|
Friday, 28th May
2004
The Hon Michael Egan
Treasurer of NSW
Level 33, Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Mr Egan,
PROGRAMME OF APPLIANCES
FOR DISABLED PEOPLE
Thank you for your letter of
20th May. I have a few points that I wish to make
in reply.
We note the current
expenditure of $18.5 million. As is known to both
the Minister for Health and senior officials at NSW
Health the disability sector groups involved with
PADP have welcomed in writing and verbally the
budget enhancements made over the last four years.
Most recently, we expressed our appreciation of
budget increases in
our letter to the Minister for
Health dated 5th
April.
The increases you cite are
necessary but insufficient. Unmet need, the
existence of which is disputed by no one, has not
yet been eradicated by the action your Government
has taken. For us, therefore, the key question is
not, what happened in the past? In our view
it essential to ask now, what happens
next?
As you may be aware the PADP
Budget has been under-financed for several years.
In the NSW Equipment Study (sponsored by ADD
and NSW Health Department) and published by the NSW
Government during your term of office as NSW
Treasurer, the Executive Summary states (on page
vii):
"The projected
cost of raw demand for PADP [IN 1997/98]
is $18.1 million based on the cost profile in
the Survey. When this is [adjusted]
… the result is $16.65 million including an
estimate of $3.6 million for oxygen.
This is $4.85 million
more than the 1997/98 budget allocation for
PADP".
The Government's own report
makes it clear, therefore, that at the time the
report was written the State's allocation for PADP
met no more than 71% of perceived need. In short,
there was not enough money in the Budget at that
time.
Since then, however, the
eligibility criteria for PADP have been
substantially altered. An estimate made by the
DADHC representative to the PADP Advisory Committee
prior to the introduction of the new arrangements
(on 1st January 2001) was that the number of people
eligible for support would increase by "about
40%".
Your observation about
current expenditure levels takes no account of the
changed eligibility criteria. On page xii of the
Executive Summary of the NSW Equipment Study
the authors note "The projected costs [of
PADP] rise to $19 million in 2001…"
That figure is based on the old eligibility
criteria not the new arrangements. Nevertheless,
even that figure, exceeds the current budget
allocation described in your letter.
It is clear to us that the
PADP Budget has not kept pace with rising demand or
unmet need nor has it been adequately enhanced to
accommodate the changes made to the eligibility
criteria more than three years ago.
We further believe that it is
helpful to recall that, since the introduction of
the new arrangements, all PADP clients have been
required to make a co-payment of $100. That change
alone has significantly enhanced expenditure on
PADP from sources other than the State's
Treasury.
We understand that
governments must make difficult decisions about
public finances. We realise also that there are
balances that Government needs to strike between
competing demands. But we are not simply asking you
for "more" like an Oliver character in a novel by
Charles Dickens.
By investing more in aids and
equipment funded through PADP the Government would
save money elsewhere across the whole of
Government.
People with disability would
spend less time, less often, in some form of more
costly care (whether it be a hospital ward because
of illness attributable in part to the absence of
equipment or some form of respite or other
facility). Other Government Departments and
government-funded services would be required to
intervene less often, less directly, in the lives
of people with disability with unmet need for
equipment. Family members could be freed from
inappropriate support roles and enabled to take up
more complete participation in the social and
economic life of NSW. People with disability
themselves would be enabled to be net contributors
to NSW (including participating in the work force
and paying taxes) if the equipment they need was
provided and provided within a reasonable
time.
We feel that, in the
difficult and complex task of weighing competing
demands for resources, investment in PADP is part
of the solution rather than part of the problem. We
look forward, therefore, with keen anticipation to
the Budget Statement of 22nd June. We hope you will
recognise that NSW has much to gain by making the
small (in global terms) but significant investment
that PADP needs to eradicate unmet need during the
remaining period of this Government's current term
of office.
Yours sincerely,
David Brice
PDCN President
|
