31 March 2026
Attn: Consultation Team Sector Capability Projects Market Strategy Branch National Disability Insurance Email: SectorCapabilityProjects@ndis.gov.au
Dear Consultation Team,
Re: Response to ‘improving service agreements’ consultation
Assistive Technology Suppliers Australia Ltd (ATSA) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) consultation on improving service agreements.
ATSA is a national organisation representing assistive technology providers, including manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, and technicians. ATSA is also a registered not-for-profit charity and a member of the Australian Ethical Health Alliance, with a mandate to ensure end users (people with disability and older Australians) have access to the most appropriate assistive devices to allow them to live inclusive, independent lives.
Service agreements and AT rentals
Assistive technology (AT) rental is a core service under the NDIS and provides participants with relatively fast and flexible access to AT to support:
- Trialling equipment
- Short-term access to equipment while waiting for approval of outright purchase
- Access to AT for changing needs and conditions e.g. in children, people with deteriorating conditions
- Supporting safe discharge from hospital
Many ATSA members offer AT rentals through the NDIS. However, ongoing issues with the operation of service agreements are creating significant financial and administrative risks for providers. In many cases, businesses are reconsidering whether they can continue offering AT rental services under the NDIS.
At present, service agreements do not function as a reliable mechanism to ensure that supports delivered will be funded. This undermines their purpose as a safeguard for both participants and providers.
Key issues with service agreements in the context of AT rentals include:
- Service agreements do not ensure funding availability at the point of agreement
Providers frequently enter into service agreements in good faith, often with approval from plan managers or support coordinators, without any real guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to pay for the rental at time of claiming. This disconnect means that agreements can be validly executed but not financially viable.
Case study A: Service agreement established without sufficient funds
Company A established service agreements with an NDIS participant to supply rental of a bed/mattress (4 months) and manual wheelchair (5 weeks) for short term use at a cost of $2,2025. After submitting the invoices for payment, the AT supplier was notified that the claims were rejected. A subsequent response from the NDIA to a claim and payment enquiry stated that the supports were supplied beyond the participants approved budget and therefore are rejected.
- Service agreements do not guarantee payment for delivered supports
Even where supports are delivered in accordance with an agreed service agreement, providers may not be paid if the NDIA determines that supports fall outside the participant’s approved budget. This creates a situation where providers carry the financial risk despite having complied with the agreement.
Case study B: Service agreement does not ensure payment
Company B supplied rental of a shower commode, wheelchair and hoist for a 5 week period at a cost of $1,000 under an agreed service arrangement. The invoice was submitted and subsequently rejected by the NDIA on the basis that the supports were provided “beyond the participant’s approved budget.” The response also indicated that any further enquiries must be submitted as a new request and that the matter was closed. This demonstrates that the existence of a service agreement does not provide assurance of payment or an effective pathway for resolving disputes.
- Service agreements are not an effective enforcement mechanism
In practice, providers are often unable to enforce service agreements where payments are not made. For AT rentals, retrieving equipment due to non-payment may place participants at risk, particularly where the equipment is essential for safety or daily functioning. This limits the practical utility of service agreements as a risk management tool.
- Service agreements are not recognised in payment resolution processes
When providers attempt to rely on service agreements to resolve payment issues, these agreements are not given weight in NDIA processes. Instead, providers commonly receive administrative responses such as “insufficient funds” or “AT rental not in plan,” with enquiries
closed without substantive resolution. This indicates a disconnect between service agreements and NDIA payment decision-making frameworks.
Collectively, these issues demonstrate that service agreements, as currently implemented, do not provide adequate protection or certainty for AT rental providers. Instead, they shift financial risk onto providers while offering limited mechanisms to verify funding, enforce terms, or resolve disputes. This undermines provider confidence and threatens the sustainability of AT rental services within the NDIS.
Recommendations for improving the effectiveness of service agreements for AT rentals
To ensure that service agreements operate as a meaningful safeguard for both participants and providers, the following changes are recommended.
Recommendation 1: Introduce mandatory funding verification prior to execution of service agreements
Service agreements should only be able to be finalised once there is confirmation that sufficient funds are available within the participant’s plan for the agreed supports. This could include a system-based validation through the NDIA or plan manager that “locks in” funding for the duration of the agreement.
Recommendation 2: Establish a mechanism to quarantine or reserve funds linked to service agreements
Once a service agreement is in place, the corresponding funds should be set aside within the participant’s budget. This would prevent situations where funds are exhausted by other supports, leaving providers unpaid for services delivered in good faith.
Recommendation 3: Recognise service agreements as a basis for payment assurance
Where a valid service agreement exists and supports have been delivered in accordance with that agreement, payment should not be declined solely on the basis of insufficient remaining funds. In such cases, the NDIA should provide a clear and timely pathway to resolve the funding shortfall without transferring financial risk to the provider.
Recommendation 4: Strengthen the role of plan managers in validating service agreements
Where plan managers approve service agreements, this approval should carry accountability. Plan managers should be required to confirm that funding is available and appropriately allocated, and this confirmation should be relied upon in subsequent payment decisions.
Recommendation 5: Improve transparency and accountability in payment decision-making
When payments are declined, providers should receive clear, detailed reasons that explicitly address the status of the service agreement. The current practice of issuing generic responses and closing enquiries should be replaced with a process that allows for genuine review and resolution.
Recommendation 6: Establish a formal dispute resolution pathway linked to service agreements
Providers should have access to a clear, timely, and independent mechanism to resolve disputes where payment is declined despite the existence of a valid service agreement. This pathway should recognise the contractual intent of service agreements and provide enforceable outcomes.
Recommendation 7: Provide safeguards for essential supports where enforcement is not appropriate
In situations where retrieving equipment due to non-payment would place a participant at risk, alternative protections should be available. This may include interim payments, escalation pathways, or NDIA-backed guarantees to ensure continuity of essential supports without penalising providers.
ATSA appreciates the opportunity to contribute to this consultation and would welcome continued engagement with the NDIA in strengthening service agreements for participants and providers.
Yours Sincerely,
Serena Ovens Chief Executive Officer