|
Post by murphy on Jul 26, 2016 18:26:32 GMT 7
20 points under one table = no PoS requirement for those otherwise required by legislation.
With 20 points satisfied the AAT decisions then move on to CITW. Some hurry through as though ticking a box; others analyse JCA assessed hours, other reports and hours of work/study. There's little consistency.
But the reassessment stats show most reviewees are failing at the first hurdle, simply missing out on points.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 26, 2016 18:28:22 GMT 7
Anyway, I've pulled this thread off course. Back to the algorithm.
|
|
|
Post by bunyip on Jul 27, 2016 7:26:54 GMT 7
l got an email back from ACOSS and they said they believe the 90,000 will be chosen out of a pool of around 650,000 and that its not just people who got the DSP 2008-11 but people prior to 2008 can also be reviewed and they said they will be targeting people who they think their disability is no longer severe or their health has improved.
This is part of what they said ACOSS "Yes, my understanding is that they’ve opened up reviews to anyone who hasn’t been assessed under the 2012 tables (around 650,000 recipients). Again, this is just based on what the Department has said in Senate Estimates in June. If I get further information, I’ll let you know. "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 7:43:35 GMT 7
l got an email back from ACOSS and they said they believe the 90,000 will be chosen out of a pool of around 650,000 and that its not just people who got the DSP 2008-11 but people prior to 2008 can also be reviewed and they said they will be targeting people who they think their disability is no longer severe or their health has improved. This is part of what they said ACOSS "Yes, my understanding is that they’ve opened up reviews to anyone who hasn’t been assessed under the 2012 tables (around 650,000 recipients). Again, this is just based on what the Department has said in Senate Estimates in June. If I get further information, I’ll let you know. " Pretty well as most of us suspected anyway. APh website I linked elsewhere said so. Mental illness is a likely algorithm.
|
|
|
Post by krystal on Jul 27, 2016 16:11:48 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? Unfortunately not Peacesells I have 20 points on one table + 15 points on other tables + 2 condition not FTDS (that still have an impact) and Centrelink still says I don't meet CITW and can work 15 hours a week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 16:15:25 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? Unfortunately not Peacesells I have 20 points on one table + 15 points on other tables + 2 condition not FTDS (that still have an impact) and Centrelink still says I don't meet CITW and can work 15 hours a week. But if your 20 point condition is FTDS the other one shouldn't matter if its not? CL system is messed up. I hope you win your appeals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2016 16:28:12 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Oct 23, 2016 18:59:43 GMT 7
I would encourage anyone who has been reviewed and won out to contact this committee at the above link. I will be also doing that with my own non review story of madness since 2004 So if you have had any problems at all with C'link i think you should put in a submission as this may start something even bigger. this ruthless negligent organization must be reformed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 6:14:57 GMT 7
From that story it would seem anyone without a "Manifest Indicator" is fair game, so therefore anyone not having one is part of the Algorithm. From what I understand about manifest grants that would possibly be most of the people on the payment, as is shown by the many severely handicapped people being reviewed. I don't know what cap the funding for the handicapped was under when the Invalid Pension was about but by changing that to the DSP it has allowed Government to progressively bring both under the same, which has made it a witches brew where nobody knows where anybody is supposed to be catergorized. The Invalid gets denied, the Handicapped get reviewed. Go figure, only in Ashtraya. Just my first morning thought for the day! Cheers bear www.northerndailyleader.com.au/story/4244759/centrelink-asks-paralysed-man-to-prove-he-deserved-pension/He said Josh was granted the pension before changes to the assessment in 2012, and his record did not show a "manifest disability". "Now that [Josh] has a "manifest indicator" on his record he will not be subject to further medical eligibility reviews," Mr Tudge said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 7:01:04 GMT 7
Actually what it then says is anyone not manifest not having been reviewed post 2012 is fair game which makes sense. Severe handicap doesn't have to be visible either which the government doesn't seem to understand.
|
|
|
Post by maxpower on Oct 24, 2016 8:10:00 GMT 7
I would encourage anyone who has been reviewed and won out to contact this committee at the above link. I will be also doing that with my own non review story of madness since 2004 So if you have had any problems at all with C'link i think you should put in a submission as this may start something even bigger. this ruthless negligent organization must be reformed. I followed the links in the story and got to - Qualifying for the Disability Support Pension - The audit objective was to assess the Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services’ administration of Disability Support Pension eligibility and review processes. www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/qualifying-disability-support-pensionSection 4 has some interesting reading
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Oct 24, 2016 9:06:35 GMT 7
Interesting recommendations as well.
|
|
|
Post by maxpower on Oct 24, 2016 9:58:54 GMT 7
Particularly disturbing is the bit that says...
"The most recent example of updating the service profiles for DSP medical reviews was in December 2014, and initial results show improved outcomes regarding suspensions and cancellations."
Does anybody know what a "service profile" is?
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Oct 24, 2016 11:23:32 GMT 7
maxpower My understanding is that "service" refers to the type of payment; for example, the DSP is a service. I once received a "service update" form in which I had to confirm my assets, etc.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Oct 24, 2016 16:46:05 GMT 7
I brought this report up in January on the forum, and little did I realise the following was a predictor of the 90,000 reviews, particularly the focus on medical evidence.
"The overall level of activity undertaken each year to confirm ongoing eligibility of DSP is significant—79 151 reviews were undertaken in 2014–15. However, the number of cancellations and payment reductions arising from this activity is relatively low. Further, the possibility of a DSP recipient being required to undergo a medical assessment as part of a compliance review was also low—just 3841 medical reviews (5 per cent) of DSP recipients reviewed in 2013–14, falling to 721 reviews in 2014–15. In 2014-15 a Budget measure was introduced to fund 28 000 reviews of DSP recipients under-35 years of age. As a result, recipients who fall outside the Budget measure criteria are unlikely to be reviewed and may continue receiving DSP even though their medical conditions no longer justify it. While reviewing the entire stock of DSP recipients would be expensive and ineffective for some groups, Human Services could improve targeting of medical reviews for compliance activities, including by drawing on medical and impairment risks identified during the claims processes. This approach would be consistent with the view of the Productivity Commission that DSP reassessments need to be sufficiently frequent that they reflect the foreseeable needs of the individual"
|
|