Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 17:11:30 GMT 7
Work history might also play a part. Someone did mention Kevin Andrews saying people on DSP longer than 5 or so years and haven't had a work history for a long time seem not worthwhile to review.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 23, 2016 17:11:53 GMT 7
With 650K potentials I think they'll be considering people who "only" scored 20 points on old tables. (I say this respectfully - I consider 20 points on old tables plenty disabled enough for DSP)
It's occurred to me that there may be data matching between Satanlink and Medicare. Not specific item numbers, but usage levels. For example, folk who reach the Medicare safety net are high usage - perhaps being screened out as ill enough to dismiss. I'm totally spitballing this one.
I continue to think recent work and study are contenders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 17:14:02 GMT 7
With 650K potentials I think they'll be considering people who "only" scored 20 points on old tables. (I say this respectfully - I consider 20 points on old tables plenty disabled enough for DSP) It's occurred to me that there may data matching between Satanlink and Medicare. Not specific item numbers, but usage levels. For example, folk who reach the Medicare safety net are high usage - perhaps being screened out as ill enough to dismiss. I'm totally spitballing this one. I continue to think recent work and study are contenders. 20 points on old tables makes sense since the measure does imply people that have yet to be scored under the current tables. You could be right about Medicare too.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 23, 2016 17:14:53 GMT 7
Work history might also play a part. Someone did mention Kevin Andrews saying people on DSP longer than 5 or so years and haven't had a work history for a long time seem not worthwhile to review. That was Mike, on another thread. It was a logical post.
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Jul 24, 2016 17:21:53 GMT 7
Location might be a possibility. @peacesells Location might come into play if you lived in 'outer wherever' with a particular type of disability and yet there are no support services in that location for your type of disability?
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jul 24, 2016 17:54:08 GMT 7
We have this document.
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee BUDGET ESTIMATES – 3 JUNE 2015 ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE
I need to look over it with our staff but basically in the first year of assessments, in this case From 1 July 2014 to 19 June 2015 there appears to be only one real constant triggering assessments and it is disability type and that's mental illnesses. (Think 75%)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 17:20:51 GMT 7
One that was come up with... multiple disabilities of less than 20 relying on total for DSP rather than a single disability of 20+. Which would make sense. Under that criteria the under 35s had to do a Program of Support. I think if you score 20 on one condition you don't have to do the PoS nor would you likely be a target for the upcoming lot of reviews imo. A few algorithms I think in relevance I will try to sum up. Opinion based of course. 2 year thing the DHS mentioned aside because that does not alone make you a target imo. - Not reassessed under 2012 tables - Currently working or studying - Medical information updated to DHS - Mental illness - Program of Support or if over 35 multiple disabilities to total 20 or more as opposed to one condition of 20 points. - Assessed before 2008 - 8 hours a week work capacity or more - Age 35-59
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 26, 2016 17:25:14 GMT 7
After seeing that despicable table in the Senate Committee Q&A, I'd put mental illness as the first trigger.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 17:28:04 GMT 7
After seeing that despicable table in the Sense Committee Q&A, I'd put mental illness as the first trigger. The process is sadistic. Its sadistic how the vulnerable get treated. This place is a miracle worker really for assistance because it will make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by gized on Jul 26, 2016 17:54:55 GMT 7
pOS forum buddies, the pos is only for new claims. Of course if your under 35 that's different. The whole thing is based and determined on when your dsp claim was granted.
We're you granted under the previous 2006 rules. This was at 30 hours per werk unable to work. Grandfather provisions apply also.
If a new DSP claims, and over 35, pos will need to take place. Of course there are also exemptions to that, if you understand the guide and legal framework. We all do, understand and in the right track.
So someone got dsp say in 2008, 2008, up to 3 sep 2011, they come under the 15 hour rule.
If reviewed the guide applicable at that time will be used in conjunction with the now tables.
Of what I see and believe me doing a lot of reading case law, the ones that don't get it have not got conditions ftds.
Therefore, can't be given points for their conditions as not permanent.
The ones who are getting cancelled, even after 16 years and I do feel for that person, they were working many many hours and for years.
There really are not many cases on outcomes of reviews for those over 35 that I see. I do suspect we will start to see these coming through in the next few months.
Problem is everyone is appealing and good on them, I would to. This though means it can take years before you even get up on appeal. The back log is getting out of control.
Still not our problem, we will appeal if and when we need to.
I can't emphasis and stress, your conditions must be fully treated diagnosed and stabilised.
If for example a mental illness, it must be a psych not a psychologist. Si go and see a psych to confirm the diagnosis. You see that's doable
I am just giving an example.
If a back condition, like mine, need to get evidence from neurologist etc. You can tell cl your pains and how it affects you, and it will be corroborated by medical opinion.
I would love to go on TV and talk about this, but who would listen to me?
Let's stay cohesive, and share our experiences and knowledge, in particular to those who do get eligible for a review.
What bastards, what pathetic society how we become. Forum buddies I don't mean us.
Gized
|
|
|
Post by gized on Jul 26, 2016 17:55:22 GMT 7
pOS forum buddies, the pos is only for new claims. Of course if your under 35 that's different. The whole thing is based and determined on when your dsp claim was granted.
We're you granted under the previous 2006 rules. This was at 30 hours per werk unable to work. Grandfather provisions apply also.
If a new DSP claims, and over 35, pos will need to take place. Of course there are also exemptions to that, if you understand the guide and legal framework. We all do, understand and in the right track.
So someone got dsp say in 2008, 2008, up to 3 sep 2011, they come under the 15 hour rule.
If reviewed the guide applicable at that time will be used in conjunction with the now tables.
Of what I see and believe me doing a lot of reading case law, the ones that don't get it have not got conditions ftds.
Therefore, can't be given points for their conditions as not permanent.
The ones who are getting cancelled, even after 16 years and I do feel for that person, they were working many many hours and for years.
There really are not many cases on outcomes of reviews for those over 35 that I see. I do suspect we will start to see these coming through in the next few months.
Problem is everyone is appealing and good on them, I would to. This though means it can take years before you even get up on appeal. The back log is getting out of control.
Still not our problem, we will appeal if and when we need to.
I can't emphasis and stress, your conditions must be fully treated diagnosed and stabilised.
If for example a mental illness, it must be a psych not a psychologist. Si go and see a psych to confirm the diagnosis. You see that's doable
I am just giving an example.
If a back condition, like mine, need to get evidence from neurologist etc. You can tell cl your pains and how it affects you, and it will be corroborated by medical opinion.
I would love to go on TV and talk about this, but who would listen to me?
Let's stay cohesive, and share our experiences and knowledge, in particular to those who do get eligible for a review.
What bastards, what pathetic society how we become. Forum buddies I don't mean us.
Gized
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 18:02:21 GMT 7
I agree. That's why I also added if not the PoS aspect then the just being 20 points under multiple tables alone could be criteria for those 35 plus who aren't subject to PoS requirements (for now as that may change).
On mental health I assume you mean psychiatrist? If so I agree but also clinical psychologists also qualify.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 26, 2016 18:07:57 GMT 7
The Senate Committee questions and answers indicate they're getting people on the points, not the CITW component.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 26, 2016 18:12:56 GMT 7
The first part of s94 references requiring 20 points on impairment tables. Once you've reached that threshold, then CITW is considered.
If you don't make the 20 points, they don't need to look at CITW.
The stats indicate that almost all reviewees are falling down on points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 18:19:00 GMT 7
I think if you get 20 points under 1 table for one condition the CITW doesn't matter so much since it clearly indicates severe enough condition alone to meet the criteria medically since tables measure impact on function?
|
|