It is time for nationally equitable access to assistive technology and home modifications in Australia: An equity benchmarking study

IF 2 2区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL ISSUES Australian Journal of Social Issues Pub Date : 2023-09-14 DOI:10.1002/ajs4.290
Natasha Layton, Natasha Brusco, Libby Callaway, Lauren Henley, Rosalie H. Wang
{"title":"It is time for nationally equitable access to assistive technology and home modifications in Australia: An equity benchmarking study","authors":"Natasha Layton,&nbsp;Natasha Brusco,&nbsp;Libby Callaway,&nbsp;Lauren Henley,&nbsp;Rosalie H. Wang","doi":"10.1002/ajs4.290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Australians with disability have inequitable access to assistive technology (AT) and home modifications (HMs). This is inconsistent with human rights obligations and fails to capitalise on internationally recognised potential return on investment. Co-designed with a consortium of AT stakeholders, this study quantifies the public provision of AT and HM in Australia by identifying all publicly funded national and state-/territory-based schemes and reporting and comparing available data on the spend per person. An environmental scan and data survey identified 88 government funders administering 109 schemes. Data were available for 1/3 of schemes. Economic evaluation of available cost and participant data estimated the annual AT/HM and wrap-around support spend per person per scheme and organisational costs. Data demonstrated significant AT/HM spend variability across schemes, for example a 50-fold difference between Aged Care ($51) and National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS, $2500). Modelled costs are presented for a $16 billion national scheme where all Australians with disability are funded NDIS-equivalent. These foundation data demonstrate substantial service provision gaps and an urgent need for change in disability policy. A cost model and policy principles have been proposed to achieve economies of scale and equity in the provision of AT and HM.</p>","PeriodicalId":46787,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Social Issues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajs4.290","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Social Issues","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajs4.290","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Australians with disability have inequitable access to assistive technology (AT) and home modifications (HMs). This is inconsistent with human rights obligations and fails to capitalise on internationally recognised potential return on investment. Co-designed with a consortium of AT stakeholders, this study quantifies the public provision of AT and HM in Australia by identifying all publicly funded national and state-/territory-based schemes and reporting and comparing available data on the spend per person. An environmental scan and data survey identified 88 government funders administering 109 schemes. Data were available for 1/3 of schemes. Economic evaluation of available cost and participant data estimated the annual AT/HM and wrap-around support spend per person per scheme and organisational costs. Data demonstrated significant AT/HM spend variability across schemes, for example a 50-fold difference between Aged Care ($51) and National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS, $2500). Modelled costs are presented for a $16 billion national scheme where all Australians with disability are funded NDIS-equivalent. These foundation data demonstrate substantial service provision gaps and an urgent need for change in disability policy. A cost model and policy principles have been proposed to achieve economies of scale and equity in the provision of AT and HM.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
现在是澳大利亚全国公平使用辅助技术和家庭改造的时候了:公平基准研究
澳大利亚残疾人在获得辅助技术(AT)和家居改造(HM)方面存在不公平现象。这既不符合人权义务,也未能利用国际公认的潜在投资回报。本研究由澳大利亚残疾人辅助器具利益相关者联合设计,通过确定所有公共资助的国家和州/地区计划,并报告和比较现有的人均支出数据,量化了澳大利亚公共提供的残疾人辅助器具和家庭改造服务。通过环境扫描和数据调查,确定了管理 109 项计划的 88 家政府资助机构。有 1/3 的计划提供了数据。通过对现有成本和参与者数据进行经济评估,估算出每项计划的每人每年人工辅助/保健和全方位支持支出以及组织成本。数据显示,不同计划的辅助治疗/保健支出差异很大,例如,老年护理计划(51 美元)和国家残疾保险计划(2500 美元)之间的差异达 50 倍。我们提出了一个 160 亿澳元的国家计划的模拟成本,在该计划中,所有澳大利亚残疾人都获得了相当于 NDIS 的资助。这些基础数据表明,在提供服务方面存在巨大差距,亟需改变残疾人政策。我们提出了一个成本模型和政策原则,以实现提供辅助器具和保健服务的规模经济和公平性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.00%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Implementing the HEALing Matters program in residential out-of-home care: Evaluation of carers' commitment to promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours Work incentives in Australia: The distribution of effective marginal tax rates for working‐age Australians in 2023 Cryptocurrencies: Who is vulnerable and what are the vulnerabilities? Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1