2016-22年澳大利亚国家残疾保险计划的社会不平等:行政数据分析

IF 6.7 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
George Disney, Yi Yang, Peter Summers, Alexandra Devine, Helen Dickinson, Anne M Kavanagh
{"title":"2016-22年澳大利亚国家残疾保险计划的社会不平等:行政数据分析","authors":"George Disney,&nbsp;Yi Yang,&nbsp;Peter Summers,&nbsp;Alexandra Devine,&nbsp;Helen Dickinson,&nbsp;Anne M Kavanagh","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To assess differences in eligibility rates and use of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Study design</h3>\n \n <p>Analysis of NDIS unit-record administrative data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting, participants</h3>\n \n <p>Applicants for NDIS support aged 7 years or older, 1 July 2016 – 31 August 2022 (eligibility analysis); active NDIS participants aged 7 years or older on 31 August 2022 (plan size and spending analyses).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\n \n <p>Differences in NDIS eligibility rates by broad age group (under 55 years <i>v</i> 55 years or older), gender (girls and women <i>v</i> other applicants), and residential socio-economic status (three lowest deciles of the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage <i>v</i> other areas); differences in NDIS personal plan size (allocation) and spending (use) by gender and residential socio-economic status.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>During 2016–22, 705 594 people aged 7 years or older had applied for NDIS support; 485 676 applicants with recorded decisions were included in our analysis (393 152 eligible, 92 524 ineligible). Eligibility rates were highest for applicants with brain injury or stroke, intellectual disability, or autism (900 or more per 1000 applicants), and only minor inequalities by socio-demographic group were evident. Eligibility rates were lower for applicants with physical disability, psychosocial disability, or unclassified (other) disability (60–75%). Eligibility inequalities were most marked for people with physical disability, with fewer approvals for women and girls than men and boys (145 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 138 − 152] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants), for people aged 55 years or older than for younger applicants (235 [95% CI, 227–242] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants), and for people from lower socio-economic status areas than for those from other areas (86 [95% CI, 78–93] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants). The eligibility rate for applicants with psychosocial disability was lower for women and girls than men and boys (83 [95% CI, 77–89] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants). Inequalities in plan sizes and spending by socio-economic group and gender for the 312 268 active participants at 31 August 2022 were smaller.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Women and girls and applicants over 55 years of age or living in socio-economically disadvantaged areas with certain disability types are less likely to be deemed eligible for NDIS support than other applicants. Inequalities in plan allocation and use of personal NDIS budgets are less marked. Changes to NDIS eligibility processes could reduce these inequalities.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"222 3","pages":"135-143"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52594","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social inequalities in eligibility rates and use of the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme, 2016–22: an administrative data analysis\",\"authors\":\"George Disney,&nbsp;Yi Yang,&nbsp;Peter Summers,&nbsp;Alexandra Devine,&nbsp;Helen Dickinson,&nbsp;Anne M Kavanagh\",\"doi\":\"10.5694/mja2.52594\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To assess differences in eligibility rates and use of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Study design</h3>\\n \\n <p>Analysis of NDIS unit-record administrative data.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Setting, participants</h3>\\n \\n <p>Applicants for NDIS support aged 7 years or older, 1 July 2016 – 31 August 2022 (eligibility analysis); active NDIS participants aged 7 years or older on 31 August 2022 (plan size and spending analyses).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\\n \\n <p>Differences in NDIS eligibility rates by broad age group (under 55 years <i>v</i> 55 years or older), gender (girls and women <i>v</i> other applicants), and residential socio-economic status (three lowest deciles of the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage <i>v</i> other areas); differences in NDIS personal plan size (allocation) and spending (use) by gender and residential socio-economic status.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>During 2016–22, 705 594 people aged 7 years or older had applied for NDIS support; 485 676 applicants with recorded decisions were included in our analysis (393 152 eligible, 92 524 ineligible). Eligibility rates were highest for applicants with brain injury or stroke, intellectual disability, or autism (900 or more per 1000 applicants), and only minor inequalities by socio-demographic group were evident. Eligibility rates were lower for applicants with physical disability, psychosocial disability, or unclassified (other) disability (60–75%). Eligibility inequalities were most marked for people with physical disability, with fewer approvals for women and girls than men and boys (145 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 138 − 152] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants), for people aged 55 years or older than for younger applicants (235 [95% CI, 227–242] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants), and for people from lower socio-economic status areas than for those from other areas (86 [95% CI, 78–93] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants). The eligibility rate for applicants with psychosocial disability was lower for women and girls than men and boys (83 [95% CI, 77–89] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants). Inequalities in plan sizes and spending by socio-economic group and gender for the 312 268 active participants at 31 August 2022 were smaller.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Women and girls and applicants over 55 years of age or living in socio-economically disadvantaged areas with certain disability types are less likely to be deemed eligible for NDIS support than other applicants. Inequalities in plan allocation and use of personal NDIS budgets are less marked. Changes to NDIS eligibility processes could reduce these inequalities.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Journal of Australia\",\"volume\":\"222 3\",\"pages\":\"135-143\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52594\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Journal of Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.52594\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.52594","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估国家残疾保险计划(NDIS)的合格率和使用差异。研究设计:NDIS单位记录管理数据分析。2016年7月1日至2022年8月31日,7岁及以上NDIS申请人(资格分析);2022年8月31日7岁或以上的NDIS活跃参与者(计划规模和支出分析)。主要结果测量不同年龄组(55岁以下vs 55岁或以上)、性别(女孩和妇女vs其他申请人)和居民社会经济地位(相对社会经济劣势指数的三个最低十分位数vs其他地区)的NDIS合格率差异;不同性别和居民社会经济地位在NDIS个人计划规模(分配)和支出(使用)方面的差异。结果2016 - 2022年,7岁及以上申请NDIS支持的705594人;我们的分析包括485 676名有记录决定的申请人(393 152名符合条件,92 524名不符合条件)。有脑损伤或中风、智力残疾或自闭症的申请人的合格率最高(每1000名申请人中有900名或更多),而且社会人口群体之间的不平等程度很小。身体残疾、社会心理残疾或未分类(其他)残疾的申请人的合格率较低(60-75%)。资格不平等在身体残疾者中最为明显,女性和女孩的批准比男性和男孩少(每1000名申请人的批准少145[95%置信区间{CI}, 138 - 152]), 55岁或以上的人比年轻的申请人少(每1000名申请人的批准少235 [95% CI, 227-242]),社会经济地位较低地区的人比其他地区的人少(每1000名申请人的批准少86 [95% CI, 78-93])。女性和女孩的社会心理残疾申请人的合格率低于男性和男孩(每1000名申请人的合格率为83 [95% CI, 77-89])。截至2022年8月31日,在312 268名积极参与者中,社会经济群体和性别在计划规模和支出方面的不平等较小。结论妇女和女童以及年龄超过55岁或生活在社会经济弱势地区的特定残疾类型的申请人比其他申请人更不可能被认为有资格获得NDIS支持。计划分配和个人NDIS预算使用方面的不平等不太明显。改变NDIS的资格程序可以减少这些不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Social inequalities in eligibility rates and use of the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme, 2016–22: an administrative data analysis

Social inequalities in eligibility rates and use of the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme, 2016–22: an administrative data analysis

Objectives

To assess differences in eligibility rates and use of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

Study design

Analysis of NDIS unit-record administrative data.

Setting, participants

Applicants for NDIS support aged 7 years or older, 1 July 2016 – 31 August 2022 (eligibility analysis); active NDIS participants aged 7 years or older on 31 August 2022 (plan size and spending analyses).

Main outcome measures

Differences in NDIS eligibility rates by broad age group (under 55 years v 55 years or older), gender (girls and women v other applicants), and residential socio-economic status (three lowest deciles of the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage v other areas); differences in NDIS personal plan size (allocation) and spending (use) by gender and residential socio-economic status.

Results

During 2016–22, 705 594 people aged 7 years or older had applied for NDIS support; 485 676 applicants with recorded decisions were included in our analysis (393 152 eligible, 92 524 ineligible). Eligibility rates were highest for applicants with brain injury or stroke, intellectual disability, or autism (900 or more per 1000 applicants), and only minor inequalities by socio-demographic group were evident. Eligibility rates were lower for applicants with physical disability, psychosocial disability, or unclassified (other) disability (60–75%). Eligibility inequalities were most marked for people with physical disability, with fewer approvals for women and girls than men and boys (145 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 138 − 152] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants), for people aged 55 years or older than for younger applicants (235 [95% CI, 227–242] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants), and for people from lower socio-economic status areas than for those from other areas (86 [95% CI, 78–93] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants). The eligibility rate for applicants with psychosocial disability was lower for women and girls than men and boys (83 [95% CI, 77–89] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants). Inequalities in plan sizes and spending by socio-economic group and gender for the 312 268 active participants at 31 August 2022 were smaller.

Conclusions

Women and girls and applicants over 55 years of age or living in socio-economically disadvantaged areas with certain disability types are less likely to be deemed eligible for NDIS support than other applicants. Inequalities in plan allocation and use of personal NDIS budgets are less marked. Changes to NDIS eligibility processes could reduce these inequalities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Journal of Australia
Medical Journal of Australia 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
410
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) stands as Australia's foremost general medical journal, leading the dissemination of high-quality research and commentary to shape health policy and influence medical practices within the country. Under the leadership of Professor Virginia Barbour, the expert editorial team at MJA is dedicated to providing authors with a constructive and collaborative peer-review and publication process. Established in 1914, the MJA has evolved into a modern journal that upholds its founding values, maintaining a commitment to supporting the medical profession by delivering high-quality and pertinent information essential to medical practice.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信