ARATA funding map

++++
Assistive technology
funding and
abandonment

TRINA PHUAH

https://www.arata.org.au/access-&-funding/funding-your-at/

Funding Compensation schemes

Government aids & equipment programs icare (NSW Workers Compensation Scheme via SafeWork NSW)
E.g. WorkCover (via WorkSafe VIC)
– Enable (NSW) Traffic accidents:
– Equipment Program (SWEP - Vic) • Care & Support Scheme (NSW)
– Department of ’s Affairs (DVA) • Transport Accident (TAC - VIC)

– National Insurance Scheme (NDIS):

Private settlements
http://www.ndis.gov.au/
– MyAgedCare Important to understand the policies and legislation that
underpin each different funding source

1
Your role with funding Impact of funding
• strong written skills are vital
“You don’t need a Rolls Royce when a Toyota will do the job”
• convey what is ‘ and necessary’ for your client
and justify why Remember: you and the client exist within a context
• use information from a range of sources to support your (financial-institutional)
, e.g. formal/informal assessment, trial, All funding options have limited resources
collaboration with the AT user and their circles of support,
You have responsibility not only for your present client but
relevant evidence/information from
also your next one, and the one after that: be realistic and
• clear, concise : your audience will often be people in
administrative roles who do not have a background in health
pragmatic
• follow the relevant rules/legislation/processes for the funder

Technology Disuse
Why do people either stop Abandonment rates range from 8-75%
using equipment/technology Factors:
or not use it in the • User not in choice of AT
• No to trial technology prior to acquisition
recommended/expected • Lack of training
way? • of the device leading to confusion of person,
family, professional
• Need support for training, repair,
• Lack of to use device or do the task

Reimer-Reiss & Wacker (2000)

2
Principles to consider for optimal outcomes References
Andrich, R., & Besio, S. (2002). Being informed, demanding and responsible consumers
• Assistive technology is a means not an end
of assistive technology: An educational issue. Disability & Rehabilitation, 24(1-3),
• The device is only a potential part of the equation: consider trial, 152-159.
training, support, follow-up, preferences & resources (AT solution) Andrich, R., Mathiassen, N.-E., Hoogerwerf, E.-J., & Gelderblom, G. J. (2013). Service
• Consumer/client/AT user knows their situation the best, the clinician delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe: An AAATE/EASTIN position
paper. Technology & Disability, 25(3), 127-146
knows the questions to ask and process to follow
Bondoc, S., & Goodrich, B. (2016). Assistive technology and occupational performance.
• The best is not always expensive or high tech: the optimal solution American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70, (Supplement 2), 701240030p1-
may not involve any AT devices (KISS) 701240030p13.

• AT is not a luxury: it enables people to do things they would otherwise Waldron, D., & Layton, N. (2008). Hard and soft assistive technologies: Defining roles
for clinicians. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 55(1), 61-64.
be unable to do

(see Scherer et al., 2005)

References
Riemer-Reiss, M. L., & Wacker, R. R. (2000). Factors associated with assistive technology
discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66(3),
44-50.

Scherer, M. J., Sax, C., Vanbiervliet, A., Cushman, L. A., & Scherer, J. V. (2005). Predictors
of assistive technology use: The importance of personal and psychosocial
factors. Disability & Rehabilitation, 27(21), 1321-1331.

Steel, E., Gelderblom, G. J., & de Witte, L. P. (2011). Development of an AT selection

tool using the ICF model. Technology and Disability, 23(1), 1-6.

World Health Organization. (2016, May). Priority Assistive Products List. Retrieved from
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/207694/1/WHO_EMP_PHI_2016.01_eng.
pdf?ua=1