Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 7:38:19 GMT 7
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 7:40:56 GMT 7
You need to take into account the Risk Review is the 2016 budget measure. 2 years means people not reviewed before the 2014 budget. The risk review is also for today, tommorow and yesterday. www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/medical-reviews-dspMedical risk based reviews If you started getting DSP more than 2 years ago and haven’t had a medical review in the past 2 years we may check your medical eligibility for DSP under a medical risk based review.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 7:43:47 GMT 7
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 7:49:33 GMT 7
The fact Fred mentioned Doctor Report means most likely wasn't reviewed under the budget measure too. So now you are saying that Mikey's wrong? Mikey thinks that Fred was reviewed under the 90,000 budget measure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 7:50:55 GMT 7
The fact Fred mentioned Doctor Report means most likely wasn't reviewed under the budget measure too. So now you are saying that Mikey's wrong? Mikey thinks that Fred was under the 90,000 budget measure. Depends. When people asked about no one ever asked if it was provided a Treating Doctor's Report. If that was what Fred meant by doctor's report then clearly it wasn't the 90000 as CLink only provides the TDR for reviews outside that budget measure. If anything Fred's result is a real positive for those worried about reviews.
|
|
|
Post by fred1958 on Oct 30, 2017 7:58:26 GMT 7
I may have worded that badly. The doctor's report I refer to was not a Centrelink form filled out by my doctor. He put together a letter showing what he knew of my medical history and a summary of my medical problems and their impact on my day-to-day life. I apologise if I've caused any confusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 8:01:34 GMT 7
I may have worded that badly. The doctor's report I refer to was not a Centrelink form filled out by my doctor. He put together a letter showing what he knew of my medical history and a summary of my medical problems and their impact on my day-to-day life. I apologise if I've caused any confusion. No worries sir. If anything that's a good result that you can still get doctor reports done. People should be able to at least get some GP stuff when they do have it. Glad your review went well. It will give many in those 90k hope.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 8:06:33 GMT 7
So Peacesells, does that mean that Fred was likely part of the 90,000?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 8:08:21 GMT 7
So Peacesells, doe that mean that Fred was likely part of the 90,000? In light of his recent post most likely yes. Of which then his result is especially positive for those on here concerned about being part of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 8:12:04 GMT 7
So Peacesells, doe that mean that Fred was likely part of the 90,000? In light of his recent post most likely yes. Of which then his result is especially positive for those on here concerned about being part of it. Which would mean that Mikey was right about being reviewed twice under the 2012 tables in the 90,000 budget measure?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 8:16:14 GMT 7
In light of his recent post most likely yes. Of which then his result is especially positive for those on here concerned about being part of it. Which would mean that Mikey was right about being reviewed twice under the 2012 tables in the 90,000 budget measure? Not twice under that measure, just once. Twice though in being assessed overall under the tables being part of application too. Would have only been his first review the one mentioned here. DHS mentioned an algorithm too so it would have required multiple narrow downs to pick for review.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Oct 30, 2017 8:21:56 GMT 7
In january 2016, the productivity commission wrote a report stating, that while the DSP could be reviewed after 2 years, only a few thousand people are checked each year. Because the under 35's review, which was budgeted for previously, had a small but obvious impact, the productivity commission called for more regular reviews. The Liberals decided they could allocate funds in the budget to supercharge this, hence a jump from a few thousand to 30,000 a year.
So, the 90,000 reviews are the medical risk based reviews, just budgeted for on a greater scale, and now only using government doctors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 8:23:29 GMT 7
Which would mean that Mikey was right about being reviewed twice under the 2012 tables in the 90,000 budget measure? Not twice under that measure, just once. Twice though in being assessed overall under the tables being part of application too. Would have only been his first review the one mentioned here. DHS mentioned an algorithm too so it would have required multiple narrow downs to pick for review. 'assessed' is the word i meant. This is something new i have learnt about the algorithm. The algo may have something about moving location, as Fred has moved in the last couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by tasjo on Oct 30, 2017 17:57:04 GMT 7
Even with 30,000 reviews a year, the review rate (based on just under 729,000 on DSP in 2016/17) is around about 4%... therefore 96% will not be reviewed.
I honestly believe that the best way to approach things given that anyone receiving DSP now knows that there is a potential for review every 2 years is to ensure that appointments are maintained so that when requesting information from your GP and specialists they aren't responding with no knowledge. Personally I don't have a massive issue with being 'checked' when the permanent criteria definition is 2 yrs +... but from a 'common sense' viewpoint it doesn't make a lot of sense to review those who have truly 'permanent' degenerative conditions.
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Oct 30, 2017 19:08:33 GMT 7
Yes, I agree. It is like worrying about the weather. You have no control over it so why worry. Have a brolly and coat on hand (evidence), if needed but then forget about it until it rains. As tasjo says it wil be fine weather for 96%. More chance of me picking the cup winner than being reviewed.
|
|