Graham Catt

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission issuing record fines and banning orders A strengthened NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (the NDIS Commission) is taking action against unscrupulous providers doing the wrong thing by NDIS participants and issuing a record number of fines at $4 million and penalties in 2023–24, which sees a six-fold increase on the previous year. This crackdown is a direct result of the Albanese Government’s investment of $142.6 million in 2023-24 to bolster the NDIS Commission’s workforce from 595 to 1,036, an almost doubling in size. Improvements are reflected in the NDIS Commission’s 2023-24 Annual Report, which records the regulator’s year on year actions: 111,345 complaints and reportable incidents, an increase of 78 per cent on the same period last year, with the most common issues raised provider practice, worker conduct and capability, and allegations of neglect or abuse; issuing almost 35 per cent more banning orders; distributing 160 per cent more compliance notices; revoking 80 per cent more registrations the previous year; and conducting two civil penalty proceedings during this period. The Minister for the NDIS, the Hon. Bill Shorten MP, said the 2023-24 NDIS Commission Annual Report shows that more funding and more people on the ground is resulting in stronger action being taken against dodgy providers who are knowingly failing their obligations and putting the health, safety and welfare of people with disability at serious risk. “This stronger approach works hand-in-hand with the NDIS Commission’s continued focus on safeguarding the human rights of NDIS participants and working proactively with providers to promote safe and quality practices,” Minister Shorten said. The number of infringement notices and warning letters issued by the NDIS watchdog also increased significantly in 2023-24 from the previous year. The NDIS Commission actioned more than 1,300 matters in 2023–24, removing people with disability from the immediate risk of abuse, neglect, assault, homelessness, loss of supports and services, or other serious harm. The report also reveals the outcome of the NDIS Commission’s Stakeholder Sentiment Survey which received 10,949 responses, with 83 per cent of people with disability and their representatives indicating they trust the NDIS Commission to support participants, carers and advocates if there are issues with NDIS services. Read the full NDIS Commission 2023-24 Annual Report here: https://lnkd.in/gqCDSk9v

6

4 Comments

Bill Shorten Media Release: New NDIS providers receive grants to co-design new payment options The Albanese Government is trialling a new approach to paying for disability supports to ensure National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants receive high quality supports that produce meaningful outcomes. As part of the 2023-24 Budget, the Australian Government committed $24.6 million over four years to work with participants and providers to trial blended payments which will test if there is a better payment option than the current fee-for-service model. Since then, the Albanese Government has been working closely with participants, providers and representative groups to design the best way forward on the trial.  The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) today announced 31 providers would share in $330,000 and take part in the co-design of blended payment options to explore how they might work. Minister for the NDIS the Hon. Bill Shorten MP said the Blended Payments trial is an opportunity to test different ways providers can be paid which encourage them to deliver better quality supports and achieve outcomes for participants.  “Under the current fee-for-service model, a participant pays a provider for their services and often that’s the end of it. The idea of a blended payment method will test if there might be a better option – where both participants and providers are clearer from the start on the desired outcome and thereby work more effectively towards that,” Minister Shorten said. From next year, following the co-design process, the NDIA and Department of Social Services (DSS) will begin trialling blended payment methods (among small groups of voluntary participants) to test their effectiveness. The trial will involve combining two types of payment. The first is an enrolment payment, where providers are paid for providing supports over a period of time (for example 1 or 2 years). The second is an outcome-based payment where a provider is paid when a participant’s goal is achieved. By trialling the blended payment method, we are testing if changing the payment approach can achieve better outcomes for participants. The fee-for-service payments currently used can narrow the focus to be on the amount of support delivered, rather than whether the supports are achieving results for participants. “This is a necessary innovation in shaping how payments could work differently in the NDIS in the long-term. We need to give participants more options in the future on how they engage providers and how they may pay them.” “To ensure we get this right, we’re co-designing the payment model with participants, Disability Representative and Carer Organisations (DRCOs), providers and peak bodies.” Full story:

21

14 Comments

The recommended system  Tier 0 – Purchase visibility: No registration requirements are needed and applies only to goods purchased from retailers, such as ramps from hardware stores, where no support is provided to the participant. Authorities would have visibility over this via real-time purchasing arrangements.  Tier 1 – Basic registration: Worker screening not needed. Subject to complaints process and must report incidents. This tier is for those providing lower-risk supports, such as sole traders and those with limited one-on-one contact with people with disability.  Tier 2 – Self-directed registration: This would apply to participants or their guardians who directly contract all their supports, such as service for one arrangements. Workers don’t have to register, but the participant or self-director will.  Tier 3 – General registration: Worker screening needed. This tier is subject to the complaints process and must report incidents. It could apply to providers offering supports that require skill and training, such as complex bowel care or injections, and those involving significant one-on-one contact with people with disability.  Tier 4 – Advanced registration: Worker screening needed. This tier is also subject to the complaints process and must report incidents. It could include those offering supports and services in high-risk settings or in closed settings like group homes.  Source: NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce Report 

14

3 Comments

The NSW Labor Government will introduce a new Performance and Wellbeing Framework as part of its budget papers to improve transparency and accountability along with driving positive social outcomes. Minister for Finance Courtney Houssos announced the new framework in a speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia in Sydney. It will replace the previous Liberal-National Government’s Outcomes Statement. The Performance and Wellbeing Framework will: Provide improved ‘line of sight’ for monitoring performance by more explicitly linking the government’s objectives with the results and impact achieved. Reflect the government’s priorities, emphasising state responsibility across key service delivery areas such as health, education, transport and housing. Embed wellbeing considerations in advice to government, supporting improvements in resources allocation, decision making, and public accountability. Work alongside the Commonwealth's ‘Measuring What Matters’ statement, along with similar tools used in other states and territories, and in similar jurisdictions around the world.

2

What is the government going to do to bring excessively high public service remuneration packages into line with community expectations? AND What can the government do to stop excessively overpaid elites lecturing us about disadvantage?

37

4 Comments

When a policy review comes along, it's not just about change for the sake of it, but about ensuring we don't dismantle what's already working. In my column for The Land News & Livestock, I look at the current review of the working holiday visa, and the potentially devastating ramifications of removing it. I invite you to read more on why this matters for our farmers, rural businesses and communities: https://lnkd.in/gtgvegey

20

4 Comments

AFDO’s CEO joined @andypark to discuss the latest NDIS reforms and the concerns these changes have sparked among advocates. Listen to the full conversation and gain insight into the potential impacts on the disability community. Watch the segment here: https://lnkd.in/gzduT_SG #NDIS #DisabilityAdvocacy #AFDO #DisabilityRights

3

There are two main complaints that I hear frequently about business cases: 1. They are too expensive, often costing tens of millions of dollars. 2. They take far too long - often taking years to get through the process. This incentivises decision-makers (politicians) not to wait for the business case but to make announcements, undermining good decision-making. Artificial Intelligence (AI) provides one of the most important opportunities to reduce costs and speed up the creation of business cases. Please let me know if you have seen guidance on using Artificial Intelligence in Business Case development.

5

7 Comments

Great topic Melbourne Press Club. Australian Associated Press (AAP) Factcheck and global factcheck outlets came to our aid in 2022 to set the record straight when it came to incorrect claims on social media about 'sudden arrhythmic death syndrome' or 'sudden adult death syndrome' and COVID-19 vaccines. As an organisation that prides itself on providing evidence-based information, this was really concerning for our Institute, not to mention the researchers at the coalface dealing with the brunt of this. One option is not to engage but in this case, there was an avalanche of misinformation. And, as per the discussion today, it was of a consequential nature and there was evidence to show it was false. The learning for us in this situation when facing such a significant amount of dis/misinformation, which quickly took on a life of its own on social media, was to proactively reach out and engage with factcheck organisations as one lever to help set the record straight. Interested in the views and experiences of others? Catherine Butterfield Christine Elmer SCMP MAICD Melea Tarabay Ursula McGinnes

9

2 Comments

It’s no secret that quality disability service providers are struggling since this year's pricing decision, with many in crisis mode. The proposal for a tiered system of registration for disability support makes sense. But registered high quality providers need to be fairly compensated or they will face a huge financial disadvantage. Pricing that recognises the added costs of quality must be part of the new system. This is for the NDIS participants' sake too. No one wants to see vulnerable participants struggling to find decent support because high quality providers can’t afford to take them on and provide the standard of care they deserve. I wrote last year about the need for a differential pricing system for disability supports here: https://lnkd.in/gFfP8GcB #4abetterndis

40

1 Comment

Some quick thoughts on the AIHW 2024 Burden of disease report released last week. In general, I think it is fair to continue to say we are getting better at ageing well. Since 2018 and since 2003, the crude rate of years lived with disability (YLD) has decreased for most 70+ 5-year-age/sex cohorts. In other words, people in these age cohorts are healthier than they used to be. This is overwhelmingly driven by a lower rate of YLD due to cardiovascular disease. There have also been notable reductions in YLD due to respiratory diseases and skin disorders (mainly fewer pressure ulcers). The main factor driving increased years lived with disability in older age cohorts is mental health disorders and substance abuse. Neurological disorders (mainly dementia) are having a much larger impact on the health of older people, but this is mainly reflected in an increase in the rate of years of life lost (YLL) as opposed to YLD (years lived with disability). I would have thought that for a degenerative condition like dementia, YLL and YLD would move together. It would be good to understand why this is not happening. As with dementia there is a reduction in YLD due to falls in 85+ cohorts, but an increase in falls related YLL. I interpret this to mean that more falls that lead to death rather than prolonged periods of disability. I wonder whether this is related to more people ageing at home, noting that people ageing at home seem to have a lot more hospitalisations with falls than people living in residential care. Looking at overall disability adjusted life years (DALYS), which take into account years of life lost and years lived with disability, the picture basically seems to be improvements in cardiovascular health and cancer treatment offset by a greater burden of disease from neurological conditions plus the recent impact of COVID-19. I’m not a geriatrician or epidemiologist, so please don’t take this as a definitive analysis. Apart from anything else, this is only looking at the crude rates for five-year cohorts, so it could be distorted by changes in age composition within those cohorts. Still, I think it’s good for us all to get a better understanding of these trends and what they mean for policy, service delivery, and our own health and wellbeing. It would be great to hear your thoughts. #agedcare #ageingwell

13

4 Comments

Thanks Ross Greenwood for discussing the small business response to Budget 2024-25... Whilst the energy rebate and asset write off measures are welcome, much more is required to support 2.5 million small businesses enduring a perfect storm of rising costs and growing complexity. In the meta-narrative of a 'Future Made in Australia' what about the 'Future of Small Business in Australia?' We seem to have forgotten that mum-and-dad and small businesses are the drivers of innovation, training and employment in Australia. The Budget could and should have provided much more for Australia's entrepreneurial backbone. Council of Small Business Organisations Australia (COSBOA) #budget24 #productivity Matthew Addison Catherine Donnan Andrew Ngeow Adele Sutton Wes Lambert CPA, FGIA, CAE, MAICD Ann Davey Jos de Bruin Ben Kearney Christine Pope, President Australian Traditional Medicine Society

111

3 Comments

How do we improve independent scrutiny during policy reform? Independent scrutiny is critical to sound public policy governance, but how do we get the most out of it? 1️⃣ Who commissions the review matters! 2️⃣ Choose truly independent consultants. 3️⃣ Ensure a direct line to decision-makers. 4️⃣ Protect confidentiality. ➡️ Learn how to fix your reviews for better policy-making in my latest article: https://lnkd.in/gGzy-4Xm #PublicPolicy #Governance #PolicyReview

1

BACK IN CANBERRA FOR SENATE ESTIMATES A busy week ahead in Canberra as we begin #Senate Estimates - an opportunity to ask the Treasury and RBA Governor how long households will have to struggle through Labor’s cost of living crisis. Stay tuned!

10

Local Capability Fund (Western Australia)- Aboriginal Round. The Aboriginal Business Round provides funding support to Aboriginal Western Australian small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to enhance their business capability and capacity to supply to major Western Australian State or Local Government agencies, the Australian Government and the private sector. The level of funding support under the Aboriginal Business Round is 50% of eligible costs (excluding GST) up to a maximum funding level of $50,000 per successful applicant. To be eligible for funding, applicants must: Be an Aboriginal business (at least 50% owned by an Aboriginal interest); Be registered with either the Aboriginal Business Directory Western Australia or the Supply Nation’s Indigenous Business Direct; Be operating in a trade-exposed industry (or an industry that faces competition from other national or international SMEs); Be registered for GST for at least 12 months prior to application submission date; Have an Australian Business Number (ABN); Be a for-profit organisation or business, or an incorporated not-for-profit Aboriginal Corporation operating as a commercial enterprise; Have its principal place of business in Western Australia; Have been operating for at least 12 months in Western Australia at the time of submitting an application for funding; and Employ less than 200 people. https://lnkd.in/g8ZCmvvf

1

"Bill Shorten’s strategy to rein in the cost of the $40bn-a-year NDIS has come under attack from major disability providers catering for 30,000 recipients, warning they may have to cut services as Labor faces growing opposition to its scheme overhaul. A warning from 12 major not-for-profits that they are being “rendered unsustainable” by a fifth year of zero indexation comes as Labor faces demands from peak disability groups that it pause the progress of its landmark NDIS legislation, which would help the government meet its target of reducing the scheme’s annual growth from about 15 per cent to 8 per cent by 2026. With the government’s budget strategy reliant on reforming the NDIS, Mr Shorten has also been urged by state premiers to delay the new laws – expected to get through with Coalition support – because of a “decided lack of detail” over funding arrangements. The legislation, likely to pass the Senate this week, would limit the services to be claimed under the NDIS, with the government still needing to strike a deal with the states on new “foundational supports” programs to cater for people who no longer qualify for the scheme. In a letter to Mr Shorten and his agency’s executives, one of the government’s key NDIS consultation groups, the Disability Representative Organisations, said changes being proposed would “cause significant harm” to disabled Australians and were “completely out of step with the spirit and intent of the NDIS”. The organisations said they could not support the proposed list of items that would be covered or carved out of the NDIS, as they were “highly problematic, ill thought through” and “not fit for purpose”. On the same day the letter was sent to Mr Shorten’s office, the delegation of 12 not-for-profits, employing more than 1500 allied health and behaviour support staff, met with one of the minister’s representatives to warn they would struggle to continue offering their services without a temporary NDIS supplement or workforce training program. Full article here: https://lnkd.in/gXfeQFvA

22

4 Comments

Yesterday the ACT Government provided funding to all primary schools to purchase decodable readers - a great investment to make sure cost isn’t an impediment to aligning reading instruction with the science on how children learn to read. Nine months ago I wrote a short piece about decodable readers and why they are important - copied again here: Many parents will remember the books their children brought home when they were first learning to read. The books my kids were given by their school often featured baby monkey and mummy monkey and were - to the best of my memory - extremely tedious. I didn’t realise at the time that these books are what's known as predictable readers, which encourage guessing an unknown work, for example, by looking at the pictures in the book. Decodable readers, on the other hand, rely on a student using their knowledge of letter sounds to read unknown words. The Australian curriculum has been changed to require schools to use decodable readers instead of predictable readers for obvious reasons - teaching kids to guess words isn’t a good reading strategy. Many educators favour predictable readers for reading instruction and assessment and suggest that decodable readers don’t have the same rich stories as predictable readers. As a parent who has been exposed to both I can say there really isn’t any difference in the content of the two types of readers. They are equally rich / tedious. The main difference is that decodable readers are backed in by decades of multidisciplinary research as being a highly effective reading resource. But making the change to decodable readers does come at a financial cost to schools. As we pointed out in our Equity Economics reports on literacy, governments need to support schools in making this change to evidence-based student resources. Read more about the ACT Government announcement here https://lnkd.in/g5Ycrm2F

52

1 Comment