If I were Labor, I'd seize upon this, true or not, and use it as a stick to hit the LNP with once an election is called. Given the past LNP scare campaigns over death taxes, the truth clearly doesn't matter in the midst of an election campaign.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It so sad, but exactly how it will be.Feedback so far from patients who’ve gone through the new independent assessment trial is that it’s basically a 3 hour interview/checklist assessment by someone who doesn’t know their history, might not be familiar with their case and may not even be in a relevant field (Eg. physiotherapist for patient with primary mental illness).
Currently NDIS assessors have no obligation to take into account doctors recommendations/reports, and there seem to be quite a few managerial types involved who believe they know best regarding what services should be funded, even when patient, support coordinators and clinicians agree on the most appropriate course of action.
I predict it will probably end up going down the pathway of Workcover/third party/insurance style assessments where a select group of clinicians are paid big money to write lengthy, but otherwise meaningless reports to justify why someone shouldn’t have their treatment funded. At least in these instances if you have a mental health problem you’ll be seen by a psychiatrist. With the NDIS, the difference so far is that there doesn’t look like there will be any avenue for mediation, appeals or even obtaining the assessments.
Feedback so far from patients who’ve gone through the new independent assessment trial is that it’s basically a 3 hour interview/checklist assessment by someone who doesn’t know their history, might not be familiar with their case and may not even be in a relevant field (Eg. physiotherapist for patient with primary mental illness).
Currently NDIS assessors have no obligation to take into account doctors recommendations/reports, and there seem to be quite a few managerial types involved who believe they know best regarding what services should be funded, even when patient, support coordinators and clinicians agree on the most appropriate course of action.
I predict it will probably end up going down the pathway of Workcover/third party/insurance style assessments where a select group of clinicians are paid big money to write lengthy, but otherwise meaningless reports to justify why someone shouldn’t have their treatment funded. At least in these instances if you have a mental health problem you’ll be seen by a psychiatrist. With the NDIS, the difference so far is that there doesn’t look like there will be any avenue for mediation, appeals or even obtaining the assessments.
The problem with letting doctors make decisions is they have zero interest in responsible stewardship of taxpayer moneyWhy even have doctors or specialists if we’re not going to take their word for things?
Politicians should also be allowed to make as few decisions as possibleAnd the government does?
Civil servants of courseSo the doctors shouldn't decide and the politicians shouldn't make the decision, who should?
Are you suggesting they might take measures to improve someone's health and quality of life without considering the status of the electorate they're operating out of? Those bastards.The problem with letting doctors make decisions is they have zero interest in responsible stewardship of taxpayer money
I’m saying that doctors have little to no understanding of or interest in opportunity cost when it comes to other people’s moneyAre you suggesting they might take measures to improve someone's health and quality of life without considering the status of the electorate they're operating out of? Those bastards.
And when asked for your solution you quoted Yes Minister, how do you actually suggest this is solved?I’m saying that doctors have little to no understanding of or interest in opportunity cost when it comes to other people’s money
Much as it does now - politicians set the broad rules, doctors make the clinical decisions, bureaucrats ensure those decisions conform to rules via an applicable governance frameworkAnd when asked for your solution you quoted Yes Minister, how do you actually suggest this is solved?
Much as it does now - politicians set the broad rules, doctors make the clinical decisions, bureaucrats ensure those decisions conform to rules via an applicable governance framework
Utilitarianism is about minimising sufferinguntil it effects you or your loved ones, at which time you will be squealing like a stuck pig for the doctors recommendation to be followed.
i love how economic rationalists like you are always eager for others to suffer to help the budget out
Utilitarianism is about minimising suffering
I’m all for a compassionate and supportive NDIS, but it needs to be budgeted and paid for and doctors are no good at controlling costsfor those that you give a sh*t about
going back to locking up people in care facilities 24/7 as long as it saves bucks though is cool
Maybe we could cancel the tax cuts due to roll in soon. You could hardly regard that in the situation we are at the moment as responsible stewardship of money.I’m all for a compassionate and supportive NDIS, but it needs to be budgeted and paid for and doctors are no good at controlling costs
If they hadn’t already been locked in, maybeMaybe we could cancel the tax cuts due to roll in soon. You could hardly regard that in the situation we are at the moment as responsible stewardship of money.
So some beancounter chooses which bits of the doctor's opinion are safe to ignore? The same beancounters that are happy with Gerry Harvey pocketing millions in covid payments?I’m all for a compassionate and supportive NDIS, but it needs to be budgeted and paid for and doctors are no good at controlling costs
If they hadn’t already been locked in, maybe
Can’t go messing with that stuff after it’s already been committed to, too much sovereign risk
Of course doctors should have absolute discretion on clinical decisions - as long as they fall within a framework that ensures the efficient allocation of scarce resourcesSo some beancounter chooses which bits of the doctor's opinion are safe to ignore?
Straw manfu** people having a chance to work, or socialise, or live a normal life. Let them stay in their room and think of the taxpayers. We need those tax cuts for our new Audi FFS!!!