Family gets more NDIS funding than requested but no providers

A family caught in an NDIS quagmire say they are being given more for some services than they want but can’t find providers for the care they need.

Helen Campbell, left, with her daughters Annie and Lisa. Picture: Brenton Edwards

• Louisa’s fight for NDIS Chronic Fatigue Syndrome support
• NDIS changes lock out Community Visitor

It was supposed to be a dream come true but the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has turned into a nightmare for one family.

Apart from red tape the family is being offered more funding than wanted for some services, and can’t find providers for services they need.

Helen Campbell is trying to negotiate the NDIS on behalf of daughter Annie, 26, who suffers a range of physical and mental disabilities.

She said funding for state-based services ends on July 1 by which time they are supposed to transition to the NDIS but they have been given an “incoherent, incomplete and inadequate plan.”

“We have had 21 agencies refuse to provide the individualised support service we want for Annie in negotiations over the past year or so,” Ms Campbell said.

“There are not many suitably qualified support workers in the sector at all, let alone any looking to work with someone with Annie’s profile.

“The NDIS just provides money.

“It does not do anything to ensure there are adequate services available that can be purchased with that money. “

Ms Campbell said their plan included $7000 for a nurse when they did not want a nurse and $26,000 for psychology per year when the family only requested $10,000.

She said the NDIS is seemingly funding professionals to give training to people to give specific care for Annie — but no money for anyone to attend and receive the training.

“We were told by a senior NDIS representative that there is flexibility in the funding ‘so … if Annie were to spend a week or even a day in hospital … that would free up money that could be used to fund the training’.

“So the NDIS are banking on a deterioration in Annie’s behaviour to cover gaps in their funding, deciding not to follow recommendations aimed at improving the chances her behaviour will not deteriorate in the first place. It’s ridiculous.”