Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 12:13:27 GMT 7
It could also be inclusive of under 35s who did not get reviewed under the 2014 budget measure being the ''two year'' mentioned in the bottom. Whilst I agree people shouldn't spend time worrying, its useful this thread because it can help people prepare.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 12:22:37 GMT 7
The following is listed on inHuman Services website, regards who won't be asked for a Medical Risk Based Reviews. (I assume these criteria are exemptions from the algorithm, but we are aware how that has been a failure for manifest cases) Who we review
We may do a medical risk based review if you started to get DSP more than 2 years ago and haven’t had a medical review in the past 2 years. Who we won’t review
You won’t have a medical risk based review if you’re: - 60 years old or over
- eligible for DSP under current manifest rules - working in Australian Disability Enterprises or in the Supported Wage System, - or paid under an International Agreement and live permanently overseas www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/medical-risk-based-reviews-disability-support-pensionThe fact people manifestly on DSP have been reviewed shows how poorly it was done. The measure needs to be stopped. How do they expect 90k to be done with continual staff cuts?
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jun 4, 2017 14:08:48 GMT 7
Farm them out to the Job Centers. Staff cuts are not about saving money as much as handing it out to their mates in business.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 19:55:27 GMT 7
"the person’s age and the length of time in receipt of Disability Support Pension; whether they were granted before the Impairment Tables were implemented in January 2012; if the person has regularly reported any income; if the person has a pattern of overseas travel; if the person has not previously attended a Job Capacity Assessment; and if the person has not been medically reviewed in the last two years. Read more: dspoverseas.proboards.com/post/49659/quote/4480?page=7#ixzz4j2O2U4hA---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding 'the person’s age and the length of time in receipt of Disability Support Pension; ' Do they mean the longer you have been on the DSP the less likely you are to be chosen for review ? l'm 43 and been on the DSP 9 years , l wonder if that's good or bad in terms of risk of being picked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 23:00:14 GMT 7
"the person’s age and the length of time in receipt of Disability Support Pension; whether they were granted before the Impairment Tables were implemented in January 2012; if the person has regularly reported any income; if the person has a pattern of overseas travel; if the person has not previously attended a Job Capacity Assessment; and if the person has not been medically reviewed in the last two years. Read more: dspoverseas.proboards.com/post/49659/quote/4480?page=7#ixzz4j2O2U4hA----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Regarding 'the person’s age and the length of time in receipt of Disability Support Pension; ' Do they mean the longer you have been on the DSP the less likely you are to be chosen for review ? l'm 43 and been on the DSP 9 years , l wonder if that's good or bad in terms of risk of being picked. Good question Wombat79. I think your a low chance of being chosen anyway because you live in the bush.
The other advantage is that the algorithm is also unlikely to include Australian wildlife.If i was a bookie making a market, i'd give you a 13% chance of being picked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 2:16:03 GMT 7
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 5:50:07 GMT 7
2.3The Committee notes that some submissions have raised concerns with DHS’ targeting of reviews of the DSP. The Committee is concerned to hear that some recipients with manifest or severe disability have had their DSP reviewed under the 2014–15 measure for targeted review of recipients under 35 years of age.
Interesting find. So even the under 35 reviews were poorly targeted also.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 15:02:02 GMT 7
If there were previous manifest rules that could explain why some manifest people have been getting reviewed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2017 7:41:31 GMT 7
It will not be based on age. I am confident of this. You have to read and read between the lines and the law. It will not be based on age. Thats my view. Gized You're correct as I just noted that they won't review age 60 or over which means those not reviewed under current tables aged between 18-59.
|
|