|
Post by Banjo on Oct 24, 2016 16:59:20 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" I went to bookmark it and noticed I had already done so.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Oct 24, 2016 17:03:54 GMT 7
I kept re-reading that passage too, mikey, especially the words, including by drawing on medical and impairment risks identified during the claims processes. I wonder if seeking a copy of one's whole file might yield some information in relation to risks identified at the outset. I know my most recent JCA report didn't identify any risks, but perhaps it's been coded on to our files in some other way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 17:10:03 GMT 7
Most obvious risk factor to me is likelyhood of condition either lessening in severity or easing off altogether which they rarely if ever do unless its mental illness related and even then some mental illnesses never ever go away.
Things like employment history would be another factor too.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Oct 25, 2016 7:54:59 GMT 7
At this stage, the only cases we know of, are the 2 people whose stories were picked up by the media. Both were under 35, both were severely disabled (but not marked as manifest), and likely were just moved across to the DSP once they turned the qualifying age, and therefore not likely to have had a JCA nor needed to supply updated medical evidence at that time.
30,000 letters all going out at once, shows that there wasn't a lot of scrutiny of the file of the person the letter was sent to.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Oct 25, 2016 8:13:31 GMT 7
Surely they will have staggered the issue of letters? The guy in State care was actually a random sample review rather than one of the 90K. We had a member here whose review letter, while coming out post 1 July, had his review notice marked "sample."
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Oct 25, 2016 11:35:00 GMT 7
I think you are right, hopefully the committee can get some clarity on the amount reviews so far, and the outcomes, as the committee did back when the under 35 reviews were being undertaken.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Nov 22, 2016 11:30:56 GMT 7
Got this from Sen Siewert. She pasted an image from the Senate questions but unfortunately it won't paste here. Essentially, it was the part where she asked about the algorithm and got fobbed off. Dear Murphy
Thank you for your email regarding cuts to the disability support pension and for sharing your personal experience.
I should say at the outset that we oppose this review and we are deeply concerned about its impact on people with disability. It is likely that a number of people with disability will be taken off DSP and put onto the lower Newstart payment.
Unfortunately, the government has provided little to no information on the proposed “review”, leaving a lot of people anxious and uncertain about the future.
Initially, the only information given by the government was “These additional reviews will be targeted at those DSP customers who are most at risk of not meeting the current eligibility criteria and who may have the capacity to work to ensure people are on the right support for their situation.” There was no qualification as to what would make someone “at risk” of not meeting eligibility requirements. You can read more here. www.humanservices.gov.au/corporate/budget/budget-2016-17/disability-and-carers/national-disability-insurance-scheme-savings-fund-medical-risk-based-review-current-dsp
At Senate Estimates in May, I asked how the review would be undertaken. I have outlined that exchange below.
In October I put more questions on notice and I’m currently waiting for the answers.
It is deeply concerning that there is not more information available.
The Coalition government has a record of targeting vulnerable people. I will be using the Parliament to highlight this unfairness and fight to keep people on the disability support pension.
The Greens know that we should be reforming our tax system to make sure the really wealthy and corporations are paying their fair share of tax, rather than targeting those on a disability support pension.
Yours sincerely
Rachel Siewert
Australian Greens spokesperson on Family and Community Services, Disability and Ageing
cid:image001.png@01D1AF96.F2298EA0
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 12:01:38 GMT 7
"In October I put more questions on notice and I’m currently waiting for the answers."
She sounds optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Nov 22, 2016 12:29:49 GMT 7
Well she's a Senator, the law says that they have to answer her.
|
|
|
Post by brent62 on Nov 22, 2016 16:04:23 GMT 7
It may be triggered by submitting a tax return for few dollars from a few hours work the previous financial year. I tick that box. It may be that an audit that you received for submitting that tax return for a few dollars from a few hours work triggered it. I tick that box. It may be that you submitted an application for an education supplement and triggered a review. Again I tick that box. And woohoo I was asked to do a review and, as you know, the rest is history for this 54 yo who first received the DSP in 2011.
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Nov 22, 2016 18:42:20 GMT 7
Hi Murphy, could you possibly put up an email address for senator Siewert. I would like to contact her. Although I did call in to the greens Adam Brandts office and after the usual, "we will get back to you" they never did. But if what Banjo says is right I'll give her a try by email. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Nov 22, 2016 19:30:55 GMT 7
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 7:41:34 GMT 7
The criteria is picking people who have yet to be assessed under current tables but how they will pick is what the question really is. People under the new tables won't trigger a review with the algorithm which is important to note imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 5:09:13 GMT 7
Like Murphy stated I would also say Table 6 qualifying prior to July 2017 will be picked out although I have a feeling that could have part of the algorithm anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 8:13:43 GMT 7
Data profiling I think could be another algorithm especially for drug,alcohol abuse victims.
|
|