forum ‘Lost in Transition”, 26 February 2016
Simon Viereck
Executive Officer
MHCC ACT
27 February 2017
Page 3 of 24
Contents
- Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
- Comments specific to the Terms of Reference …………………………………………………………… 7 a. Eligibility Criteria …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 b. The transition to the NDIS of all current long and short term mental health Commonwealth Government funded services, including the Personal Helpers and Mentors services (PHaMs)
and Partners in Recovery (PIR) programs …………………………………………………………………….. 9
c. The transition to the NDIS of all current long and short term mental health state and territory government funded services ………………………………………………………………………….. 10
d. The scope and level of funding for the Information, Linkages and Capacity Building framework ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
e. The planning process for people with PSD, and the role of PHNs in this process ………… 13 f. Whether spending on services for people with a psychosocial disability is in line with projections ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
g. The role and extent of outreach services to identify potential NDIS participants with a psychosocial disability ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
h. The provision and continuation of services for NDIS participants in receipt of forensic disability services. …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
i. Any related matter …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19 Ignoring expertise ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20
Learnings from the Trial Sites ……………………………………………………………………………………. 21
Change management and transition planning ……………………………………………………………… 21
How can organisations plan for a sustainable business model ……………………………………….. 22
Page 4 of 24
Individual versus Community …………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
Market failure impacting quality and availability of services ……………………………………………. 23
- Attachments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24 Page 5 of 24
- Recommendations Following are the key recommendations from the Mental Health Community Coalition on
behalf of its membership and stakeholders:
Adopt a partnership approach in the further development and implementation of the
NDIS from this day forward; recognising and valuing the significant experience and
expertise of Carers, Consumers and Providers, and the contribution they are willing
and able to make. Ensure service gaps are filled and no one is left worse off as a result of the NDIS Address market failures that threaten to undermine the ability of the NDIS to facilitate
the provision of quality sustainable services. Significantly broaden the scope and increase the capacity of the ILC/second tier of the
NDIS to be an effective baseline of support for people with disability, thereby reducing
demand for Individual Funding Packages (IFPs) Introduce changes to the NDIS to make it a better fit for people with PSD; consider
adopting multiple pathways through the scheme to cater for the differences in types of
disability and an effective way to allow for crises situations. Ensure psychosocial
rehabilitation and recovery can be supported in IFPs. Improve consistency of plans for people with similar support needs; consider
establishment of disability specialist planning teams, as successfully trialled in the ACT
to achieve this. Avoid the development of a two-tiered system. Simplify requirements and processes;
especially when it comes to provider registration processes; plan amendments should
be enabled without impact on the rest of the plan; plan reviews should involve real
evaluation; and restrictions around how funding can be used. Increase transparency generally across the scheme. Introduce an effective communications strategy including an email alert system for
important messages. Stop the rush – slow down and do it properly. An effective transition will lead to a
stronger NDIS and more of the benefits that the Productivity Commission first identified
as potentially flowing from such a scheme.
Page 6 of 24
- Comments specific to the Terms of Reference a. Eligibility Criteria Recommendation: Review eligibility criteria with the purpose of making it a better fit for
people with PSD; make the system simpler to navigate
The criteria is very generic and does not easily accommodate PSD. The language itself is
deficits focussed which can make it difficult for people to engage with – they do not consider
themselves disabled. The use of the word permanence also causes all sorts of problems –
PSD can be very episodic even if it is a permanent condition.
Lack of transparency as to how decisions are made about eligibility makes it difficult to
determine exactly how well it works. What we do know though is:
Well informed, supported and educated people are finding the system very challenging
to navigate. The actual wait for access decisions for people with PSD is commonly up to 180 days There are cases where people have been found ineligible which are difficult to
understand and justify given their history – ie. the condition they live with and the type
of support they need to stay out of hospital and living in the community. Strong anecdotal evidence that GPs do not have a solid understanding of what
eligibility evidence is required; and feel overburdened being asked to provide the
evidence and other information required; Potential participants are finding it very expensive to gather the evidence required and
pay for a long appointment with their GP – which is what is usually required to
complete the paperwork – and there is no Medicare item to cover it.
Case study: Experience of getting and using an IFP
Single mother to be, mid 30s, articulate, intelligent and resourceful. As a result she is well
informed about the NDIS. Lives with PSD (primary diagnosis) and physical disability (as a
consequence of a suicide attempt).
Page 7 of 24
Enters the NDIS siting the physical disability as primary diagnosis as she understands this will
make it easier to support her case. During the process her long time Doctor assesses her as
not needing communication aids as she is so articulate – until she points out that her physical
disability prevents her from using a keyboard and she therefore needs the aid of a voice
recognition program. She ends up with a very generous package which had the potential to be
life changing.
After much searching she has been able to purchase the assistance of a daily Carer which she
finds incredibly helpful It took a while to find a Carer – one agency sent her someone who
would not touch babies (despite knowing that she had a new born). She also resorted to
paying a friend to stay with her and give her the support she needed over one period.
However, despite her best endeavours, she has experienced the following issues
The allocation to make adjustments to her car can’t be used as the car is deemed too
old – it is the best she can afford. The allocation to make adjustments to her place of residence can’t be used as her
home does not meet OH&S requirements – again it is the best she can afford She cannot find anyone to be her Care Coordinator – despite calling every reputable
provider she knows of (they are either full or don’t return her calls) She cannot find anyone to provide the regular physiotherapy which would help her
greatly with the physical disability
Source: ACT Mental Health Consumer A
Page 8 of 24
b. The transition to the NDIS of all current long and short term mental health Commonwealth Government funded services,
including the Personal Helpers and Mentors services (PHaMs) and
Partners in Recovery (PIR) programs
Recommendation: That the Commonwealth Government fund, through a suitable
mechanism, a flexible, low-barrier-to-entry service (similar to PIR, D2DL and PHaMs) outside
of the NDIS for people who need ongoing community and coordination support.
Recommendation: That the Commonwealth Government enact a mechanism to provide
continuity of supports for existing participants who are ineligible for the NDIS.
The transition of Commonwealth Government funded services into the NDIS is creating
significant service gaps in the ACT and available evidence suggests this will happen across
Australia.
These programs were implemented slightly differently in different States and Territories and
the percentage of existing participants who are eligible for the NDIS appears to be somewhat
higher in the ACT than in the other NDIS trial sites. In May 2016 approximately 25% of current
PHaMs participants were estimated to be ineligible, however this was only a few months
before the end of the NDIS Trial and services had increasingly aligned their intake with NDIS
eligibility criteria. At the time of writing it is estimated that more than 60 current ACT PIR
participants will not have transitioned to NDIS when the program is due to close on 30 June
The Commonwealth funded programs were largely successful in achieving their stated aims
and these supports are now not available to people in need of them. The groups
disadvantaged by this change include:
Existing participants not eligible for NDIS – this group suffers a direct loss of service.
Expected future participants – this group would have accessed the service in future.
NDIS participants – the key supports delivered by these programs (psychosocial
rehabilitation) are not funded by the NDIS, which funds only disability supports.
Page 9 of 24
It is worth noting that the Commonwealth Government has yet to give any indication that it will
provide continuity of supports even for existing participants in the ACT who have been found
ineligible for NDIS.
c. The transition to the NDIS of all current long and short term mental health state and territory government funded services
Recommendation: That state and territory governments continue to fund a suite of
psychosocial rehabilitation and recovery services for people living with a mental illness.
Recommendation: That the NDIS deliver a range of block-funded baseline supports (in line
with the originally proposed Tier 2 concept) to ensure as small a proportion as possible of
people experiencing psychosocial disability go on to develop a significant permanent disability
Different States and Territories have taken different approaches to transitioning existing
community-managed mental health services to the NDIS. In the ACT roughly one-third of ACT
Government funding for community-managed mental health services has been transitioned to
the NDIS. The remaining funding is largely invested in sub-acute services and promotion &
prevention services.
The services no longer funded were primarily focused on community-based rehabilitation and
their disappearance means that people no longer have access to these supports that help
reduce the disabling impacts of their mental illness and support them to recover. The likely
consequence of the loss of these services is a growing level of disability over time and a
higher number of people with psychosocial disability needing NDIS support packages.
In the ACT it appears that the number of service participants in ACT Government funded
community managed mental health services who were ineligible for NDIS was quite low,
however there is an obvious impact on two other groups:
Expected future participants – this group would have accessed the service in future.
NDIS participants – the key supports delivered by these programs (psychosocial
rehabilitation) are not funded by the NDIS, which funds only disability supports.
Page 10 of 24
One of the consequences of the transition of ACT Government funded community managed
mental health services to the NDIS has been the loss of group-based programs and drop-in
style social participation supports. These services were not viable within the NDIS framework.
Given that a tendency towards social isolation and disability in the area of social and
community participation is a very prevalent characteristic of serious mental illness, this loss is
keenly felt. The September 2016 Intermediate Report of the Evaluation of the NDIS by the
National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University also noted this unintended
consequence of NDIS1.
More broadly the consequence of the transition of services into NDIS is that there is a
significant gap in the available continuum of mental health services in the ACT. People living
with mental illness in the ACT no longer have access to community-based rehabilitation and
recovery supports – even those who are NDIS participants. This is made worse by the
guidance material for PHNs specifically prohibiting commissioning of psychosocial support
services. The consequence is a loss of opportunities to support recovery, to prevent
deterioration and acute illness, and to avoid development of permanent disability.
The NDIS is not, and cannot be, a replacement for the mental health system and both
disability and psychosocial rehabilitation and recovery services must be part of a continuum of
support for people living with a mental illness.
1 Mavromaras, K., Moskos, M. and Mahuteau, S. (2016) Evaluation of the NDIS, Intermediate Report, September 2016. Adelaide: National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University.
Page 11 of 24
d. The scope and level of funding for the Information, Linkages and
Capacity Building framework
Recommendation: Significantly increase the capacity of this second tier of the NDIS to
provide baseline supports that prevent people going on to need the higher level of support
provided through IFPs and/or the tertiary health system.
One of the original objectives of the NDIS was to provide strong baseline support services to
both minimise the number of people needing IFPs and people needing tertiary hospital
services. It is therefore difficult to understand why the scheme has been implemented from the
top down, rather than the bottom up.
Regardless of the reason this top down ‘start at the most expensive and complex end of the
spectrum of needs’ approach has led to many of the issues with the NDIS - both in its
implementation as well as the higher than anticipated number of people accessing the
scheme, and the total expenditure on IFPs.
In the ACT, for example, all ACT Government funded service providers were told they must
test clients’ eligibility for the NDIS regardless of whether they thought they were eligible or the
clients were willing to engage with the NDIS. Only in cases where Clients’ eligibility had been
tested and failed would the ACT Government guarantee continuity of funding for services. This
caused many issues. In particular it exacerbated the situation providers found themselves in in
having to do a huge amount of largely unfunded work in terms of paperwork and time taken to
engage people who for a variety of reasons did not want to be part of the NDIS.
Most importantly however, the capacity of the ILC – or baseline tier of the NDIS – to meet its
original objectives is severely compromised:
The funding allocation is woefully inadequate Redefining the direction of the Tier 2 part of the NDIS – or ILC – towards information
provision instead of service provision (or a combination of the two) means that the ILC
cannot operate as a baseline of services that minimises the number of people needing
IFPs
o This is made worse by it being very small scale funding
Page 12 of 24
Case study: Inadequacy of ILC funding and scope
Before the NDIS the ACT government spent approximately $15m annually on community
managed mental health service provision. In addition, the Commonwealth funded community
managed mental health services such as Day to Day Living, Partners in Recovery, Personal
Helpers and Mentors and Carer Respite services.
Roughly 30% of the ACT Government funding was moved into the NDIS (approximately $5m),
and 100% of the Commonwealth funding. With the funding gone so too are the services.
Under the ILC the ACT will now receive up to $3m for all disability – general and PSD – in
2017/18. Beyond this period there is no way of knowing what the level of funding will be.
It is still not clear how service gaps will be filled and by whom.
e. The planning process for people with PSD, and the role of PHNs in this process
Recommendation: Introduce disability specific specialist planning teams
Recommendation: Introduce more effective mechanisms to meet rapid escalation of
needs for people with PSD
Recommendation: Allow for plan amendments without freezing the whole package;
ensure reviews are actually person centred and not just a cost cutting exercise.
The planning process
The planning process is hugely problematic and is fundamentally undermining the efficacy of
the scheme. It lacks consistency and demonstrates very poor understanding of the specifics of
supporting PSD.
Page 13 of 24
During the ACT Trial, the NDIA was convinced to set up specialist planning teams to allow for
deeper expertise in the planning process for the different types of disability. Anecdotal
evidence showed that this was improving the situation - plans became less inconsistent and
more appropriate to the person with PSD’s needs. However, it was abandoned at the end of
the trial period and the beginning of national rollout.
Following is a summary of the key issues:
Outcomes are almost guaranteed to be better if a participant is supported by a
formal/informal advocate through the planning process
Ongoing reports from all providers of big discrepancies in plans being received by
clients with similar needs – in terms both of the total value of the plan and the
allocation of supports within a plan Participants are being given incorrect information about what they can and can’t use
their plans for during the planning process Lack of clarity about which supports are NDIS funded and which are considered Health
services. This appears to be a factor in the inconsistency in plans. Lack of contingency in plans for crisis situations or rapid escalation of support needs
due to a mental health episode. Lack of supports for carers in plans Limited access to respite under NDIS leading to stress for participants and pressure on
carers.
Review of plans
Plan amendments
The inability to amend plans without a full review, even if the issue is clearly a mistake is very
problematic. If a review of one aspect of the scheme is requested, the whole plan is frozen.
This means the person with PSD has no ability to purchase services during that time which
can take several months.
In reality, the provider usually continues to provide the services but carries the financial burden
and risk in the interim. This is not a sustainable situation.
Page 14 of 24
Annual Review process
The annual reviews of plans are not actual reviews of what’s working and what is not, and how
the Plan might be changed to better support the person with PSD. Instead, it is consistently
being reported that at annual review IFPs are being reduced in value, and important supports
withdrawn.
People with PSD are often not given adequate notice of when the review will take place, and
sometimes are contacted out of the blue by telephone for their review. This is clearly not
acceptable for people who live with conditions such as paranoia, psychosis, severe anxiety
and the like. People with PSD must be given adequate opportunity to organise to have a
support person with them during plan review.
The annual review process then appears rather to be an opportunity for the NDIA to reduce
the amount of funding in packages without any evidence that this is in the best interests of the
person with PSD. It also flies in the face of having to prove lifelong enduring disability to be
eligible for the NDIS in the first place.
Case studies: inconsistencies in IFPs
Male, early 50s, with an NDIS plan of $58k pa.
At the first year plan review, it was cut back to $19k. A review process was initiated which took
two months, during which the service provider continued to support this person at their own
expense. The outcome of the review was to restore the original $58k pa.
Male, 50 yrs, living with another person with similar support needs.
Although their needs are very similar, there is a differential of $20k between their plans, and
the allocations to the various components of their respective plans are very different. This led
to the need for a review. People talk to each other, compare their NDIS plans, and note the
differences especially when their needs are similar.
Male 45 yrs - was not listened to in his need for Respite from his living experiences.
He is becoming very unwell as he has used his respite, and NDIS is unresponsive to his
situation and need for more.
Source: ACT Service Provider M
Page 15 of 24
Service User A as compared to Service User B
Service User A encountered a NDIA Planner with good understanding of PSD. Resulted in an
excellent plan: completely appropriate to the person A’s needs and worth $30k
Service user B’s needs are much higher than that of Service User A: long historywith the
Provider of very complex, intense needs. Huge amount of evidence demonstrating the extent
of support needed. Was given a plan of $17k. After appeal it was doubled. But this is still
inadequate to properly support Service User B’s needs for support.
Source: ACT Service Provider W
Role of PHNs in the planning process
It is difficult to see how PHNs could play a role in the planning process. PHNs have specifically
been prevented from commissioning psychosocial services. They can promote links to broader
services, recognising these services are vital, but they are not within their scope (Primary
Mental Health Care Services for People with Severe Mental Illness, PHN Primary Mental
Health Care Flexible Funding Pool implementation Guidance, Department of Health Australian
Government)
To the extent that PHNs have a role, it would be in educating and supporting GPs in
understanding the NDIS and how to meet the needs of patients who want to test their eligibility
for, or are participants in, the scheme. If would be very beneficial for the PHNs to work with
GPs to find ways to support them with the cost and time involved in working with NDIS
participants.
Another useful role PHNs could play would be in facilitating better integration of and between
the different types of services that support people with PSD.
Page 16 of 24
f. Whether spending on services for people with a psychosocial disability is in line with projections
Recommendation: establish a mechanism to (i) investigate this issue more thoroughly,
including by looking at the impediments to service purchase and delivery and (ii) review
projected NDIS participation rates
We only know what is reported by the NDIA in this regard. We also know there are projections
that the ACT NDIS participation rate could be 35% higher than originally estimated. In
September, the NDIS released a Market Position Statement that said it expected there would
be 6,900 participants in the scheme in the ACT – the original projection was 5075.
While there has been discussion about significant under expenditure within NDIS packages to
date, in the ACT at least this appears largely to do with an inability to find a provider of many
of the services people want, rather than a lack of need for them in the first place.
There are many impediments both to the purchasing and supply of services.
Purchasing impediments include:
Lack of availability Lack of Support Coordinators with capacity to take on new clients Inadequate transport funding to access the service Only part of the service is funded and the rest is too expensive for the person to self
fund
Supply impediments include
The hourly rate permitted by the NDIS is not adequate to provide the service on a
financially sustainable basis and/or with adequate safeguards or quality frameworks For group activities, there is often not a large enough critical mass of people with
packages wanting to purchase the service at this time – particularly group activities –
thereby making it unviable to offer the service even if it had been popular previously
Page 17 of 24
Provider registration processes are unduly onerous, so many are choosing not to
register. This is exacerbated by the often relatively low remuneration rate offered under
the NDIS and that providers in some professions already experience plenty of demand.
o If providers can show evidence of qualifications and registration with
professional bodies, it is hard to understand why the additional information
required by the NDIA should be so onerous.
Case study: Provider de-registers from NDIS
The NDIS sets the basic rate for support work at $43.58 per hour.
“Ultimately that NDIS rate is a bargain basement rate for what is expected to be a platinum
quality service,“ said Rob Woolley, general manager of Just Better Care in the ACT.
Just Better Care charges non-NDIS clients $52.80 per hour.
Mr Woolley’s company has decided to de-register from the NDIS. That means it will not be
bound by the scheme’s rates — but it also will not be able to do any work for the majority of
NDIS participants whose plans are managed by big agencies.
The company said it had no choice because it lost $200,000 last year providing services on
NDIS rates. “We think we’re a prime example. If we can’t make it work, nobody can,” Just
Better Care Canberra owner Mr Fergus said.
Mr Fergus said other providers are also thinking of de-registering. If that happens, the number
of workers available to provide services at NDIS rates could collapse. “This is a great scheme.
We’ve seen some fantastic outcomes with the people that we work with,“ he said. “But this
pricing issue … is putting that at risk.“
Extract from Canberra Times article by Norman Hermant, 6 January 2017
Page 18 of 24
g. The role and extent of outreach services to identify potential NDIS participants with a psychosocial disability
Recommendation: Outreach services need specific funding or they will disappear.
Outreach services aimed at identifying people with PSD are time intensive and expensive to
provide. In short, these type of vital services are fast disappearing under the NDIS. With the
removal of bloc funding and the relatively low hourly rates offered by the NDIS, Service
Providers simply cannot afford to provide this sort of service anymore.
At the beginning of the NDIS Trial in the ACT, service providers literally spent weeks, and
sometimes months, trying to engage clients with the NDIS. Most of this work was unfunded by
the NDIS and only made possible by using the remains of bloc funding, cross subsidising from
other areas of the organisation, or some of special funding packages provided by the ACT
Government during the trial perod. Change does not come easily to many people with PSD
while suspicion and resistance are easily aroused. Relationships of trust take a lot of time and
energy to develop. Without that trust it is difficult to achieve much.
h. The provision and continuation of services for NDIS participants in receipt of forensic disability services.
We are not in a position to offer much perspective on this issue except to say that:
These people deserve to receive the same levels and quality of support as others in
the community The lack of a NDIS Quality and Safeguards Framework from the beginning of the trial
and rollout of the NDIS is particularly problematic for this group of people and those
providing support services to them.
i. Any related matter While the above points cover some of the more important issues, unfortunately the list could
be extended significantly. The following is an attempt to summarise some of the more
important of these other issues.
Page 19 of 24
Two-Tier system evolving
Recommendation: measures be taken to remove unnecessary restrictions on the prices paid
for services and to avoid the development a two-tier system of support.
It is becoming very apparent that a two-tier system is emerging under the NDIS.
People with PSD who are agency managed are restricted to services that are available at
NDIS prices. People who have the personal or financial capacity to self-manage can use their
funding like a subsidy to potentially purchase faster access to higher quality services.
This is reminiscent of the current medicare system where some people depend on bulk billed
services for their primary health care needs. This can restrict their access to timely quality
services, which in turn restricts their choice and control.
In the ACT we have the example of Just Better Care who are in the process of de registering
from the NDIS for business sustainability and service quality reasons (see case study). They
are committed to finding other agencies for those clients who wish to remain agency managed
but it is not easy to find places with spare capacity or able to provide the same suite of
services. Just Better Care are reported as knowing of other providers who are considering a
similar path.
Ignoring expertise
Recommendation: a partnership approach with service providers, carers and consumers be
taken henceforth by the NDIA and Governments in the further development and rollout of the
NDIS
The significant body of PSD expertise amongst service providers, carers and consumers has
been largely ignored in the design, implementation, and fine-tuning of the scheme. The
majority of issues raised in this submission are not new. People from a range of different
backgrounds have been warning of them from the beginning.
Instead, people have been put in decision making capacity who, as a generalisation, are
significantly lacking in the required understanding and expertise in supporting people with PSD
Page 20 of 24
A partnership approach would help avoid the extent of problems experienced, and the need for
the sort of time consuming and expensive inquiries and reports that taken place around the
NDIS to date.
Learnings from the Trial Sites
Recommendation: A study into the learnings from the trial sites, including a series of
recommendations, be commissioned urgently and be publicly available.
What is the use of Trials if the outcomes from them are not analysed and learnt from? The
NDIA claims to have recorded the learnings from the Trial Sites, but none of this is publicly
available. We are not aware of people being approached to provide input into such a report.
Instead it has been left to chance that each trial site might decide to produce their own
evaluation report. The learnings are valuable to everyone, particularly those jurisdictions still
preparing to enter the NDIS.
Change management and transition planning
Recommendation: Slow the process down: put quality, efficacy and safety ahead of artificial
rollout deadlines
Recommendation: Dramatically improve the transparency of NDIA decisions and processes
Recommendation: Prioritise the development of an effective communications strategy that
guarantees consistent and timely information sharing. This needs to include an email alert
system.
Recommendation: Establish a mechanism whereby feedback can be heard, considered and
responded to.
There has been a distinct and concerning lack of change management and transition planning
in the implementation of the NDIS. This is a massive social policy change – it needs time to be
done properly. At the moment, meeting rollout deadlines/targets is being put ahead of the
efficacy of the scheme and compromising peoples safety – both workers and service users.
Some of the more important issues include:
Page 21 of 24
Very limited transparency in decision-making processes, including reasons. Confusing lack of clarity and consistency in information which is shared Apparent lack of an effective communications strategy No attention given to the substantial cultural change involved in the implementation fo
the NDIS
How can organisations plan for a sustainable business model
Recommendation: That providers of psychosocial disability are given the same due
consideration and support as would be given the corporate sector if such radical change were
required of them
Recommendation: Recognition that the professionalism and efficiency of the services
delivered by NFP community service providers is uniquely valuable and there is a lot to be lost
if it were to collapse.
The change from bloc funding of service providers to individual funding of service users has
required a quite radical change to organisations’ business models. However, Providers have
not been provided the crucial information needed to establish these models with any certainty.
This is compounded by the constantly moving sands of the NDIS, inconsistency of information
available, gaps in information, and a shifting of risk onto providers. It is extremely concerning
that the Government could begin implementing a scheme without a quality and safety
framework. We would not allow a hospital to open under such conditions – so why is it OK for
the NDIS?
Some examples include
Instructions to implement new practice based on a verbal briefing only and no written
instruction available for another 2 months (ACT Disability Sector Forum - arrangements
pertaining to supported independent living– February 2017); insufficient notice (1 week) given ahead of the closure of the Portal for end of financial
year 2015/16; the subsequent collapse of the Portal and failure to put in place
adequate interim measures forcing providers to either withdraw services or carry debt;
Page 22 of 24
then when it was reinstated many Providers were told information was lost and could
not be retrieved. The requirement of people with PSD to use ‘my Gov’ puts providers in difficult position
– people with PSD who refuse to engage with government websites either get no
service or the Provider has to breach website guidelines and do it for them.
The NDIS pricing framework also very importantly provides little if any capacity to build in
crucial aspects of quality service sustainability – training, induction, supervision, systems
upgrade, innovation, specialist services.
Individual versus Community
Recommendation: Ensure the NDIS model enables the ongoing viability of community
spaces catering for people with PSD.
Increasing individual choice and control is crucial. But this does not mean that a person with
PSD is best served living in a world entirely made up of one to one relationships. Most people
enjoy and benefit from access to community spaces as well.
The NDIS model though is seeing the closure of community spaces. In the ACT a long
established and valuable community space run by the Mental Health Foundation, The
Rainbow’ was closed in January 2017. We also know that St Vincent de Paul are finding it
increasingly challenging to maintain the community space they have at Oaks Estate.
People need more than a paid friend or cleaner. Community spaces disappearing isolates
people and removes an effective component of the recovery journey. Community spaces have
also provided very effective mechanism for ‘soft’, less threatening, outreach services.
Market failure impacting quality and availability of services
Recommendation: address NDIS market failures by implementing a hybrid system of
individual funding based on realistic prices, and some form of business sustainability funding.
During the ACT Trial period questions were often asked about the possibility of business
sustainability under the NDIS model. Service Providers were told that they just needed to
Page 23 of 24
adapt, become efficient and innovative, and get used to operating in a competitive market. The
fact that prices are fixed and there were large gaps in information fell on deaf ears.
What we are experiencing is indeed a market in action – it is responding in a predictable way
when there is market failure. Service providers are responding to price signals and either
withdrawing NDIS services where there are ethical concerns or remodelling services to a more
transactional lower quality type.
In the ACT this market response is also beginning to undermine years of investment to raise
the qualifications of the workforce in the sector to a minimum Cert IV level, the adoption of
national mental health standards and instil the practice of continuous quality improvement.
Indeed, in the few years preceding the introduction of the NDIS, Service Providers were
reporting increasingly highly qualified candidates for positions advertised, including those with
tertiary level qualifications. Providers can no longer afford to employ people of this calibre and
they are leaving the sector in the face of potentially lower wages and a lot of job insecurity.
- Attachments Sent as separate documents x3
Letter to then Minister for Health, The Hon Sussan Ley, MP et al
from Simon Viereck, EO, MHCC ACT
dated 27 June 2016
Response to this letter from Anne Skordis,
GM, Scheme Transition Division, NDIS,
dated 17 August 2016
Presentation by Leith Felton-Taylor,
Manager, Policy and Sector Development, MHCC ACT
to ACTCOSS Forum ‘Lost in Transition”, 26 February 2016
Page 24 of 24