Published: October 1 on theconversation.com.au
THE Federal Government has announced major changes to how people with disability will be assessed for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).
Instead of relying on medical reports, new applicants and existing participants being reassessed will have an interview with an assessor from the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA).
The Government says the new process will make support planning simpler, fairer and more accessible.
But disability advocates warn the shift leaves many unanswered questions about how support budgets will be decided and what evidence will be used in place of doctors’ reports.
WHAT’S CHANGING?
The independent NDIS review, delivered in December 2023, found current assessment processes unfair and inefficient.
Collecting medical reports can be costly and slow, favouring those with the means to buy additional evidence.
The review argued this approach focused too heavily on diagnosis rather than the functional impairments that affect daily life.
From mid-2026, participants over 16 will instead be assessed by an NDIA-
employed allied health professional such as an occupational therapist or social worker.
They will use the Instrument for the Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN), a tool that measures support needs across 12 life areas, including self-care, mobility, communication and health. The interview, based on self-reported information, is expected to take around three hours.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Uncertainty remains over how I-CAN results will be translated into participant budgets. At present, budgets are built item by item. The review recommended replacing this with a single flexible budget, which participants can use across therapy, equipment, and support services. While this sounds positive, flexibility means little if budgets are inadequate.
Concerns also exist over potential conflicts of interest, since the NDIA will assess need, and allocate funding.
With pressure to contain costs, disability groups fear standardisation could become a tool to cap budgets.
RISKS OF STANDARDISATION
These reforms follow the Morrison government’s failed 2021 attempt at “independent assessments”, which disability groups, Labor and state ministers strongly opposed. Critics argue rigid tools and formulas risk reducing individual choice and cutting supports.
Recent cases of reduced funding and eligibility reassessments have heightened concerns. Disability advocates also warn that if algorithms are used to calculate budgets, people could be reduced to “data points”.
WHO MAY BE DISADVANTAGED?
Advocates say the self-reporting model may miss or misinterpret needs for some groups. Autistic people with complex communication needs, First Nations people, and culturally diverse participants face particular risks due to communication, cultural and accessibility barriers.
The three-hour assessment could also be stressful and compromise accuracy.
Many in the disability community are calling for participants to retain the right to submit additional evidence from health professionals who know them best.
THE ROAD AHEAD
Disability groups are urging the Government to co-design the process with participants, families and carers.
As George Taleporos, independent chair of Every Australian Counts, said:
“People with disability are not numbers – we are human beings, and our rights must remain at the heart of the Scheme.”
