CS01 (WA NDIS) Coordinators commented that all Plans are peer reviewed as part of the development procedures for Plan consistency and Coordinator training purposes. This included comparison with “Norms” for cohort consistency assessment and consideration of any appropriate adjustments. Clarification may be sought from the regional director as required. CS01: (NDIA) Planners commented that they made efforts to avoid getting a “Please Explain” when putting a Plan together. A “Please Explain” involved a time consuming detail review to justify the assessment and pricing of every component of a Plan and implied they had made an error in the assessment of the Participant and their needs. CS01: (NDIA) A Participant case was cited by Provider PPP where a severely autistic individual was assessed to have a low level of disability by the Planner on the basis that XXX had “a happy demeanour”. Provider PPP’s therapist asserted that this “demonstrated a gross lack of understanding of the characteristics of the autistic disability”. The situation was compounded by the family not having English as a first language and feeling intimidated at the meeting and agreeing to any support they could get. Comprehensive information from XXX’s therapists was available but not accessed by the Planner. CS09: (NDIA) Participant XXX’s podiatry supports were removed from the new plan. The funding of podiatry was transferred to Medicare. However, complications with XXX’s disability caused XXX’s GP to insist that treatment for the complication took priority over XXX’s podiatry needs. Because the family has limited capacity to pay the total gap payments under Medicare, a family member stated “we have to wait ….which is causing a major problem for XXX”.
CS01 (WA NDIS) Coordinators commented that all Plans are peer reviewed as part of the development procedures for Plan consistency and Coordinator training purposes. This included comparison with “Norms” for cohort consistency assessment and consideration of any appropriate adjustments. Clarification may be sought from the regional director as required. CS01: (NDIA) Planners commented that they made efforts to avoid getting a “Please Explain” when putting a Plan together. A “Please Explain” involved a time consuming detail review to justify the assessment and pricing of every component of a Plan and implied they had made an error in the assessment of the Participant and their needs. CS01: (NDIA) A Participant case was cited by Provider PPP where a severely autistic individual was assessed to have a low level of disability by the Planner on the basis that XXX had “a happy demeanour”. Provider PPP’s therapist asserted that this “demonstrated a gross lack of understanding of the characteristics of the autistic disability”. The situation was compounded by the family not having English as a first language and feeling intimidated at the meeting and agreeing to any support they could get. Comprehensive information from XXX’s therapists was available but not accessed by the Planner. CS09: (NDIA) Participant XXX’s podiatry supports were removed from the new plan. The funding of podiatry was transferred to Medicare. However, complications with XXX’s disability caused XXX’s GP to insist that treatment for the complication took priority over XXX’s podiatry needs. Because the family has limited capacity to pay the total gap payments under Medicare, a family member stated “we have to wait ….which is causing a major problem for XXX”.
Western-Australian-NDIS-Trials-Evaluation-Report.docx