国家残障保险机构(NDIA)在过去九个月内拒绝了超过4000份来自计划管理者的索赔申请，涉及资金1900万澳元[1]。这一数字反映出澳大利亚500亿澳元NDIS计划中存在的严重合规问题。根据拒绝原因分析，54%的申请被驳回是因为服务提供者声称提供了从未实际交付的服务，32%因不符合计划规定，10%属于重复或错误索赔[1]。
问题的严重程度在进一步审查中更加凸显。在接受人工审查的1400名计划管理者中，全部已停止运营[1]。在拥有少于100名参与者的1519家小型计划管理业务中，近90%被标记至少存在一个风险指标[1]。据估计，约六成小型计划管理者同时兼任NDIS服务提供商身份，形成潜在的利益冲突[1]。NDIS部长詹妮·麦卡利斯特指出："现在太多计划管理者存在利益冲突，参与者因此受损"[1]。
为了应对这一危机，政府提出新法案进行规范，通过要求参与者从获批名单中选择计划管理者来遏制欺诈和利益冲突问题[1]。该法案将在8月14日委员会报告后在议会进行辩论[1]。不过，绿党参议员乔登·斯蒂尔-约翰对政府的改革方向提出批评，认为"政府过于关注针对参与者，而非利用计划谋利的服务提供商"[1]。
Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has rejected over 4,000 claims from plan managers within a nine-month period due to billing for services that were never actually delivered.[1] The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) declined more than 8,000 claims totaling AUD 19 million between July of the previous year and March of the current year, with 54 percent of rejections attributed to services not being provided, 32 percent failing to meet scheme requirements, and 10 percent involving duplicate or erroneous submissions.[1]
The government has introduced legislation aimed at addressing systemic fraud and conflicts of interest within the AUD 50 billion scheme by requiring participants to select plan managers from an approved list.[1] Approximately 90 percent of the 1,519 small plan manager businesses serving fewer than 100 participants have been flagged with at least one risk indicator, and an estimated 60 percent of small plan managers simultaneously operate as NDIS service providers, creating inherent conflicts of interest.[1] Following manual review, 1,400 plan managers were entirely removed from operations.[1]
NDIS Minister Jenny McCallister stated: "There are too many plan managers with conflicts of interest now, and participants are losing out."[1] The proposed legislation is scheduled for parliamentary debate following a committee report on August 14.[1]
Not all stakeholders support the government's approach. Greens Senator Jordan Steele-John criticized the focus, asserting: "The government is too focused on participants rather than service providers who are exploiting the scheme."[1]