The Government is about to push through legislation that will cause harm. The Human Rights Commission says so. There are many other levers that the Govt could have (and still could) pull that would address their cost-containment objective. ILO is just one of those levers begging to be pulled.
The Govt could make a very large ($1B) NDIS saving if pulled the right lever - ILO.
Much has been spoken about in relation to the absolute need for change in NDIS.
As market steward of NDIS market, the Australian Government has many levers it can pull to address the big 3 issues - escalating costs, under-achievement of participant outcomes and an overall decline in participant safety (thanks to a dangerously unregulated underworld where 95% of providers are unscreened/unregistered).
The Government this year decided to pull very hard on the legislative change lever which, when legislation passes, will deliver significant unintended consequences as described in the 4,500 Senate submissions, including by the Human Rights Commission itself.
There are many other levers that the Government could have pulled, and still could.
One of these levers is to unwind client capture being perpetrated by the biggest providers in the country. When providers act as landlords, service providers and intermediaries, vested interests suffocate consumer choice and control.
This isn't just talk; evidence backs it up. Let's look at the dramatic under-achievement of the very innovative Individualised Living Options (ILO) accommodation option for adults with profound disability, in every State bar WA.
In WA, SIL participants out-number ILO participants by 15 to 1. For the rest of the country, SIL participants out-number ILO participants by 130 to 1.
This isn't just an anomaly. In WA, the largest providers have less of a footprint, so client capture is less likely to slot people into group homes and keep them there.
If the Government unwound client capture, and simultaneously promoted the benefits of ILO/host living to the 36,000 SIL participants, the Government could save billions. Even achieving WA's SIL:ILO ratio of 15:1 would deliver an annual saving in excess of $1B to Government. Not to mention the social and economic benefits of people moving into genuinely inclusive living arrangements.
This is one of many levers available to Government that wouldn't result in a breach of human rights.
What is ILO? ILO can take many forms. Imagine Bob, a 25 year old man with down syndrome who lives with 2 other 20-something men. Bob's flatmates include him in their regular lives, socialising/partying, grocery-shopping, cooking, playing footy etc. Bob's flat-mates earn a tax-free allowance for being hosts, not dissimilar to foster care for children. The cost of this arrangement averages $118K vs SIL at $450K.
This article was sourced from DSX Editorial.
View original article