Many Australians with disability feel on the sting of a precipice immediately. Recommendations from the incapacity royal commission and the NDIS review were released late last 12 months. Now a draft NDIS reform bill has been tabled. In this series, experts examine what latest proposals could mean for individuals with disability.
At $14.4 billion over 4 years, the federal budget’s biggest savings come from efforts to rein in the price of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The government also plans to invest $213.8 million to fight fraud and co-design NDIS reforms with individuals with disability. Previous estimates show as much as 20% of NDIS expenditure could also be fraudulent.
Alongside his “back heading in the right direction” reform bill in March, NDIS Minister Bill Shorten, announced a taskforce to tackle overcharging that may mean participants pay greater than people outside the scheme for a similar services or products.
Chaired by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC), the taskforce will collaborate with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to combat this so-called “NDIS tax”. But how does this taskforce work and can it’s effective?
Overcharging NDIS participants
Currently, the NDIA (which administers the NDIS) provides individual funding to NDIS participants to buy a spread of reasonable and obligatory goods and services from providers. The NDIA also has guidelines that set the utmost prices registered providers can charge NDIS participants for every item. For example, the capped price for cleansing services is around $54 per hour ($76 per hour in distant areas and $81 in very distant areas.)
AAP/Mick Tsikas
However, there have been reports of providers charging the utmost price set by the NDIA as soon as a client is identified as an NDIS participant. Some providers employ a “twin pricing” strategy, charging an NDIS participant greater than they’d charge a non-participant. For example, a provider might charge an NDIS participant $130 for a water-proof mattress protector but charge everyone else $90 for a similar item.
Previously, these activities weren’t necessarily fraudulent. However, the NDIS Code of Conduct was amended in December last 12 months, making it illegal for the NDIS providers to charge a better price for goods for a participant “with no reasonable justification”.
What can NDIS participants do?
NDIS participants are one in all the important thing contributors to the operation of the brand new taskforce. They can report suspicious overcharging activities.
For example, in the event that they are purchasing a shower chair, they might do a fast online search and procure several quotes. If they consider they’ve been overcharged, they need to double-check their service agreement to confirm they’ve received the agreed-upon chair, then contact their service provider for a proof. Ultimately, if they can not resolve the difficulty, they’ll report the case to the taskforce.
Participants also can contact the ACCC in the event that they receive a faulty product or one that doesn’t match their agreement. And they’ll report providers who intimidate them into signing a contract or pressure them to buy services they don’t need.
What happens next?
Once the taskforce is tipped off, they’ll initiate an investigation, although the NDIS participant might not be notified of the method or the outcomes.
The taskforce will investigate suspected illegal overcharging of NDIS participants, misleading conduct, unfair contract terms, and anti-competitive agreements set by service providers.
Providers who’re present in breach of the NDIS Code of Conduct may face unscheduled site visits, receive compliance notices, be permanently banned, incur financial penalties, and even face criminal sanctions where fraud is suspected.
Will the taskforce be effective?
Co-designed NDIS taskforces that operate mainly based on participant reports can actually work. The Fraud Fusion Taskforce, established in 2022 to disrupt NDIS fraud and criminal activity, led to greater than 2,000 tip-offs in February 2024 alone. Some of those investigations have led to prosecutions.
The ACCC taskforce may very well be particularly effective in combating price differentiation for tangible goods purchased by NDIS participants, similar to wheelchairs, pillows and assistive technology for vision or hearing. But it’s important to notice some participants may lack the time, skills or capability required to match prices and report them to the taskforce.
Controlling price differentiation for services similar to those provided by occupational therapists, in-home support and physiotherapists is more complicated.
Service providers may charge the utmost price for quite a lot of reasons. For one thing, becoming a registered NDIS provider is expensive due to administrative expenses and costs related to quality and risk control. There are also expenses related to registration, compliance and regular audits. And the worth of services might rely on the provider’s level of experience and placement. The flexibility of service providers and their fame can be aspects.
Participants with a couple of disability might require complex services, and providers could charge a better price to serve participants with greater needs.
Shutterstock
A pricing model that needs redesign
As a part of its findings, the NDIS Review said the scheme’s pricing model didn’t encourage quality and efficiency, with price caps acting more like “price anchors” than “price ceilings”. The 2024–25 budget pledges $5.3 million to analyze pricing reforms to “strengthen transparency, predictability, and alignment”.
These are essential because the present model can encourage service providers to deal with profitability slightly than on improving service quality. And the fee-for-service approach can encourage over servicing that daunts capability constructing, particularly for individuals with complex disabilities.
While the ACCC taskforce might prove effective in controlling unfair overcharging of products, a review of the pricing model for services can be needed to minimise exploitation of the system.