Renee F.’s Post

The sweet symphony of bureaucratic lingo—crafted to make you think it’s all for the people, while the people themselves are barely considered. It’s like watching a magician, but instead of pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they’re pulling out your benefits & calling it a miracle of “efficiency.” 1. "Strengthening NDIS Pricing Model" Sounds like it’s bulking up at the gym, but in reality, this usually means trimming the fat… by which they mean trimming your benefits. “Ensuring sustainability” is a nice way of saying, “We’re going to make this thing last by spending as little on it as possible.” Why do they always talk about sustainability like it’s a virtue when it’s a government service they’re squeezing? Isn’t the point to spend on people’s needs? Who exactly are we strengthening this for—participants or the budget ledger? And if it’s so “sustainable,” why does it always come with cutbacks instead of expansions? 2. "Quality Supports Program" & Pilots They throw that word around like it’s a guarantee. But here’s a question: quality for whom? Because if it’s just another set of boxes for providers to tick, this so-called quality usually translates to providers bending over backward to meet arbitrary standards instead of doing what actually helps people. “Participant outcomes” as the measure? Dare we dream! Or is it just the next buzzword that’ll drown in bureaucracy? Are we measuring “quality” by participant well-being, or by how much it costs to keep the lights on? 3. "Choice & Control for Participants" Aren’t they sweet? You get to choose—just from an ever-shrinking menu of providers who can afford to jump through the latest set of hoops. It’s like telling someone they can have any drink they want, so long as it’s water, and if you’re lucky, maybe a tepid cup of tea. If my choice is only between the cheapest, most compliant providers, is that choice or just a disguised mandate? 4. Future "Market & Pricing Approaches" The seductive allure of a “market approach,” as if adding a dash of capitalism will solve everything. But let’s be real—standardized pricing doesn’t lead to better services. It leads to providers trimming support down to meet the budget cap. When will they realize that cost-cutting and “quality care” rarely fit in the same sentence without laughing? If the new pricing approach ignores unique needs, are they just designing this “market” to fail the very people it’s meant to serve? 5. Eligibility Criteria & Selection “Let’s weed out the small fry who might actually have a personal relationship with participants, & let’s bring in the big players who can afford all this bureaucratic nonsense.” Because, obviously, nothing says “quality care” like treating it as a conveyor belt service. If the only providers who meet these criteria are the ones who prioritize compliance over care, what’s left of the promise of “personalized support”? Veronica Stephan-Miller Graham Taylor https://lnkd.in/gSXmfFZD