|
Post by genx on Feb 23, 2021 15:56:27 GMT 7
Does anyone have the portability application forms? I realize that you can get them by calling Centrelink International, but I wonder why I can't find them anywhere for download. I'd like to know what to expect.
|
|
|
Post by bear on Feb 23, 2021 16:11:59 GMT 7
genx They're not available for download..... You can only get them by calling International Services. pH.131673. It's just the way it is!! Then, unless things have changed; you submit them to the Canberra address on the front only. There's no obligation to return them by a specific date, or indeed at all. What to expect: A lecture about how difficult UP is to get, the high likelihood of losing your DSP, without any questions being answered about your situation and what it looks like regarding UP. This is where the necessity arises to get you file under FOI and make your own independent decision as to proceed or not. Cheers bear
|
|
|
Post by genx on Feb 23, 2021 17:38:39 GMT 7
What to expect: A lecture about how difficult UP is to get, the high likelihood of losing your DSP, without any questions being answered about your situation and what it looks like regarding UP. This is where the necessity arises to get you file under FOI and make your own independent decision as to proceed or not. Cheers bear Indeed. Do you think it is OK to have my GP fill out those forms? My understanding is that the UP/IP forms are a summary of treatment, rather than proof of anything.
|
|
|
Post by bear on Feb 23, 2021 20:42:58 GMT 7
genx I wouldn't expect anything has changed. GP's used to fill them out as they needed to declare you were fully diagnosed, treated and stabilized; as well as the conditions and them lasting for more than five years. I do believe there may now be a particular format the info may have to be couched in to make it palatable to Centrelink. It appears they want to dictate to doctors on how they describe ailments. Or perhaps they want the doctors to link them to the disability tables. Unfortunately I am unaware of what that is exactly, or who has the info. Hopefully tasjo will be along and be able to clarify. If you haven't already seen.this post it may have some helpful information/tips to keep in mind. Cheers bear
|
|
|
Post by genx on Feb 23, 2021 22:11:36 GMT 7
Thanks, Bear.
I have done some research. The forms contain some tricks in them. For example, most doctors will be under the impression that they should tick "2 years" for the persistence of the illness, when the doctor must prognosticate as to your condition 5 years in the future. Furthermore, he must guess that your condition will be stable and unchanged for more than 5 years, rather than improving or getting worse. This is the kind of pitfall most doctors will be unaware of when responding in good faith. Many will hesitate to give such long projections.
Otherwise the form appears to be asking questions in such a manner as to discover any ways in which you may not be fully treated (and thus ineligible for the DSP). Its a minefield.
|
|
|
Post by genx on Feb 23, 2021 22:46:26 GMT 7
Unfortunately I am unaware of what that is exactly, or who has the info. Hopefully tasjo will be along and be able to clarify. If you haven't already seen.this post it may have some helpful information/tips to keep in mind. Cheers bear I had a re-read of that as I had seen it before. My understanding with the application for UP/IP is that after you put in your forms, there is a JCA assessment (again). Is the advice in your post equally applicable to the JCA assessments for UP/IP?
|
|
|
Post by tasjo on Feb 24, 2021 7:11:49 GMT 7
Thanks, Bear. I have done some research. The forms contain some tricks in them. For example, most doctors will be under the impression that they should tick "2 years" for the persistence of the illness, when the doctor must prognosticate as to your condition 5 years in the future. Furthermore, he must guess that your condition will be stable and unchanged for more than 5 years, rather than improving or getting worse. This is the kind of pitfall most doctors will be unaware of when responding in good faith. Many will hesitate to give such long projections. Otherwise the form appears to be asking questions in such a manner as to discover any ways in which you may not be fully treated (and thus ineligible for the DSP). Its a minefield. Genx - this is the biggest area where I believe both DSP and UP claims fall down. Centrelink do not require you to be 'stable'... ie no fluctuations. This would be impossible in most disabilities. Their criteria is to be 'stabilised' - and anyone providing medical evidence in support of your claim needs to understand the difference. The JCA often doesnt, and I believe it often results in denied claimd that are then overturned at the AAT because they do - generally - follow the wording of the legislation. Stabilised means you are unable to work more than 'x' number of hours per week (15 for DSP, 2 for UP); that you have tried all 'reasonable' treatment (which is where things can become quite murky); and that it is unlikely to change for at least 'x' number of years (2 for DSP, 5 for UP) Reasonable treatment is where a lot of people who have been disabled for a long time can also come unstuck when applying for UP, particularly given the change in the impairment tables. Take a hypothetical example - person was put on DSP in their 30s prior to 2012 for severe mental health issues but isnt particularly compliant with usual medications and avoids his/her GP. Person wants to spend time overseas so applies for UP. UP is denied because they arent taking 'reasonable' treatment and at the same time person potentially loses DSP. Its not necessarily due to being 'unstable' but another part of the 'fully diagnosed treated and stabilised' criteria that centrelink use for both DSP and UP claims. Having said all of that, the UP claim form, from what I recall, is more aboit your medical information than the DSP claim form, so this may help. Just bear in mind that while it may seem very personal, its more that their criteria doesnt match with medical language.
|
|
|
Post by tasjo on Feb 24, 2021 7:16:12 GMT 7
Lastly, if you possibly can, a specialist is nearly always better than a GP. The higher up the better.
Although your GP will more than likely understand the day to day functionality far better, in terms of influence (and confirming diagnosis) a specilist is almost always better.
For mental health impairmemts there is an additional criteria - it must be a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, otherwise it is not classed as being diagnosed.
|
|
|
Post by bear on Feb 24, 2021 7:56:27 GMT 7
Unfortunately I am unaware of what that is exactly, or who has the info. Hopefully tasjo will be along and be able to clarify. If you haven't already seen.this post it may have some helpful information/tips to keep in mind. Cheers bear I had a re-read of that as I had seen it before. My understanding with the application for UP/IP is that after you put in your forms, there is a JCA assessment (again). Is the advice in your post equally applicable to the JCA assessments for UP/IP? Ive just re-read the post, which isn't mine per se; it was from a member. I do however concur with all of the advice given and do think it would apply to ALL JCA's!! Cheers bear
|
|
|
Post by genx on Feb 24, 2021 8:02:05 GMT 7
Having researched this subject for the last few months, it has become increasingly clear to me that if you want UP/IP, you need to craft your initial application for the DSP with that in mind. Any opportunity for a bad faith reading of your medical documents will be seized upon to deny you UP/IP.
|
|
|
Post by tasjo on Feb 24, 2021 9:04:23 GMT 7
Genx - the other option is to prepare a claim that has a relevant update to the DSP claim, so treat it as a genuine 'new' claim that meets the criteria for UP/IP.
For example, if your DSP claim wouldnt have met the UP/IP criteria but your functionality has deteriorated I believe it is appropriate to apply bearing in mind that you also need to ensure you have covered yourself to retain your DSP. If your DSP was granted and then a new diagnosis was added, it would be appropriate to include it in the UP/IP claim, ensuring it meets the 'fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised' definitions with medical evidence and support.
|
|
|
Post by genx on Feb 24, 2021 17:40:38 GMT 7
Genx - the other option is to prepare a claim that has a relevant update to the DSP claim, so treat it as a genuine 'new' claim that meets the criteria for UP/IP. For example, if your DSP claim wouldnt have met the UP/IP criteria but your functionality has deteriorated I believe it is appropriate to apply bearing in mind that you also need to ensure you have covered yourself to retain your DSP. If your DSP was granted and then a new diagnosis was added, it would be appropriate to include it in the UP/IP claim, ensuring it meets the 'fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised' definitions with medical evidence and support. Fortunately, I am yet to make my DSP claim. I caught this just in time and will speak to the medical professionals to make the appropriate adjustments to conform with Centrelink verbiage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2021 14:18:27 GMT 7
Genx - the other option is to prepare a claim that has a relevant update to the DSP claim, so treat it as a genuine 'new' claim that meets the criteria for UP/IP. For example, if your DSP claim wouldnt have met the UP/IP criteria but your functionality has deteriorated I believe it is appropriate to apply bearing in mind that you also need to ensure you have covered yourself to retain your DSP. If your DSP was granted and then a new diagnosis was added, it would be appropriate to include it in the UP/IP claim, ensuring it meets the 'fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised' definitions with medical evidence and support. Fortunately, I am yet to make my DSP claim. I caught this just in time and will speak to the medical professionals to make the appropriate adjustments to conform with Centrelink verbiage. This is exactly what i have done, I got a new report from my treating psychiatrist addressing the 5 year requirement for I/P as opposed for the 2 year requirement for the DSP. And my treating psychiatrist even made a specific mention of he recommends I be approved for indefinite portability as I have a permanent continuing inability to work. I believe it’s best to treat the application of I/P as a new claim and supply the most up to date medical evidence. Give Centrelink no easy option of finding a reason to decline application. My application is still in process
|
|
|
Post by genx on Mar 13, 2021 15:33:13 GMT 7
This is exactly what i have done, I got a new report from my treating psychiatrist addressing the 5 year requirement for I/P as opposed for the 2 year requirement for the DSP. And my treating psychiatrist even made a specific mention of he recommends I be approved for indefinite portability as I have a permanent continuing inability to work. I believe it’s best to treat the application of I/P as a new claim and supply the most up to date medical evidence. Give Centrelink no easy option of finding a reason to decline application. My application is still in process Good work. I wish I knew what I know now years ago. The process for getting IP is deliberately occulted. I am in the process of looking for a clinical psychologist to add additional weight to the letter from my psychiatrist for my DSP application, which is stage 1 of my application for IP. It's not easy because specialists hate doing documentation, generally speaking.
|
|