The NDIS review recommendations from late last year, specifically No. 17, address three key points:
Design and implement a graduated risk-proportionate regulatory model for the entire provider market (17.1).
Develop a staged implementation approach to transition to the new graduated risk-proportionate regulatory model (17.2).
Amend the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 to eliminate the link between a participant’s financial management of their plan and the regulatory status of their support providers (17.3).
The Taskforce aims to advise the Minister on crucial design elements and the implementation of new regulatory arrangements, including the Provider Risk Framework. These arrangements are intended to:
Uphold the rights of people with disabilities, empowering them to determine their best interests and exercise greater choice and control over their chosen providers.
Allow individuals who self-manage in the NDIS and engage their own workers to continue doing so.
Mitigate the potential for harm by adopting a proportionate and risk-based regulatory approach that considers both provider and support risk, considering the circumstances of those utilising these services.
Enhance the quality and innovation of services and supports for all NDIS participants.
Source: The NDIS review
For individuals and businesses not formally registered as service providers under the NDIS, the effects are significant. Whether you operate independently as a support coordinator or worker and or a small enterprise with fewer than 20 employees, the high costs of the registration process can be a deterrent.
To understand the plight of providers - regardless of size, all service providers, whether sole operators or large corporations with extensive staff, are subject to identical auditing and adherence requirements. This standardisation prompts the question: where lies the incentive for registration?
Equally, there are concerns regarding businesses or sole traders that may neglect proper staff regulation, circumvent NDIS worker screening requirements, and exhaust participants' funding prior to the end of their plans and then dump them. This highlights the urgent need for enhanced awareness and accountability. The NDIS can ban businesses or individuals and indeed they have, but there is still some that go undetected. The reason is: vulnerable people often don't tell stories out of school due to fear.
The absence of a tiered registration system since the inception of the NDIS has contributed to the complexities we are experiencing now. Without the checks and balances, it has effectively opened up the market, giving way to a spectrum of providers, ranging from opportunistic individuals viewing it as a source of easy income to reputable support providers contending with the financial burdens associated with official registration.
Acknowledging these challenges, the task force responsible for overseeing has committed to be thorough and consider these issues during their fact-finding mission. The main focus is keeping participants safe while letting them choose what works best.
So, what does the review recommendation on provider registration entail?
Explanation:
Advanced Registration: This level is for high-risk supports, where there's a big potential for harm or need for advanced skills. Examples include supports in risky settings or those requiring specialised technical knowledge. These supports might be daily living supports in more formal settings such as a group home.
General Registration: Medium-risk supports fall under this category. These supports aren't as risky as the advanced ones, but they still need careful oversight. Examples include intense personal care or tasks that need extra training. Examples of this might be complex bowel care or giving injections and would be with participants who have a large amount of supports involving 1:1
Basic Registration: Lower-risk supports are covered here. These supports have minimal risk, so they don't need as much regulation. Examples include social activities or tasks with limited interaction. However, they still need some oversight to ensure they meet certain standards. This may include sole traders involved with social and community participation.
Enrolment: This is for the lowest-risk providers. These are supports that involve items like equipment or modifications, where the risk of harm is very low. Providers in this category can easily enroll online with minimal requirements. Examples include items covered by existing consumer protection laws, such as equipment, technology, consumables and home and vehicle mods.
When we're talking about preventing harm, we want to make sure that the support participants receive is both safe and helpful. But it shouldn’t be over complicated or put-up unnecessary roadblocks to providers.
Providers should have to meet certain standards and those standards should match up with how risky their work is. For example, someone doing working with a participant on a daily basis, using hoists, peg/hen feeding, and complex bowel care should have to meet tougher standards than a provider supporting a participant to attend a concert. It's all about finding that balance.
When the NDIS brings these regulations into play, they need to make sure they work together with other government systems. There shouldn’t be any overlapping, especially if a provider is dually working in the aged care space, as an example. The NDIS may give credit to providers who are already following similar rules in other areas. That way, they are not making them jump through hoops twice.
The takeaway from the review is that they are focusing on NDIS participants, their safety, value for money and expertise in the support they receive, whilst making sure providers are compliant. Leaving some flexibility and tiers of registration for those that take care of people living with a disability.
We wish you well, as always
The Lama Care Team
Kommentare