National Disability Insurance Scheme

Introduction

Australia has embraced the notion that it has an obligation to provide financial support to its citizens that suffer from the breadth of disabilities that may afflict any member of the human race; mental, physical or emotional. In light of this position, the legislature has contrived to increase the collected revenues of the current Medicare program by one-half percentage point; with all monies designated to be funneled solely into this new initiative. Two conclusions are readily apparent. First, overall the enterprise appears to be widely supported by both Parliament and the general Australian public; but it would be disingenuous to claim there are no dissenters of the measure. Secondly, the parameters for access are arduous and require some level of understanding as a precursor to receiving benefits. For the purposes of this essay we will consider each of these statements separately and at length.

The Case for NDIS

I daresay a preface to any authentic consideration of the need for - and value of - disability insurance, supported communally as one nation, is the simple phrase, “there but for the grace of God go I”. Now, the intent here is not to propose the country proclaim a faith; but, instead, to delve into the heart of the motto’s meaning; for in it one will find the justification for a national program financed through equitable taxation. Moreover, the statistics related to disabled Australians and their caregivers are unsettling at best and serve to strengthen the argument for NDIS. According to research approximately 4 and a half million Australians or fully one-fifth of the population – suffer from some sort of disability; three-fourths of a million are classified as profoundly handicapped, and another half-million Australians are their singular or chief caregivers. 

As well, heretofore, funding for the disabled has been what many would characterize as ‘abysmal’ at best. According to one source “very little goes to the person with a disability or their caregiver - most is given to service providers who eke out these limited and quickly depleted resources. If these institutions are not funded to provide you with what you need, tough luck; if they are, join the queue” (Manne 2011). Under the current fiscal configuration disability support is administered at the state level which, as would seem obvious to native Australians, has resulted in a disparity of service.

The NDIS is a significant social reform measure that promises an authentic change in the funding and delivery of services for disabled adults. It is slated for implementation to begin in July of 2013 with the full program completion projected for 2018. The first stage will roll out in Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, and New South Wales within the next six weeks. Piloting the program in this expanse will allow stakeholders an opportunity to reflect and respond to conditions as a prerequisite to an expected continuum for ongoing improvement. 

The NDIS legislation was introduced by the Prime Minister herself, Julia Gillard, on November 12, 2012, according to a report that appeared in the Herald Sun. “Watched by about 60 disability advocates from the public gallery, who clapped and waved at the end, she noted that said that every 30 minutes on average someone in Australia was diagnosed with a significant disability, but only the wealthy could afford the necessary costs of lifetime care” (Sun Herald 2012). Although she acknowledged the legislation was complex; its moral core is simple: disability can affect any Australian and therefore it affects all Australians. 

The controversy behind the legislation

While there may be a general sense of ‘kumbaya’ towards the NDIS currently; it has been embroiled in some controversy on its path to realization. As recently as November of last year ABC News ran a segment on the purported financial challenges the Australian government will face as the scheme is enacted and expounded. The story disclosed that “an analyst with the right-wing Centre for Independent Studies, acquired the Government Actuary's report on the NDIS under freedom of information, and warns the scheme already faces a cost blowout.” (Whitehead 2012). 

In the analyst’s estimation, the scheme will be extremely large and extremely expensive; moreover, the government is already under pressure to expand the program to ensure it is inclusive. Additionally, there are questions of eligibility as the program is poised to get underway; including what constitutes a disability that requires NDIS support and what are the implications specific to aged care. The conclusion to be made is that the wider the eligibility parameters the more unwieldy and unrealistic the cost. The program may become too burdensome for continuation at some point. 

Conversely, the Australian Federation of Disability Organizations took umbrage with statistics that had been released to the public by the Centre for Independent Studies. A representative of the association stated that, among its many faults, the report “misrepresented costs that would result in unnecessary alarm in the community about the NDIS” (AFDO 2013). Claims that expenditures for the program could increase exponentially was its main concern. The AFDO argued that these rising costs would be offset by the economic benefits that would materialize when more disabled persons were able to enter the workforce or otherwise receive appropriate support that would decrease burdens to hospitals and the medical community at large. According to the AFDO, there will be an ultimate cost savings actualized by the NDIS.

Eventually, though, as the progression of news reports will attest, states ‘fell into line” striking deal after deal with the feds on the NDIS” (Martin 2012; Cullen 2012; Benny-Morrison 2013). One might question the authenticity of the motives of holdouts in the various state legislators if one were so inclined. But it might be wiser to celebrate the collaborative spirit that seems to have arisen around the NDIS and save one’s energy for more important matters such as the content of the national disability insurance scheme. 

Projections of NDIS services

Now that the reader has been provided with a comprehensive review of all sides of the issue; let us consider the specifics of the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme including the services that will be offered and the population it will serve. To begin with, funding will be used to establish the Launch Transition Agency. This organization will be responsible for all aspects of the scheme and assessment process for not only people with disabilities but their families and carers in select locations as well. Also, when the NDIS in its entirety is up and running it will fund “a broad range of individually tailored supports and services including aids and equipment, home and community care, personal care, domestic assistance, respite, home, and vehicle modifications and community access. Funding and supports will become available in one package” (NDIS 2013). 

The NDIS does not intend to duplicate services; housing, health, education and aged care sectors that currently receive support from the government will not be covered in duplicate by the NDIS. Instead, NDIS’s mission is to “look beyond immediate need, and focus on what may be required over the course of a person’s lifetime” (NDIS 2013). This includes the alternative and wholly unique considerations of meeting the disabled individual’s needs from “a lifetime approach”. The funding is designed to be both long-term and sustainable affording the disabled and their caregivers the peace of mind that accompanies guaranteed support for changing needs. The second aim of NDIS is to expand options of both choice and control to persons with disabilities allowing them more autonomy in the services they receive and the service providers with whom they interact. In some cases there may even be the potential to manage their own funding. The third and equally important goal of NDIS is to increase the social and economic participation disabled people will be able to access to improve their opportunities for meaningful life as a contributing member of their community and society as a whole. 

The cornerstone of this measure is the attention on early intervention. It is expected that NDIS will be endowed with a breadth of resources it can use to invest in remedial and preventative early intervention such as promoting healthy lifestyles, versus the outdated model of reacting to a family in crisis. Of course, eligibility requirements will take age, residency and the disability itself into consideration. The age limitations are quite generous, however. In general a person will be able to meet the age requirements if he or she falls between the ages of birth to 65 when the access request is made. It should be noted that in some instances there are additional age requirements related to certain states. 

Too, citizens, permanent residents and/or SCV holders are expected to meet the residency requirements – with exceptions delineated in the NDIS legislation. Finally, the greatest detail relates to the type and extent of disability the prospective NDIS participant suffers. The person has a disability that is attributable to one or more intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairments, or to one or more impairments attributable to a psychiatric condition; the person’s impairment or impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent; and the impairment or impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake, or psychosocial functioning in undertaking, one or more of the following activities: communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care, self-management. Finally, the impairment or impairments must be demonstrated to affect the person’s capacity for social and economic participation; and the person’s support needs in relation to his or her impairment or impairments are likely to continue for the person’s lifetime. 

Projected Costs

The source of any controversy associated with the NDIS can likely be traced to the wildly varying estimates of the reported current and future costs of the program and the number of people it will eventually serve. One news story stated that “while $1 billion has been set aside for the trials (to be spent over four years), the full cost of the scheme and how it will be funded have yet to be determined” (The Australian 2012). Official government documents claim “the scheme will cost $22.2 billion a year when it is fully operational in 2019-20 and the government will provide 53% or $11.7 billion of the funding for the scheme when it is fully operational” (Vision Australia 2012).

It will also be funded in part by a rise in the Medicare levy from 1.5 to 2% from July 2014 that will raise $20.4 billion between 2014-15 and 2018-19.- broken down by year, the government estimates the increase to the levy will raise $3.3 billion in the first year and $20.4 billion by 2018-19. This figure, however, is not ironclad. The Actuary revised that up to $22 billion in 2018. But even these figures can be deceiving; if they are understandable at all to the average citizen; when juxtaposed against news from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare that showed governments spent $6.2 billion on services under the existing National Disability Agreement (NDA) in 2010/11. The bottom line may be that the bottom line will be nebulous until the program is fully operational. 

Conclusion

Any new public policy that attaches an increase in taxation will undoubtedly encompass a certain level of dissension. Elected officials; in their capacity as decision-makers; and that are charged with considering the common good of the nation’s entire population; are aware of this fact and must act accordingly. In this instance, it was incumbent upon them to endorse measures that meet the needs of an underrepresented segment of the Australian populace long deprived of their ability to take equal advantage of opportunities and services available to the many. In the end, it is not a matter of whether the NDIS legislation is either ‘long overdue’ or ‘too far-reaching’. It is the new ‘law of the land’, and all that remains is its successful execution. For the taxpayer the cost will be “equal to approximately one dollar a day for average income earners” (Australian TV 2013); for the disabled who will see improved support the legislation is nothing short of priceless.

References

Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (2012). Cruel Insulting Statistics: CIS Gets the    NDIS Wrong. Media Release.15 November 2012. Retrieved 31 May 2013.

Australian TV. (2013). Julia Gillard breaks down introducing NDIS funding legislation. Retrieved 31 May 2013.

Benny-Morrison, A. (2013). Qld joins other states in support of Gillard Govt's NDIS. Sunshine Coast Daily (APN News & Media). Retrieved 31 May 2013.

Cullen, S. (2012). Feds, NSW strike deal on disability scheme. ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). Retrieved 31 May 2013.

Herald Sun (2012). PM introduces NDIS bill to parliament. Retrieved 31 May 2013.

Manne, A. (2011). Two nations: The case for a national disability insurance scheme. The Monthly. Retrieved 31 May 2013.

Martin, L. (2012). States react to federal NDIS draft bill. news.com.au (News Limited). Retrieved 31 May 2013.

The Australian (News Limited) (2012). Demand for disability aid increases. Retrieved 31 May 2013.

Vision Australia. (2012). FAQS on the NDIS. Retrieved 31 May 2013. 

Whitehead, L. (2012). Claims of blowout in disability insurance scheme. ABC News (Australian). Retrieved 31 May 2013.