|
Post by tasjo on Oct 29, 2017 16:10:16 GMT 7
I think I read somewhere that the 2012 Tables were mandatory from 2015 onwards?
I'll see if I can find any info but I didn't think they became mandatory for some time after they were approved.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Oct 29, 2017 17:33:53 GMT 7
They stated it was 2 years from before the budget, when it was announced last year. So May 2016 budget, less 2 years. Anyone who had not been reviewed since May 2014, was potentially in the list, though over 60's were excluded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 17:39:30 GMT 7
They stated it was 2 years from before the budget, when it was announced last year. So May 2016 budget, less 2 years. Anyone who had not been reviewed since May 2014, was potentially in the list, though over 60's were excluded. Ok, i thought they meant 2 years is the minimum time someone can be reviewed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 18:18:16 GMT 7
They stated it was 2 years from before the budget, when it was announced last year. So May 2016 budget, less 2 years. Anyone who had not been reviewed since May 2014, was potentially in the list, though over 60's were excluded. Not saying your wrong but, I did a google search and i can't find anything to support this. Maybe it's the way i'm interpreting "2 years".
|
|
|
Post by fred1958 on Oct 29, 2017 18:23:04 GMT 7
I think this is why I was chosen. On top of the under-35s reviews they are conducting a review of 90,000 recipients and a third of these will also have a Disability Medical Assessment. From Welfare savings to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme: Disability Support Pension reviews
"This $62.1 million savings measure will see an additional 90,000 medical reviews of DSP recipients over three years. Of these, 30,000 will include a Disability Medical Assessment conducted by a doctor contracted by the Department of Human Services (DHS).[15] The measure extends a 2014–15 Budget measure to review the work capacity of DSP recipients aged under-35 years and DHS’s regular program of entitlement reviews.[16] The measure does not require legislation and the savings will derive from some DSP recipients having their payment cancelled and either moving onto a lower rate income support payment or off income support. The reviews assess existing recipients against the current eligibility criteria for DSP rather than the criteria under which the recipient first claimed. In 2011, new criteria for assessing DSP claimant’s work capacity were introduced and new criteria for assessing the impact of medical conditions and impairments were introduced in 2012. Some of those reviewed may not meet the new criteria, while some may have seen an improvement in their medical condition or work capacity so that they no longer qualify for DSP. The new criteria have restricted the number of new claimants and, together with reviews of existing recipients, have contributed to a decrease in the total number of DSP recipients—from around 832,000 people in December 2013 to around 797,000 people in December 2015.[17] The reviews will be targeted at DSP recipients who ‘may have some reasonable but limited capacity to work’.[18] As at January 2016, 20,521 people had been reviewed under the previous measure targeting additional reviews at under-35s. Of these, 2,986 had had their DSP cancelled with 2,464 not meeting the medical requirements. Of those cancelled, 75 per cent moved to another income support payment.[19]"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 18:27:51 GMT 7
I think this is why I was chosen .... From Welfare savings to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme: Disability Support Pension reviews
"This $62.1 million savings measure will see an additional 90,000 medical reviews of DSP recipients over three years. Of these, 30,000 will include a Disability Medical Assessment conducted by a doctor contracted by the Department of Human Services (DHS).[15] The measure extends a 2014–15 Budget measure to review the work capacity of DSP recipients aged under-35 years and DHS’s regular program of entitlement reviews.[16] The measure does not require legislation and the savings will derive from some DSP recipients having their payment cancelled and either moving onto a lower rate income support payment or off income support. The reviews assess existing recipients against the current eligibility criteria for DSP rather than the criteria under which the recipient first claimed. In 2011, new criteria for assessing DSP claimant’s work capacity were introduced and new criteria for assessing the impact of medical conditions and impairments were introduced in 2012. Some of those reviewed may not meet the new criteria, while some may have seen an improvement in their medical condition or work capacity so that they no longer qualify for DSP. The new criteria have restricted the number of new claimants and, together with reviews of existing recipients, have contributed to a decrease in the total number of DSP recipients—from around 832,000 people in December 2013 to around 797,000 people in December 2015.[17] The reviews will be targeted at DSP recipients who ‘may have some reasonable but limited capacity to work’.[18] As at January 2016, 20,521 people had been reviewed under the previous measure targeting additional reviews at under-35s. Of these, 2,986 had had their DSP cancelled with 2,464 not meeting the medical requirements. Of those cancelled, 75 per cent moved to another income support payment.[19]" I doubt you were part of this 90,000 measure since it talks about applying the new criteria. You were already originally granted under the new criteria.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 4:12:28 GMT 7
They stated it was 2 years from before the budget, when it was announced last year. So May 2016 budget, less 2 years. Anyone who had not been reviewed since May 2014, was potentially in the list, though over 60's were excluded. Exactly. The 2 years means from when the budget measure started so back to Id say July 2014 as that's when the original review measure actually started. It depends. If Fred received the Doctor Report I'd say it was not under the measure not that I think he was anyway as being under 2012 tables already should have been reason to exclude. Nope. 2012 tables were mandatory from when they came in in Jan 2012 whether for applying or reviews. Also Fred I am glad it went well. I can say from experience reviews are extremely stressful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 6:04:01 GMT 7
They stated it was 2 years from before the budget, when it was announced last year. So May 2016 budget, less 2 years. Anyone who had not been reviewed since May 2014, was potentially in the list, though over 60's were excluded. Exactly. The 2 years means from when the budget measure started so back to Id say July 2014 as that's when the original review measure actually started. It depends. If Fred received the Doctor Report I'd say it was not under the measure not that I think he was anyway as being under 2012 tables already should have been reason to exclude. Nope. 2012 tables were mandatory from when they came in in Jan 2012 whether for applying or reviews. Also Fred I am glad it went well. I can say from experience reviews are extremely stressful. Hey peacesells, that would mean dsp's already under the new tables could be picked before dsp's under the old tables. This is not what you said in the predicting the algo thread. Can you provide a link to confirm, thanks. I tried searching to no avail.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Oct 30, 2017 6:13:58 GMT 7
When the 90,000 person review was announced, the liberals (tudge, porter) when asked who it would apply to, said "people who have not been reviewed in the last 2 years, with a particular focus on people granted under the old criteria."
I would say they chose 2 years, because this was the time of the liberals 1st budget, and they believed labor /human services had not enforced the rules hard enough.
Since they were able to halve the grant rate, I would also assume that the bureaucrats saw potential targets among the more recently approved.
The government weren't going to fund 90,000 reviews and then do a bunch of separate ones.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Oct 30, 2017 6:19:34 GMT 7
www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/born-with-a-severe-disability-now-josh-has-to-prov/3102010/"The Department of Human Services assesses DSP claims in accordance with the clear eligibility criteria set down in legislation. As announced in the recent Budget, from 1 July 2016, there will be additional 30,000 medical reviews per annum of people receiving DSP. The reviews, 90 000 in total, will take place over three years and will target DSP recipients who are most at risk of not meeting eligibility criteria. The target group for this measure is current DSP recipients who have not been granted or medically reviewed in the past two years."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 6:28:07 GMT 7
www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/born-with-a-severe-disability-now-josh-has-to-prov/3102010/"The Department of Human Services assesses DSP claims in accordance with the clear eligibility criteria set down in legislation. As announced in the recent Budget, from 1 July 2016, there will be additional 30,000 medical reviews per annum of people receiving DSP. The reviews, 90 000 in total, will take place over three years and will target DSP recipients who are most at risk of not meeting eligibility criteria. The target group for this measure is current DSP recipients who have not been granted or medically reviewed in the past two years." So you are saying it's just a coincidence that "2 years" is the minimum amount of time a dsp can be reviewed with or without the budget measure? Your interpreting "2 years" different to me. 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 6:58:44 GMT 7
www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/born-with-a-severe-disability-now-josh-has-to-prov/3102010/"The Department of Human Services assesses DSP claims in accordance with the clear eligibility criteria set down in legislation. As announced in the recent Budget, from 1 July 2016, there will be additional 30,000 medical reviews per annum of people receiving DSP. The reviews, 90 000 in total, will take place over three years and will target DSP recipients who are most at risk of not meeting eligibility criteria. The target group for this measure is current DSP recipients who have not been granted or medically reviewed in the past two years." So you are saying it's just a coincidence that "2 years" is the minimum amount of time a dsp can be reviewed with or without the budget measure? Your interpreting "2 years" different to me. 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". You need to take into account the Risk Review is the 2016 budget measure. 2 years means people not reviewed before the 2014 budget. www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201617/NDIS''The measure extends a 2014–15 Budget measure to review the work capacity of DSP recipients'' ''This $62.1 million savings measure will see an additional 90,000 medical reviews of DSP recipients over three years'' Additional being the operative word. It extends the 2014 measure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 7:10:16 GMT 7
So you are saying it's just a coincidence that "2 years" is the minimum amount of time a dsp can be reviewed with or without the budget measure? Your interpreting "2 years" different to me. 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". You need to take into account the Risk Review is the 2016 budget measure. 2 years means people not reviewed before the 2014 budget. www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201617/NDIS''The measure extends a 2014–15 Budget measure to review the work capacity of DSP recipients'' ''This $62.1 million savings measure will see an additional 90,000 medical reviews of DSP recipients over three years'' Additional being the operative word. It extends the 2014 measure. I think most people here have interpreted "2 years" the wrong way. "Additional and "Extends" doesn't mean there is no gap in between. When porter was talking about "2 years", he was talking generally about the review process, which is " 2 years".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 7:14:51 GMT 7
2 years is the process but it also means 2 years from the 2014 budget....
I've just linked to you proof of that. Mike is spot on. I don't think we interpreted it wrong at all. It may be both actually in fact I'm sure it is. People not reviewed before 2014 are likely the ones picked. You asked for a link and I gave it as proof of the wording. It is the extension of the 2014 measure so it will not be targetting those reviewed from 2014, 2015 or 16.
You need to take into account the under 35 reviews only just ended in end of 2015. That does apply to the word of extending. It is the extension of that budget measure to a broader group. Over 35s, not under 2012 tables, not reviewed before the 2014 measure.
Another is the under 35s who were not reviewed under the 2014 measure too could also have been part of the 2016 review group of 90k.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 7:26:41 GMT 7
Also you can trigger reviews with 0 relation to the budget measures. Medical info updates, travel apparently can, income especially. Pretty sure you'd be told anyway what the reason for the review is as far as if it was the budget measure as some on here stated who were. guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/6/2/5/05
|
|