The Government wants to significantly reduce the number of NDIS providers able to offer SIL. Constraining choice in this way would be a return to the bad old days. Better regulation of SIL providers is however essential. We call on all SIL providers who engage in client capture (and there are many) to stop doing so. Both the Disability Royal Commission and the NDIS Review recommended an end to this harmful practice. Thousands of ethical SIL providers competing on quality would be a great long-term outcome for NDIS participants. A handful of very large providers colluding to capture clients would be a very poor outcome, and is the precise opposite of what the original architects of NDIS intended.
Harmful change is coming if we do not act now.
As part of the current legislative and policy changes to NDIS, the Government is considering the establishment of commissioned provider panels. This will entail a small number of very large providers being the only organisations allowed to offer some NDIS services to participants.
SIL (supported independent living) commissioning is first cab off the rank.
SIL as a percentage of total annual NDIS spend represents one-third of the market @ $17B annual spend. Approximately 36,000 NDIS participants, those with the most profound disability requiring 24/7 support, are the recipients of SIL funding. A large percentage of these people do not have family or support networks helping them to make decisions that are in their best interests. These are extremely vulnerable consumers.
The problem with large providers is that they are mostly conflicted, and engage in client capture of a type that can and does harm vulnerable people. The Disability Royal Commission cited many examples. The DRC and the NDIS Review both recommended that client capture not be allowed to continue.
The Government has unfortunately not acted on this recommendation, and we are now in a position where client capture could become even more pronounced.
What is client capture?
Nearly every large NDIS provider in Australia plays multiple roles, including more than a couple of these roles:
a. service provider;
b. needs assessor i.e. in-house OT’s writing functional assessments;
c. service intermediary i.e. support coordinator;
d. financial intermediary i.e. plan manager;
e. landlord i.e. owner of properties including SDA, where their service recipients live; and in some cases
f. employer
Playing more than one of these roles results in coercive control being exerted over the lives of vulnerable people, severely limiting their choice and exposing them to the risk of catastrophic neglect and abuse. Many examples of this abuse by large NFPs were cited in the Disability Royal Commission.
Some large providers attempt to avoid scrutiny over client capture by colluding with other large providers to share roles amongst themselves in a non-transparent way. Vulnerable people are sadly horse-traded. Many would say this behaviour is unethical.
The introduction of NDIS in this country has transformed the lives of people with disability for the better, but we cannot risk taking a giant step backwards by handing the NDIS keys to a select few Government-commissioned large providers, because it would expose tens of thousands of our most vulnerable citizens to harm.
We will not forget Ann Marie Smith.
We will soon be launching a 'Collaboration not Consolidation' campaign in response to this dangerous possibility.
This article was sourced from DSX Editorial.
View original article