|
|
Post by krystal on Aug 25, 2016 14:17:28 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Aug 25, 2016 15:22:19 GMT 7
Thanks Krystal, that will make interesting reading.
|
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on Aug 25, 2016 18:45:47 GMT 7
Thanks Krystal, that will make interesting reading. Thank you both for reading it. |
|
|
|
Post by dswau on Aug 29, 2016 9:39:25 GMT 7
It's interesting to note that acquired brain injury (I object to 'impairment' thanks) category is so low. I'm not sure if it's because mortality rates are so high, or because many are accident/work related (and therefore compensated through insurance).
My neurosurgeon tells me that the prevalence of acquired brain injuries is quite high, but there we are, just 2.5% of applicants. This worries somewhat as my DSP was awarded (in 2014) without any face to face meeting or discussion of any type with Centrelink, to the point where after six months I enquired whether my application had been decided. In fact, it had been approved less than two weeks of applying - it's just that nobody bothered to tell me so.
Given that the numbers of ABI pensioners is so low, it concerns me that I might be a target for re-assessment. I've spent two years battling to get back to work for 25 hours per week, which means that my pension is quite low, but if my concession entitlements were removed then it would make my living expenses much higher.
On a sidenote, it's interesting to note that BEFORE the new impairment tables were introduced, the less than 20 point rejection rate was higher - I would have thought that it increased, given that the new impairment tables were 'stricter'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2016 16:46:30 GMT 7
Stricter is one way to put it but it was changed in how they assess. Its based on what the conditions restrict you from doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Aug 29, 2016 17:06:06 GMT 7
Grant rate 2008-2009 was 64.5%. 2012-2013 it was 43%.
The bulk of the reviews will be for psychiatric conditions as these represent such a large portion of DSP recipients, followed by musculoskeletal conditions.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Aug 29, 2016 19:06:29 GMT 7
Time does fly. I read all the review posts with interest but luckily with no fear for myself. And i sympathize with all those who worry about all the horrid things C/L do/may do. But maybe I missed something because it only seems like yesterday that our main focus of Portability has disappeared off the radar. But unless i did miss something the terrible 4 week per year portability is still in force. So is anything happening in this regard because i feel it is clearly a breach of human rights. They put "YOUR" money in the bank as you are entitled to but then tell you how to spend it. I suspect there are thousand who are entitled to U.P. under the rules even but don't have any idea of their rights. And the 4 weeks is just plain criminal. Again, I already have U.P. but what i had to go through was the worst thing in my life. Having disabilities is nothing compared to dealing with Satan link. So I hope nobody has forgotten those who want more than four weeks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 6:39:21 GMT 7
G'day nomadic. As much as I hate to say it but I think U.P. has slipped somewhat by the wayside because of the massive changes, not only to the Tables but also to the way of having to provide medical evidence in order to achieve or retain your pension.
With the introduction of the NDIS the focus seems to be more on the Handicapped to be eligible (as they always have been and rightly so) for DSP. The New Tables and Procedures seem to take the Invalid out of the equation.
In this politically correct environment "Disabled" is the chosen term to represent both cohorts on DSP, with those in power choosing one more so than the other to suit their new NDIS criteria for entrance to the scheme. I suspect the 450,000 talked about for the scheme will all be handicapped. United we'd stand but divided... well the handicapped are receiving all of the positive attention to make a new life for themselves, whilst the invalid is just flotsam and jetsom, not worth the effort. A personal friend of mine currently undergoing treatment for prostrate cancer hasn't been able to access Sickness Benefit because he has been deemed "not sick enough" His medical certificates aren't accepted and he has been told, "Just go back to work." He's a 60 y.o. lifelong concreter.
I'm one of the fortunate ones who can afford and is happier to wait my short time for OAP U.P. rather than risking my health and the quagmire. Maybe Portability is not such an issue nowadays because people are uninformed or see it for the token gesture that it is. To fight it requires interest and motivation from affected persons who want more time OS without running the gauntlet to obtain U.P. Invalids granted under the old rules simply cannot hope to obtain U.P. unless they have either a full or part time carer even though they may have 90 points and NFWC. In the new tables to meet 20 points in one you mostly have to require help.
Although I haven't read all of the OP.s link I think it would be far more telling to summarise as outlined here.
Cheers bear
|
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Aug 30, 2016 8:10:39 GMT 7
Nomadic, there's still talk about UP over on the Closed UP thread, and with Jimmy in the New Members thread. We have observed AAT decisions where people who've recently obtained the 20 points on one table are, only a matter of months later, robbed of those points when they apply for UP. I would be interested in UP, certainly, but the risk of finding myself with no DSP at all is just too great. Centrelink and AAT decisions are fickle and inexplicable.
My generation (X) is pre-invalid terminology. Bear, I would've said that disability was, since the early 90s, constructed in terms of the s4 definition in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) -- so, rather broadly:
"disability " , in relation to a person, means:
(a) total or partial loss of the person's bodily or mental functions; or
(b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or
(c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or
(d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or
(e) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person's body; or
(f) a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction; or
(g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person's thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour;
and includes a disability that:
(h) presently exists; or
(i) previously existed but no longer exists; or
(j) may exist in the future (including because of a genetic predisposition to that disability); or
(k) is imputed to a person.
To avoid doubt, a disability that is otherwise covered by this definition includes behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of the disability.
Obviously, this broad definition is at odds with the kinds of disability required to achieve NDIS assistance, as you point out, Bear, and now to obtain DSP, especially since 2012. So I'd agree that there are at least two constructions of "disability," although I suspect it's really three: the DDA construction; the DSP construction; and the NDIS construction.
What does this all amount to? A f"cking mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessemojo4 on Aug 31, 2016 14:28:28 GMT 7
I recently was "successful" with a claim for U.P. but when I received notice of my success by a phone call I asked for a receipt no. or similar as proof. I was told No and was told I'd get proof after completion of "former residency". I pursued proof cupla mths later and a very helpful C/link employee, who seemed perplexed with the challenge, finally found that the item I was seeking had been removed and didn't exist anymore. He completed his own version which I requested just to use as referance
|
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Aug 31, 2016 15:49:28 GMT 7
Good move, jessemojo.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Aug 31, 2016 16:25:20 GMT 7
Hi Jessemojo4. sounds fishy to me getting notified by phone only and no receipt no for the call. Maybe some others who have been granted U.P. without going to a tribunal could clarify that they tell you by phone. Please make sure you have it in writing before you head off. Great news if you got it though.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Aug 31, 2016 16:29:13 GMT 7
Sorry Murph but also forgot to say you should go for it also. I know they are mad but I cannot believe in any way that you would lose DSP just for asking if you can get it. Seems even too mad for them even. I'd say give it a go or at least get some further advice on your situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by tasjo on Sept 6, 2016 23:35:31 GMT 7
It's interesting to note that acquired brain injury (I object to 'impairment' thanks) category is so low. I'm not sure if it's because mortality rates are so high, or because many are accident/work related (and therefore compensated through insurance). My neurosurgeon tells me that the prevalence of acquired brain injuries is quite high, but there we are, just 2.5% of applicants. This worries somewhat as my DSP was awarded (in 2014) without any face to face meeting or discussion of any type with Centrelink, to the point where after six months I enquired whether my application had been decided. In fact, it had been approved less than two weeks of applying - it's just that nobody bothered to tell me so. Given that the numbers of ABI pensioners is so low, it concerns me that I might be a target for re-assessment. I've spent two years battling to get back to work for 25 hours per week, which means that my pension is quite low, but if my concession entitlements were removed then it would make my living expenses much higher. On a sidenote, it's interesting to note that BEFORE the new impairment tables were introduced, the less than 20 point rejection rate was higher - I would have thought that it increased, given that the new impairment tables were 'stricter'. |
|
