Mel Miller

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

Podcast on Getting the NDIS back on track legislation, senate report and registration taskforce. https://lnkd.in/gfyuK-Hb I also have Resource bundle for business in disability. Change is in the air business compliance is important. https://lnkd.in/d2pA4B7u #ndis #workingtogether #businesstobusiness

3

Great summary of some key issues with “eligibility reassessment” in the NDIS. A tool many of us fear will be used with some groups in particular, like people with autism and mental health eligibility. This may also be a back door for Agency assessments, something already resoundingly rejected by participants and practitioners. New and worrying timelines may not be sufficient for procedural fairness either. More steps towards insurance and treating all supports as questionable, and away from person centered and treating supports as flexible and individual.

4

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

I haven't had much energy to post about the NDIS lately. I've been in a kind of personal mourning period. The fall out of the NDIS bill coming into effect and the loss that we have sustained feels profound. I think while there's an effort to note that it all could be worse, the lists aren't too bad, or an attempt to retrofit and say that this is how the NDIS was always supposed to work, all these approaches fail to get to the heart of what we have lost. The NDIS was a grand piece of social architecture that was breathtaking in the humanity of its approach. It provided a broad and functional definition of disability. It promised reasonable and necessary supports that could be creative and innovative as long as they solved a disability related problem. It promised individualised plans for everyone on the scheme, built around their own goals and aspirations. Ultimately, this vision was never enacted. When I reflect, as a relative outsider on the failure of the NDIS, I can only conclude that the decision by the Coalition government to staff the Agency at 3000, rather than the 10,000 that was determined to be necessary, was probably a key reason it failed. The failure to set up the actual processes of individualised planning, the transition to opaque algorithmic approaches, and a lack of appropriate expertise and skill among Agency staff (not to mention the generalised vibe that they're all having a terrible time) meant that the Scheme was delivered in a way that didn't meet community expectations and led to a corrosive lack of trust between the NDIA and the people they were supposed to serve. Ultimately the NDIS as a generous, human rights based approach could not exist in our current policy landscape of austerity and cuts. Giving someone a flexible package worth tens of thousands of dollars, whilst also keeping them in crushing policy-induced poverty through income support rates well below the cost of living is not a sustainable approach. Giving someone a flexible package of support in a context where access to essential health care and prevention are not guaranteed is not going to be sustainable. Unfortunately, rather than looking at our social security system and our health system through the kind of rights based approach that was the original intention of the NDIS, our government has decided to try to make the NDIS match the general approach of austerity that pervades social policy in this country. This is a huge loss. It's a loss of opportunity and a loss of vision. And it's the loss of the promise that we can have a very different kind of society, where disabled people are empowered to live ordinary lives.

45

16 Comments

This is new & exciting - Check out the link in Emily Gillmartin bio - #ReflectivePractice #generalpractitioners #burnoutprevention #professionalgrowth #medicalpractitioner

2

⚖️ Takeaway | Regulations should guard against abuse, not undermine choice: A call for balanced NDIS reforms. This commentary is a must-read for anyone involved in disability advocacy and policy. In any updates to NDIS legislation, it will be crucial to protect and embrace the dignity of risk and autonomy—often the unsung heroes in a strengths-based approach. Regulations should concentrate on preventing fraud and abuse, but not at the cost of limiting opportunities, agency, or the ability to make and learn from all kinds of choices, both good and bad. People deserve more than just protective measures that confine their potential. As much as the NDIS aims to create opportunities for social and economic contributions, it must also allow for failures and setbacks. The inherent value of learning from mistakes is indispensable. The article also aptly touches on issues related to thin markets which are becoming particularly pressing. With aged care and NDIS packages already competing for services, any reduction in the provider pool could disastrously affect service availability. #NDIS #SocialPolicy #AutonomyAndSafety #RegulationReform #DignityOfRisk #DisabilityServices Authors: Sam Bennett and Hannah Orban, Grattan Institute

4

Six Responsible AI Principles for Aged and Disability Care - https://lnkd.in/gHs5TfcG - Discover the six essential principles for responsible AI in aged and disability care, ensuring ethical and inclusive technology adoption. Explore how adhering to these principles enhances the well-being of older Australians and people living with disabilities while maintaining ethical standards. #responsibleAI #principles #ethicalstandards Dian Tjondronegoro

9

A question for the die-hard evaluation theory-lovers in my network: do you have standard definitions that you use for outcomes and impacts? Do you have a way of clearly delineating outcome and impact evaluations? Or do you see them as interchangeable terms? The Australian Centre for Evaluation (ACE) team did a bit of a sweep of key documents and resources and came up with three commonly-cited positions: View 1: Impact evaluation is longer-term and broader in scope than outcome evaluation (with the broader scope focused on system-wide impacts and/or broader changes to a person’s wellbeing beyond the program itself) View 2: Impact evaluation is counterfactual-based, whereas outcome evaluation isn't always View 3: Impact evaluation and outcome evaluation are essentially the same thing. (Or a softer version of this view is: Impact and outcome evaluation are often used interchangeably so it is unhelpful to refer to them as being different from one another) Big thanks to Peter Bowers for summarising the team's findings. There are way too many evaluation gurus to tag for this question but as a starter Patricia Rogers, George Argyrous, Amy Gullickson, Andrew Hawkins, Elliot Stern, Ruth Aston, Ghislain Arbour, Brad Astbury, Charlie Tulloch, Jess Dart, Jade Maloney Fay Sadro Lucie Moore Diana Epstein - keen to know your thoughts! Harry Greenwell Suzanne Butler Vera Newman Douglas Epeli O. Shantanu Sheshgir Lorraine Heywood - hopefully comments can inform our ACE in-house position!

106

72 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

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

New NDIS guidelines outline what services, items, and equipment can be funded, known as NDIS supports. NDIS support lists now available in Easy Read. Participants can also request to replace NDIS supports with approved non-NDIS alternatives, called replacement supports. Before making a switch, participants must show that the replacement offers equal or better value and outcomes. Learn more about replacement supports and how to apply here: https://ow.ly/VtjC50TGqcY

1

This is important. Please consider contributing to this discussion in the sector as people with disabilities make excellent points regarding their right to self direct their own supports. So, how can we do this to ensure a funding model which has it's checks and balances. ?? These are important considerations for the enduring nature for a sustainable and funding model which helps to ensure pwd are in control of their own lives.

4

$78,000 penalties for individual staff for code of conduct breaches were criticised by most key provider and worker voices in their submissions on the draft of the new Aged Care Act. Critics include the main provider association, Aged & Community Care Providers Association, the Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation, HSU National, large providers like Bolton Clarke, and faith-based networks like Catholic Health Australia. Yet this issue isn’t mentioned anywhere in the published consultation feedback summary. The specific concern with penalties for the code is that they apply to low-income individuals for even minor breaches of the fairly vague and subjective aged care code of conduct, with prosecutors only needing to prove the offense against a civil standard. It’s grossly unfair and unnecessary given other remedies like banning orders and standard criminal offences. However, this is just one example. There are plenty of other important points made in various submissions and meetings that the consultation summary ignores. The summary also tends to summarise sentiment rather than substantive arguments. This summary isn’t the only way that the Government synthesises feedback. But it’s still concerning that it misses so many major issues raised by key stakeholders. I'm not even surprised. Just disappointed. #agedcare

93

8 Comments

Yesterday I facilitated our second focus group, exploring health literacy for advanced care planning and palliative care, for people who have a sensory loss in WA. This is a project funded by WA Primary Health Alliance - WAPHA and delivered by Palliative Care WA. This amazing group consisted of people who identify as Deaf, deaf and deafblind. The feedback we received on accessible information and communication barriers, was broad and rich. The vast range of communication needs in the room was testament to the spectrum within these communities. We had Auslan users, lip readers, implant and hearing device users, speech-to-text readers, and oral speakers. We slowed down our discussions. We repeated questions and comments. We checked for comprehension and clarification. We were all patient with each other and respectful of the diverse needs. The information that was gleaned was incredibly practical. When looking at creating new resources, we need to take into account - is the language user-friendly? Is the text accessible? What about the pictures and the layout? How’s the formatting? Is this video up to scratch? What’s missing? What could be done better? (Spoiler alert: sticking an Auslan interpreter in the bottom corner doesn’t cut the mustard) I have a great feeling about what we’re going to accomplish with our sensory loss project. Death literacy is a hard topic to broach in any community. Making sure it’s accessible is paramount for people’s safety and respecting personal wishes. Great work everyone! SensesWA DeafBlind West Australians #healthCare #healthLiteracy #palliativeCare #deafblind #communication #education (A sign in a lobby that reads ‘palliative care WA focus group’. This showed our participants where to meet.)

44

6 Comments

The first of a new series of articles explores the dynamics of board tensions among directors, including causes, manifestations, and solutions, to foster better decision-making and organisational health https://lnkd.in/gZ3NPHm3

1

As an NDIS provider, we have several key responsibilities to ensure participants have choice and control over their NDIS experience. Here are some of the most important: ✅Information and Transparency: You must provide participants with clear and easy-to-understand information about their NDIS plan, funding, and the services you offer. This includes explaining options in a way that is relevant to their individual needs and preferences. ✅Shared Decision Making: Actively involve participants in discussions about their goals and how your services can help them achieve those goals. Work collaboratively to develop a service agreement that reflects their priorities and preferences. ✅Respecting Choices: Uphold the participant's right to choose, even if their decisions differ from your initial recommendations. You can offer guidance and expertise, but ultimately, the choice lies with the participant. ✅Flexibility and Responsiveness: Be prepared to adapt your services to meet the participant's evolving needs and preferences. This may involve adjusting service times, approaches, or even providers if necessary. ✅Supported Decision Making: If a participant has difficulty making decisions, you should be aware of and support the use of supported decision-making practices. This could involve working with the participant's family, carer, or a nominated decision-maker. ✅Complaints and Feedback: Establish clear and accessible mechanisms for participants to provide feedback or raise concerns about your services. Actively listen to their feedback and use it to improve your service delivery. To get support : 📧 Email : [email protected] 💻Website : https://lnkd.in/gemZZdAb 📞Call : 0432073017 📍Head Office : 30 Cabarita Road, Concord NSW 2137 📍 Liverpool Branch : 2/228 Macquarie Street, Liverpool NSW 2170 📍 Fairfield West Branch : 1/368 Hamilton Rd, Fairfield West NSW 2165 #NDIS #disability #disabilitysupport #disabilityservices #inclusion #independence #choice #NDISprovider #Australia #personcentredcare #individualizedsupport #empowerment #skillsdevelopment #goalsetting #wellbeing #liverpool #concord #leppington

1

New report from #centreofexcellenceforthedigitalchild #digitalchild - a landmark report on what digital childhoods look like in Australia today - the risks, the opportunities and barriers to access https://lnkd.in/ggY-nUBG https://lnkd.in/gqRrJk9X

16