the initial NDIS plan was taken over by the Abbott Govt shortly after the program was set in train.
the Gillard plan was to take over the state management of "disability care", which was pretty well focused in deficiencies rather than strengths. and each state had differences which resulted in some people moving state to access better terms. and little communication between state services. hence many problems existed including rorting and biases.
the 3 pilot programs established the benefit of the new system over the old but it gradually became a monster drag on the Govt fiscal economy. the roll-out across the country enabled more rorts as there was little allowance for checking credentials of providers or ensuring that invoices received accurately reflected the needs of the participant or a justified expense in terms of methodical and empirical measures to determine value for money.
invoices were paid out without checking so many providers would simply charge whatever they wanted and received the money regardless of value.
the Lab govt ordered a full review and are acting on the recommendations.
Mr Shorten says "two practical changes" will help realise 95 per cent of the projected $14.4 billion figure.
Roughly two thirds of those savings, he says, will come from clamping down on "intra-plan inflation" — when a participant's plan is spent sooner than the period for which it was agreed, which can then lead to a top-up.
The rest comes from implementing the NDIS review's proposal to change the way participant budgets are set.
"What we want to do is hire trained assessors and we want to look at a person's total needs. And instead of constructing a plan brick-by-brick, we look at a person's overall needs and give them a budget," he says.
"We estimate that's actually going to save money."
Mr Shorten told participants the government remained committed to the scheme, saying "it will increase in numbers and we are increasing investment but ... we need to bring it to a more reasonable growth level".
He emphasised the transition to a needs-based assessment would be co-designed with the disability community.
ABC LINK
