Finding 1- We agree that there are opportunities to improve NDIS pricing arrangements over the short to medium term. The issues concerning therapy support raised in the Paper only concern the cost, sometimes (and generally erroneously) referred to as ‘price-gouging’, with the evidence provided by only a few respondents. This is an unfair characterisation. A preferred provider panel is not consistent with the principle of independent price-setting. We agree that the setting of price caps is transparent.
Finding 2- We do not agree with the premise of the finding (price caps diminish incentives). A 'one size fits all' approach to pricing policy is inappropriate – therapy supports are different from, say, disability support equipment and the focus should be on quality outcomes. There is no suggestion that GPs for example, are disincentivised and need different prices in order to be competitive, just as there seems to be no suggestion that quality of therapy supports is poor. The focus should be on quality. We do support value based supports in principle, but we need better and more detailed data of the provision of therapy supports, their cost base analysis, the differences between different types of supports, the outcomes that can be expected, and different cohorts of participants before committing to this concept.
Finding 3 - we agree that transparency is not ideal and that participants find navigation complex. But again the focus needs to be on quality and outcomes, rather than simply price. Measuring, reporting and enforcement is the job of the NDIS Commission, not the market. Quality should be the bottom line for eligibility to provide services. Therapy supports already have their own accreditation and registration processes to ensure this. Star ratings are not working effectively in aged care and should not be adopted.
Finding 4 - We argue that the key issue is the poor knowledge of delegates regarding admission to the Scheme and plan review. Upskilling of the staff involved in eligibility and planning (including planning coordination) to ensure that this workforce understands disability and the therapy supports that help participants achieve their goals is vital. It is also critical to inform participants (in accessible formats) about the therapy supports that are available to them, how those supports help them achieve their goals, and how those supports are delivered and in which environments. This is not well done at present.
Finding 1- We agree that there are opportunities to improve NDIS pricing arrangements over the short to medium term. The issues concerning therapy support raised in the Paper only concern the cost, sometimes (and generally erroneously) referred to as ‘price-gouging’, with the evidence provided by only a few respondents. This is an unfair characterisation. A preferred provider panel is not consistent with the principle of independent price-setting. We agree that the setting of price caps is transparent.
Finding 2- We do not agree with the premise of the finding (price caps diminish incentives). A 'one size fits all' approach to pricing policy is inappropriate – therapy supports are different from, say, disability support equipment and the focus should be on quality outcomes. There is no suggestion that GPs for example, are disincentivised and need different prices in order to be competitive, just as there seems to be no suggestion that quality of therapy supports is poor. The focus should be on quality. We do support value based supports in principle, but we need better and more detailed data of the provision of therapy supports, their cost base analysis, the differences between different types of supports, the outcomes that can be expected, and different cohorts of participants before committing to this concept.
Finding 3 - we agree that transparency is not ideal and that participants find navigation complex. But again the focus needs to be on quality and outcomes, rather than simply price. Measuring, reporting and enforcement is the job of the NDIS Commission, not the market. Quality should be the bottom line for eligibility to provide services. Therapy supports already have their own accreditation and registration processes to ensure this. Star ratings are not working effectively in aged care and should not be adopted.
Finding 4 - We argue that the key issue is the poor knowledge of delegates regarding admission to the Scheme and plan review. Upskilling of the staff involved in eligibility and planning (including planning coordination) to ensure that this workforce understands disability and the therapy supports that help participants achieve their goals is vital. It is also critical to inform participants (in accessible formats) about the therapy supports that are available to them, how those supports help them achieve their goals, and how those supports are delivered and in which environments. This is not well done at present.