Key Differences Between Schemes
|
Show Us Your Best Bits
|
NDIS – contract between participant and provider WA NDIS – contract between WA NDIS and provider NDIS – funded support coordination of choice WA NDIS – support coordination by LC – no choice NDIS – easy to change provider as and when you choose WA NDIS – have to go through process again via LC – not nimble, and may deter people from moving and restrict real choice NDIS – people self-managing get same hourly rate to spend as providers = recognition of time spent in self-managing and more flexibility, ‘bang for your buck’ WA NDIS – people self-managing get lower rate = no recognition of work and no incentive to self-manage NDIS – participants have choice of AT provider, greater choice and control re wheelchairs, prosthetics etc WA NDIS – participants can only go to ‘the budget holder’, which is focused too much on budget, not people’s needs, dignity and choice NDIS – people have wide range of therapy providers WA NDIS – many people have reduced choice due to ‘in-kind’ arrangements between govt and providers. NDIS – pricing guide recognises differing staff costs on Saturday and Sunday which facilitates greater choice for participants WA NDIS – single weekend rate makes it prohibitive for providers to pay staff on Sundays, restricting participant choice NDIS – using the portal to claim is quite simple and payment is quick, for self-managing participants and providers. WA NDIS – self-managing participants say claiming is a difficult and time-consuming process on paper. NDIS - acquittal process clear and transparent and accountable WA NDIS - acquittal process and model not clear and difficult to clarify when underspending occurs as funding is not 'centred around' participant NDIS – participants can choose to self-manage, agency manage or get plan-management assistance. WA NDIS – participants say it is very hard to get any funding to help with management. NDIS – participants at key life points can get Futures Planning in their plan. WA NDIS – this is not an option NDIS - A person who isn't satisfied with a decision can get an internal review, and follow up with an external, independent review via AAT WA NDIS - Internal and non independent appeals process that is signed off by the Director General of DSC There is a large and comprehensive list which applies to a number of diagnostic groups, but the above lists common themes and issues that have been expressed by large sections of the disability community. In addition, there are concerns about the prospect that the Disability Services Commission could be self funding, delivering services and monitoring their own performance under the creation of a new 'entity' - but until we have seen the 'model', this is conjecture. We think the differences above and others raised by people with disability and their families should be investigated through a thorough co-design process and if they cause disadvantage to West Australians with disability, they should not be implemented. We should not be worse off than other Australians. |
People with disability and their families have been vocal in questioning the proposed new disability model - but they haven't always gotten an answer.
If the WA Government says that we will be 'choosing the best bits from each scheme', then we need to see what those best bits look like. What is considered 'best' for government and service providers is not always what's best for us - and we should be the ones who make the decisions about plans that will affect our lives forever. We want to see the 'best bits', but we also want our questions answered - and we have a lot of them. Don't you? Here are a few examples. Q: Will you have to build a whole shiny new IT system, and how much will it cost? Will it be comparable to the Federal system? Q: Nobody has ever publicly released details of the cost of the entire LAC system, including back end systems and cars and offices. An average wage for an LAC is in excess of $75,000 - how much will WA taxpayers be paying for the administration costs of a non national scheme? Q: Can we still call it WA NDIS if there is neither insurance principles or a national focus in the scheme? What about early intervention? Q: Has the new proposed scheme been fully costed? What are the costings in comparison to the full roll out of an equivalent Federal model? Is it worth it, and are we getting value for money? Q: There are some poorly explained 'elements' in the information released by Christian Porter and the WA State Government last week - number 9 and 11 are of concern. What happens with ILC, and what happens if WA goes broke? Will the DSC be able to limit the scheme by, for example, reducing 'reasonable and necessary' - and is the agreement to 'share savings between governments' equivalent to financial incentivising to reduce average standard funding packages to participants? Q: How can the Disability Services Commission avoid the conflicts of interest that appear to be an inherent risk in a scheme which places a government body in charge of monitoring and governing itself? |