The recent significant changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) that took effect last Thursday have left many participants and service providers grappling with the implications for disability supports. While the introduction of two lists detailing accepted and rejected NDIS supports aims to provide clarity, a closer examination reveals some concerning ambiguities.

Ambiguity within the lists

Upon reviewing the lists last Friday, I noticed several items that lack clear definition. For instance, while remedial massage is included, it raises questions: Does it need to be performed by an allied health professional? This requirement could increase costs significantly, as many allied health professionals may not offer massage services, and many masseurs might not have the qualifications to be considered allied health professionals.

This situation could lead to increased expenses for the scheme, either by paying for higher-qualified professionals or by necessitating more supports and equipment due to a loss of independence in daily tasks. It's concerning that these lists are being used as new funding rules while still open for consultation from participants and disability providers.

Consultation Process Concerns

It's worrying that these lists are being used as new funding rules while simultaneously being put out for consultation with participants and disability providers. This approach seems hasty and could lead to unforeseen issues in implementation.

Positive Aspects

Despite these concerns, I was relieved to find that most of the services and consumables I've been claiming are still within the allowed list. Importantly, supports for social participation (like being able to meet friends at a pub) and using support workers to assist with communication when attending health appointments remain covered, addressing some of my previous worries.

Optimism for the Future

I've observed a pattern in how governments attempt to rein in disability spending through restrictive measures: they initially implement strict rules, soon realize these restrictions often increase long-term costs, and eventually ease the measures to find a sensible balance. Based on this historical trend, I remain optimistic that a reasonable equilibrium will eventually be reached with these new NDIS changes.