Talk:National Disability Insurance Scheme/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Mentioned in One Nation (Australia)

She was unaware of what DisabilityCare Australia, formerly known as the National Disability Insurance Scheme or NDIS, one of Labor's most prominent policies, was about, and when prompted, claimed that it was 'working at the moment' (the scheme isn't due to launch until 2016). with sorce: [1]. I see here nothing about 2016. I see only about July 2013, July 2014, 2015. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 20:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The latest phase of the 'roll out' began July 2016, bringing many more geographic areas into the scheme. Prior to July 2016, eligible locations were referred to as 'trial sites'. Markbrown00 (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

In what way is it an insurance scheme?

I am wondering just in what way this is particularly an *insurance* scheme, comparable to things usually called insurance schemes or policies. From what I have heard, it just sounds like a health-care or welfare programme for those who qualify: if you qualify, you get financial or other assistance free or at low cost from the government; but insurance is usually something you pay for in advance, to cover you if something bad happens later on - which doesn't seem to apply here.

I feel it might enhance the article to explain just why it is specifically called an *insurance* scheme, according to the usual meanings for that word. M.J.E. (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that from the citizen's perspective it is like a public universal healthcare. Citizens pay for it by paying tax, but no there is no purchasing of a policy; it is an entitlement. The term relates mostly to the less common use of 'insure', meaning "to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions" [1]. The scheme ensures funding will be available if someone is born with or acquires a disability.

There is also the idea that the scheme operates on insurance principles by the scheme agency doing some degree of claims management, reducing long-term care costs by investing in early intervention.

I hope to work on this article soon. Markbrown00 (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The term insurance is also used in this way for other international government schemes (e.g the US Social Security Disability Insurance) --Markbrown00 (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph for this article is not great - 'keeping within budget is more important than helping individuals', and is 'extremely litigious' with no references to back this up at all?

References

  1. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insure. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Is it a social welfare scheme ?

One anonymous editor sought to change the lead to the state that the scheme is not a social welfare scheme and is an insurance scheme. Although I think it is important that this article explain why it is called an insurance scheme, this is an encyclopedia article, therefore the first sentence should clearly and simply explain what the article is about for someone who knows absolutely nothing about the topic. “Social welfare” seems to me like a good term to use, because it cues the reader to understanding that the NDIS is a public funding scheme in the same way that Medicare is in Australia.

I know the term “welfare” has negative connotations, because it has been framed in some discourses as funding for people who don’t otherwise contributes to society. But the word doesn’t necessarily have that connotation in all contexts. Most welfare programs aimed to save money in the long run by redistributing wealth in the short-term. Politically, the term insurance is used in campaigning for the NDIS to emphasise that the scheme pays for itself in the long run, and to remind people that anyone has the chance of requiring a disability.

If there is a more neutral phrase” social welfare” then I suggest we adopt it. Any suggestions? "Funding scheme"?

As suggested above, the lead should "explain just why it is specifically called an *insurance* scheme, according to the usual meanings for that word. "

-- Markbrown00 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Article Significance

For developing this article, it is useful to understand reasons why it may be significant to different Australian and International readers. My suggested reasons:

  • For the Australian disability community -- the NDIS will be increasingly central to the daily lives of Australians with a disability, their families, and sector workforce.
  • In the context of occasional mainstream news -- The NDIS is occasionally the focus of mainstream national news coverage. (For example, recent IT problems; issues surrounding its funding.) More frequently it's tangentially referenced in news coverage.
  • As an example of government disability/health policy -- as might be relevant to an international comparative analysis
  • As an example of a social/political reform -- as might be relevant to a historical, sociological, or political analysis

I propose that these contexts guide article development. Markbrown00 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Additional Sections/Content/revisions

Lead

DRAFTS

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is a social welfare scheme of the Australian Government that funds costs associated with disability.[1][2] The scheme was legislated for in 2013 and is expected to be in full operation nationally by 2020.[2] It is administered by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA).[2]

The scheme entitles people with a disability (under the age of 65) to full funding for any 'reasonable and necessary' support needs related to their disability (subject to certain restrictions). Funding is allocated to the individual, and the individual or their guardian chooses which providers supply the funded goods and services (subject to certain restrictions). The scheme is entirely publicly funded: recipients do not purchase or contribute to an insurance policy, nor is funding means-tested. Individual NDIS funding is independent of the Disability Support Pension and universal health care. NDIS legislation draws a distinction between health care and disability supports, only the latter being within the remit of the NDIS.

In addition to funding for individuals, the scheme funds some general 'information, linkages, and capacity building' (ILC) programs.

--Markbrown00 (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Markbrown00 (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

[1] [2]

Eligibility

Proposals

The core eligibility rules (under 65 years of age etc) are specified in the NDIS Act and are unlikely to be amended in the next few years. These should be the focus of this section. The Act also gives the NDIA discretion to set certain additional rules as to eligibility, however, as of 2016, these are in flux as the scheme evolves. These should be eluded to, but not be asserted as fact, as are likely to change frequently. --22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Markbrown00 (talk)

Reasonable and Necessary Disability Supports

Proposals

The Act requires eligible persons have all 'reasonable and necessary supports' funded. How reasonable and necessary is determined is complex and likely to change (e.g., with court challenges) but some general principles provided in the Act can be outlined, including:

  • Distinction between disability and health supports
  • Concept of core, early intervention, and capacity building supports (with examples)
  • will add to this list

--Markbrown00 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Statistics

Proposals

  • Most important
    • The forecast proportion of population to be individually funded after full roll out--Markbrown00 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Forecast annual cost after full roll out--Markbrown00 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Less important
    • Current number of persons individually funded during roll out--Markbrown00 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
    • geographic breakdowns of statistics --Markbrown00 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Other important content (not sure where it fits)

  • (most) funding is tied to individuals (Tier 3) --Markbrown00 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • individuals have choice of service provider (market basis) --Markbrown00 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • funding is uncapped--Markbrown00 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • individuals have registered support plans including their personal goals--Markbrown00 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Productivity Commission's forecast economic benefits for Australia --Markbrown00 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Some funding is spent, not on individuals, but on community accessibility/inclusiveness/information more broadly ('Tier 2/ILC' ) --Markbrown00 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b http://www.everyaustraliancounts.com.au/about-ndis/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ a b c d https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00020. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)


Please don't remove actioned drafts from the talk page: it's important for the history to know what was there before. This is particularly important because you've raised issues of NPOV below. Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Disability Insurance Scheme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Restructuring and rewriting this article to achieve a Neutral Point of View (advice needed)

This article seems to be rapidly veering away from a Neutral Point of View NPOV). Most contributions over the last couple years of years seem to involve briefly referencing a controversy and citing a news story about that controversy. A search of news sources will show that there is story every week or two featuring a person with a disability experiencing a particular injustice, or mistake at the hands of the NDIS (I myself featured in one such story! Note my COI disclosure here)

Although it may well be relevant to note the many problems and grievances with the NDIS, at the moment this content overwhelms the article, and it makes it difficult to learn anything about what the NDIS actually is.

For example, take the last two sentences under the Services section:

"Although the NDIS services are meant to be effective and disability-related, The Australian newspaper noted that tarot card readers and fringe therapy providers had become NDIS providers.[40] Therapies to treat dysphagia (swallowing difficulties, potentially life-threatening) were funded under the NDIS until late 2017, when they were discontinued.[41]"

Placed here, the first sentence has the effect of emphasing an absurdity, and because there is no mention of any efforts to prevent rorts, the impression is that the scheme is intended to be rorted. The second sentence omits any context about the reasoning involved, and creates an impression that NDIS policies change arbitrarily or with malicious intent.

The controversy focus of this article also means it is out of date within months of each grievance being appended, because scheme rules are often changed after a controversy is aired in the media.

Compare the current state of this article with the article for the Australian Medicare scheme. Although Medicare is often in the news, it is vastly more encyclopaedic because controversy and criticism is summarised separately from factual content.

I’d like to work on this article (or see it worked on) but fixing it I think requires major changes.

I would very much appreciate advice before I embark on any such changes.

What should the structure be? How to better treat controversy and criticism?

Thanks Markbrown00 (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps more help should be sought from WP:AUS - I've been trying to keep the article up to date here and there but have mainly been using media sources. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Split out NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission

Hey there! Based off the amount of scrutiny the NDIS has received and the influence and authority of the NDIS Commission, I think there's enough grounds to create an article about the Commission. In all honesty, the fact that it's a government oversight commission is probably enough but considering the NDIS' importance to the quality of life for many disabled Australians, I think there's a really compelling case here. ItsPugle (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done: new article created. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Disability_Insurance_Scheme/Archive_1&oldid=1073549457"