Renee F.’s Post

Providers be afraid. Be very afraid. Today Minister Shorten announced that the NDIS Bill number 2 is set to be tabled in parliament. The key proposed changes from this new legislation are: - Financial penalties for providers, when a participant is hurt or injured under their care may be in to in excess of $15 million (previously a maximum of $400,000) - The Commission can refer a provider for criminal charges - Auditors and consultants can receive banning orders These changes are being proposed as a "credible deterrent against unscrupulous behaviour which in turn will prevent harm to people with disability and improve the quality of supports and services". I have so many issues with this: 1. To me this feels like an awfully blunt stick. It assumes if a person with disability has experienced harm whist under the care of a NDIS Service Provider, that it has been deliberate. 2. We have yet to develop detailed models of support. Instead, we put the onus on providers (which one in the support circle is a question mark too) to provide comprehensive support at a 95% efficient rate and engage on an hour-by-hour basis. If we want high quality, consistent and valuable support, there needs to be an investment in the quality and the value of the people providing the supports. 3. Increasing the size of the stick, without addressing the voluntary nature of reporting, will surely force more providers to 'wait and see' if the Commission finds out about an incident rather than report and face the wrath. I am a huge advocate for improving the quality of supports to people with disability, particularly those more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. And I believe that if, as a provider, you have been 'unscrupulous', 'rorting' the system or been negligent then yes.... Harsh penalties should apply. But in my experience, there are a lot of providers out there trying very hard to do the right thing by the people they are supporting, but we, as an industry, haven't invested in the infrastructure to build great quality, consistent, support. I urge providers, both registered and unregistered, if you have had a participant experience harm in your organisation in the last 12 months, you need to stop and review how you are structuring your organisation. The participants you support need it, and you need to start building your own safety net. https://lnkd.in/gjZhV9kQ

The NDIS Review released its Final Report on 7 December 2023, with a recommendation to create a regulation scheme for NDIS service providers based on the level of risk perceived in delivering disability services and supports. Learn more about the proposal and what it could mean for participants in our latest blog article ➡️ https://lnkd.in/gZg_xf75

4.4 million Australians are living with a disability, yet only 12 per cent receive funding from the NDIS. With the number of participants only increasing, there’s an opportunity for businesses to become NDIS certified – and the first step is choosing the right audit. Here our experts explain the rigorous requirements and standards for becoming a Registered Provider, the different auditing processes that exist, and how QMS can help you achieve your certification goals: https://ow.ly/6qWT50P8aib #QMS #certification #services #ISO #NDIS #registeredprovider #agedcare #disability

🚨 Important Changes to the NDIS Legislation 🚨 As of today, 3rd October 2024, new legislative changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) are in effect. These amendments are aimed at improving clarity, flexibility, and sustainability for participants and the disability community. Key updates include: - A new definition of NDIS supports - A revised planning framework with funding periods - Updated debt recovery procedures - A new rule for replacement supports For more details on how these changes impact you or your loved ones, check out the full article on our website: https://buff.ly/3ZQdhku or visit the NDIS website for further information: https://buff.ly/3ZQ8S0B #NDIS #DisabilitySupport #DisabilityRights #AFDO #Advocacy

🚨 Important Changes to the NDIS Legislation 🚨 As of today, 3rd October 2024, new legislative changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) are in effect. These amendments are aimed at improving clarity, flexibility, and sustainability for participants and the disability community. Key updates include: - A new definition of NDIS supports - A revised planning framework with funding periods - Updated debt recovery procedures - A new rule for replacement supports For more details on how these changes impact you or your loved ones, check out the full article on our website: https://buff.ly/3ZQdhku or visit the NDIS website for further information: https://buff.ly/3ZQ8S0B #NDIS #DisabilitySupport #DisabilityRights #AFDO #Advocacy

YES Grattan Institute is correct on the topic of forcing people to use registered providers 👉 "The review proposes using one dimension to determine risk: the kind of service being provided. But this does not give NDIS participants – the people receiving services – the ability to take on some of the risk of screening workers themselves if they so choose. Deciding who supports them matters to people with disability, especially when support workers are in their homes and helping them with the most personal of care, such as getting in and out of bed, dressing or showering. Trusted networks of workers may have been built up over many years. Yet, by categorising this kind of care as “high risk”, the proposal for mandatory registration means directly hired staff could have to undergo and pay for an audit and do extra training. Such requirements could make many established support arrangements unviable. Australia doesn’t have to go this way. In England, under a comparable scheme, more than 69,000 people with disability directly employ more than 130,000 “personal assistants”. Direct employers are encouraged to invest in training for their staff, but it is not mandated through formal registration. Some people in the NDIS use unregistered providers not by choice, but by necessity. In areas where there are very few providers, termed “thin markets”, working with unregistered providers can be the difference between getting a service and receiving no services at all. Unregistered providers tend to provide more short-term or one-off services, meaning the costs of registration might outweigh the benefits for some providers. For example, some providers who mainly work with non-disabled clients might choose to stop providing NDIS services rather than register, which would be a problem in markets with few or one provider. A lot of the data the government needs to track down and strike off dodgy providers or workers will come through the enrolment process into the scheme’s new payment system once established. This will record providers’ business name, ABN or Digital ID, bank account details, location and contact details. This information means authorities stand a much better chance of tracking spending and taking enforcement action when needed. It should help the government keep participants safer while cracking down on fraud – without necessarily requiring mandatory provider registration."

This is not the first, nor sadly will it be the last, but in a small jurisdiction like Canberra the impact of this provider withdrawing from NDIS services will be felt profoundly by people with disabilities. National Disability Services has been saying consistently for some time now that the National Disability Insurance Agency pricing for registered providers is inadequate. How much more market failure is needed before there is a realistic look at what it actually costs to deliver services? Providers can’t wait another year, or 2, or 5 for Independent Pricing as recommended by the NDIS Review. We are calling on the NDIA to act this year in their pricing review.

Meaningful reform or predictable politics? We will have to wait for Bill to release the draft Bill. While we must work to reduce the rates of preventable harm in disability service provision, the key test for me about the Bill is whether the dodgy decisions of the National Disability Insurance Agency that expose people with disabilities to harm - even death - are also subject to civil and criminal penalties against the NDIA and its individual officers. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why are penalties being increased at the same time as the NDIA Board has cut real prices - where is the price-quality nexus in these decisions? Other questions I have are about whether we will have coherence in policy design. (a) It appears there are going to be different approaches to the regulation of disability support compared to aged care. Why? (b) Why are WHS-style penalties being adopted? ... why not just give the WHS regulators additional funds (given that WHS legislation also applies to clients in the workplace)? (c) Why is harm to people by disability service providers treated differently to harm to people with disabilities by, say, hospitals? (d) Will the Parliament extend the exceptions for volunteer directors in WHS legislation to the NDIS legislation? (e) Given that WHS penalties are rarely at the maximum end, but NDIS penalties can be (in one recent case, 99.8% of the maximum), what guidance will the Parliament give to the courts about penalty ranges? #ndis #quality #safety https://lnkd.in/g5puqzrY

By forcing the use of only registered providers, the NDIA is actually REMOVING the key criteria the NDIS is supposed to be focused on & at the core of the scheme , is supposed to be the participants right to "CHOICE & CONTROL" .This action will further limit access to support for participants & is based on the assumption that like children in a child care centre, ALL participants lack the capacity, skill, ability & intellectual functioning to judge & employ workers who we interview & assess based ON OUR CRITERIA of needs & risk! There is areas & situations where participants dont have the intellectual capacity or are vulnerable & unable to foresee risk, understand exploitation or lack the insight & wherewithal to manage safety & risk assessments of potential providers due to impact of their disability & it is too great a responsibility for them due to their cognitive function & capacity, THESE participants need the protection that registration provides them BUT NOT ALL OF US DO, & many participants are insightful, intelligent, high function & highly skilled at interviewing & selection for our selves, CHOOSING WHO IS BEST FOR US & who we WANT TO WORK FOR US! We are more than capable of managing the everyday risk that non participants & all adults frequently do for themselves as part of our everyday lives, & are allowed to do that without unnecessary oversight or unnecessary bureaucratic registration of the only services you can choose from! EVERYONE has the right to choice & control , daily in life numerous decisions are made by everyone accessing their choice & control, eg, what supermarket you choose to shop at, Do you keep you savings in a bank or at home, where you buy your car from a dealer, or gumtree/online market place or from driving past a 4sale sign on a car! each has inherent risks & benefits that we 'choose & control', just as participants of the NDIS with the capacity to do so, SHOULD & DESERVE TO BE ABLE TO CHOOSE WHO PROVIDES SUPPORT TO THEM & THEY DO NOT REQUIRE OR WANT TO ONLY BE LIMITED AGENCY REGISTERED PROVIDERS! 😲😠😖😤🙄😡🤬