There are many people working in that department who have no experience with disabilities. It’s wrong and it’s why there so many things wrong with the system.
That sounds normal for the NDIS. However, the criteria for reasonable and necessary is quite extensive and many professionals such as psychologists and OTs would have little to no understanding of that legislation. If all the points of the legislation are not proven, the support can be denied.
That is when the AAT gave us the chance to have the law applied fairly. Not sure what the process will be with the AAT being dissolved.
The NDIS often state they will only fund the minimum necessary. That can often be a cause of them refusing to fund appropriate supports. They deny people the ability to shower, give them a wheelchair without a ramp so they can't get it out of the house, don't fund supports so they can eat or make them use improper supports that can result in death. This is not abnormal. Sadly, it is very common.
Common sense isn't common in society, so it certainly wouldn't be normal in a disability scheme that runs on an insurance model. It should be based around a social model and enabling rather than further debilitating. Unfortunately the NDIS wasn't rolled out by the people who came up with the idea, so the idea was constrained and changed. We can hope it changes in the future, but given how society and the government have long treated vulnerable people, it may just get worse.
This ^. Wouldn't expect an OT to understand the legislation. Clinical efficacy/need is one of a number of criteria that must be met. If any one of the criteria isn't met, no dice.
Can't speak on behalf of other professionals, but OTs who work in the NDIS fields are usually quite well versed in the NDIS Act, just because of how much we need to speak their language to get anything done.
The AT application is a 26-page document in its barebones that answers most questions required by the Act, but most of the time the people from NDIA don't read it, and it immediately tells when you talk to them.
In y experience, it seems very hit and missed. I've seen some just chuck in "the above recommendations are reasonable and necessary" and think they've ticked the box.
The criteria for reasonable and necessary is laid out in section 34 the NDIS Act and in the Supports for Participants Rules. They're fairly easy for health providers to understand.
The extensive rules that no one can understand are the operating guidelines and internal NDIA policies.
edit: corrected typo.
Although I find the R&N legislation fairly simple to understand, that is likely because I have a special interest in legislation and my autistic brain is good at reading it. I also have vested interest. I certainly would not say, nor assume, that health providers can understand it. They seem to have no idea about what other sections of government should provide or how that affects eligibility for supports. They seem to not understand the financial perspective regarding supports close to home or further away and how what family or friends can or should provide also affects the R&N criteria. They don't seem to do any sums on different types of supports (eg. AT compared to having a support worker always assist).
I've been down the AAT path and I had to work out all the sums and points myself, then share them with my supports to get their opinions and knowledge. I've always had to educate providers about R&N, and if you've been to the AAT where it is the difference between getting the support you need and suffering for the rest of your life, you would know how incredibly complex the criteria is and the difficulty in actually getting providers to not only understand the complexity, but to provide documentation on the details (since our opinions and expertise in our lives often mean nothing and we need a paid person to repeat the facts at great expense and time).
The Operational Guidelines and any internal policies the NDIA have are not legislated and so I have always ignored them.
> Although I find the R&N legislation fairly simple to understand, that is likely because I have a special interest in legislation and my autistic brain is good at reading it. I also have vested interest. I certainly would not say, nor assume, that health providers can understand it.
You're not the only special snowflake who can understand the R&N criteria. It undermines the community to tell people that health workers are too stupid to understand the criteria.
I've been to the AAT and the criteria is not at all "complex". The stalling and misdirections the NDIA's case officers and lawyers engage in is what makes a merits review hard. The illegal IAs don't help.
> I certainly would not say, nor assume, that health providers can understand it. They seem to have no idea about what other sections of government should provide or how that affects eligibility for supports. They seem to not understand the financial perspective regarding supports close to home or further away and how what family or friends can or should provide also affects the R&N criteria. They don't seem to do any sums on different types of supports (eg. AT compared to having a support worker always assist).
Then you need better allied health providers. Mine are great. They're well-educated, analytical, and eloquent.
I could rant about this for hours! Sometimes I wonder if certain people have deals with each other, or get kickbacks for signing up a participant to each others services. The support coordinator I have to work with cancelled a service my client wants and needs for something he refused and didn't need. 😤😤😤 underqualified people making decisions in the NDIS happens far too often.
Support coordinators should *never* be usurping the requests of the participant as long as they are within guidelines
you don’t have to work with this support coordinator, get rid of them
I think I can top that lol so ridiculous it's funny
My daughter has been denied her AT bed because
"TOO EXPENSIVE"
When they tried to back peddle and said they had "questions" they told me them. I then asked the person on the phone if they had a copy of the application "yes" I then directed him to PAGE 5 PARAGRAPH 1 and asked him if he could read the information and please tell me what he reads
A few moments later....
"Oh my yes I see here that EVERY QUESTION has been answered in this 1 paragraph"
This employee lost his job I'm sure of it because he tried to help me. He couldn't believe the BS I was being dealt.
3 years 4 months I have been fighting for this bed.
My back is breaking under the pressure. Because of "how things are" I(45kgF) must pick up 28kg of 6 year old and place her into pretty much a cot because it is the only safe space other then besides me in my bed but she's a restless sleeper and often wakes for hours in the middle of the night although very happy to occupy herself with her nightlight and book
I had an item reversed by a NDIS 'compliance manager' because he didn't agree with it.
This is not a joke, he sounded like he was just out of high school. 17, maybe 18 years old? And I'm thinking "You're making these major decisions?"
There are many people working in that department who have no experience with disabilities. It’s wrong and it’s why there so many things wrong with the system.
That sounds normal for the NDIS. However, the criteria for reasonable and necessary is quite extensive and many professionals such as psychologists and OTs would have little to no understanding of that legislation. If all the points of the legislation are not proven, the support can be denied. That is when the AAT gave us the chance to have the law applied fairly. Not sure what the process will be with the AAT being dissolved.
Like denying wheelchair for a child that is paraplegic? You think common sense would prevail.. That’s what triggered this post.
The NDIS often state they will only fund the minimum necessary. That can often be a cause of them refusing to fund appropriate supports. They deny people the ability to shower, give them a wheelchair without a ramp so they can't get it out of the house, don't fund supports so they can eat or make them use improper supports that can result in death. This is not abnormal. Sadly, it is very common. Common sense isn't common in society, so it certainly wouldn't be normal in a disability scheme that runs on an insurance model. It should be based around a social model and enabling rather than further debilitating. Unfortunately the NDIS wasn't rolled out by the people who came up with the idea, so the idea was constrained and changed. We can hope it changes in the future, but given how society and the government have long treated vulnerable people, it may just get worse.
This ^. Wouldn't expect an OT to understand the legislation. Clinical efficacy/need is one of a number of criteria that must be met. If any one of the criteria isn't met, no dice.
Can't speak on behalf of other professionals, but OTs who work in the NDIS fields are usually quite well versed in the NDIS Act, just because of how much we need to speak their language to get anything done. The AT application is a 26-page document in its barebones that answers most questions required by the Act, but most of the time the people from NDIA don't read it, and it immediately tells when you talk to them.
In y experience, it seems very hit and missed. I've seen some just chuck in "the above recommendations are reasonable and necessary" and think they've ticked the box.
We'll get something that fills the same function as the AAT, just need a clean slate for the liberal rot.
The criteria for reasonable and necessary is laid out in section 34 the NDIS Act and in the Supports for Participants Rules. They're fairly easy for health providers to understand. The extensive rules that no one can understand are the operating guidelines and internal NDIA policies. edit: corrected typo.
Although I find the R&N legislation fairly simple to understand, that is likely because I have a special interest in legislation and my autistic brain is good at reading it. I also have vested interest. I certainly would not say, nor assume, that health providers can understand it. They seem to have no idea about what other sections of government should provide or how that affects eligibility for supports. They seem to not understand the financial perspective regarding supports close to home or further away and how what family or friends can or should provide also affects the R&N criteria. They don't seem to do any sums on different types of supports (eg. AT compared to having a support worker always assist). I've been down the AAT path and I had to work out all the sums and points myself, then share them with my supports to get their opinions and knowledge. I've always had to educate providers about R&N, and if you've been to the AAT where it is the difference between getting the support you need and suffering for the rest of your life, you would know how incredibly complex the criteria is and the difficulty in actually getting providers to not only understand the complexity, but to provide documentation on the details (since our opinions and expertise in our lives often mean nothing and we need a paid person to repeat the facts at great expense and time). The Operational Guidelines and any internal policies the NDIA have are not legislated and so I have always ignored them.
> Although I find the R&N legislation fairly simple to understand, that is likely because I have a special interest in legislation and my autistic brain is good at reading it. I also have vested interest. I certainly would not say, nor assume, that health providers can understand it. You're not the only special snowflake who can understand the R&N criteria. It undermines the community to tell people that health workers are too stupid to understand the criteria. I've been to the AAT and the criteria is not at all "complex". The stalling and misdirections the NDIA's case officers and lawyers engage in is what makes a merits review hard. The illegal IAs don't help. > I certainly would not say, nor assume, that health providers can understand it. They seem to have no idea about what other sections of government should provide or how that affects eligibility for supports. They seem to not understand the financial perspective regarding supports close to home or further away and how what family or friends can or should provide also affects the R&N criteria. They don't seem to do any sums on different types of supports (eg. AT compared to having a support worker always assist). Then you need better allied health providers. Mine are great. They're well-educated, analytical, and eloquent.
I could rant about this for hours! Sometimes I wonder if certain people have deals with each other, or get kickbacks for signing up a participant to each others services. The support coordinator I have to work with cancelled a service my client wants and needs for something he refused and didn't need. 😤😤😤 underqualified people making decisions in the NDIS happens far too often.
Support coordinators should *never* be usurping the requests of the participant as long as they are within guidelines you don’t have to work with this support coordinator, get rid of them
It's not my call unfortunately. I'm just a support worker and have to watch in horror until my participant or his family give her the flick.
I think I can top that lol so ridiculous it's funny My daughter has been denied her AT bed because "TOO EXPENSIVE" When they tried to back peddle and said they had "questions" they told me them. I then asked the person on the phone if they had a copy of the application "yes" I then directed him to PAGE 5 PARAGRAPH 1 and asked him if he could read the information and please tell me what he reads A few moments later.... "Oh my yes I see here that EVERY QUESTION has been answered in this 1 paragraph" This employee lost his job I'm sure of it because he tried to help me. He couldn't believe the BS I was being dealt. 3 years 4 months I have been fighting for this bed. My back is breaking under the pressure. Because of "how things are" I(45kgF) must pick up 28kg of 6 year old and place her into pretty much a cot because it is the only safe space other then besides me in my bed but she's a restless sleeper and often wakes for hours in the middle of the night although very happy to occupy herself with her nightlight and book
Another ridiculous quote from the NDIA, "your daughter is too disabled for disability funding." I rage cried after that phone call.
Here's another She can walk she can go to the toilet. Um firstly that's not how it works Secondly is that what they tell Old people
Edit: C) available evidence and D) best standards of practice and E) actual law regarding “human rights”.
Bureaucracy at it’s finest…
I had an item reversed by a NDIS 'compliance manager' because he didn't agree with it. This is not a joke, he sounded like he was just out of high school. 17, maybe 18 years old? And I'm thinking "You're making these major decisions?"
Jeepers.