Executive Summary

Participant Coordination, Continuity and System Efficiency within the NDIS

Submitted by

Core Observation

While supporting an NDIS participant with progressive vision impairment, I made a surprising discovery.

Despite the participant interacting with multiple organisations, including the NDIA, Local Area Coordinator, Plan Manager, Occupational Therapist, support workers and service providers, there was no single individual responsible for maintaining continuity across the participant’s support network.

Over time, I found myself informally assuming that role.

This led me to ask a simple question:

Why is the participant, or their family and friends, performing coordination functions that should be built into the system itself?

The Problem

The NDIS contains many dedicated people and valuable services.

However, communication and coordination between those services is often fragmented.

When issues arise, participants frequently become responsible for:

• Identifying errors
• Determining who is responsible
• Contacting multiple organisations
• Navigating websites and online portals
• Repeating information multiple times
• Following up unresolved matters

This places a significant administrative burden on people who may already be managing disability-related challenges.

Practical Example

A recently approved support service was inadvertently omitted during a plan evolution.

The issue originated within an administrative process.

However, responsibility for identifying and resolving the problem initially fell to the participant.

This illustrates a broader systemic issue:

The participant has become the integration layer between organisations.

Key Recommendation

Create a dedicated long-term participant case manager for every participant.

This individual would:

• Maintain continuity
• Understand the participant’s circumstances
• Coordinate communication between stakeholders
• Assist during reviews and transitions
• Monitor emerging issues
• Reduce duplication
• Ensure accountability across the support network

The role would not replace existing providers.

It would provide continuity between them.

Additional Recommendations

• Shared participant records with continuity checks during plan transitions.
• Automated alerts when previously approved supports disappear from a plan.
• Internal resolution pathways between organisations so participants are not required to coordinate administrative corrections.

Guiding Principle

The participant should be the beneficiary of coordination, not the coordinator.

Conclusion

The NDIS contains many capable people and services.

Its greatest opportunity for improvement may not lie in adding more services, but in improving the relationships, communication pathways and accountability mechanisms between the services that already exist.

Systems rarely fail because their individual components are incompetent.

They fail because the relationships between those components are poorly designed.

Submission Regarding Participant Coordination, Continuity and System Efficiency within the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)

Submitted by:

Introduction

I write as an interested observer, advocate, partner, taxpayer, and citizen who has spent considerable time assisting an NDIS participant with progressive vision impairment to navigate the disability support system.

This submission is not intended as criticism of individual staff members. In my experience, most people working within the NDIS ecosystem appear committed, caring, and genuinely motivated to assist participants. Rather, my concern is with the structure of the system itself and the unintended consequences that arise from its design.

My observations arise from interactions with the NDIA, Local Area Coordinators, Plan Managers, Occupational Therapists, support workers, service providers, and the participant’s informal support network.

The central conclusion I have reached is simple:

The NDIS often places participants in the role of system integrator.

This role should belong to the system itself.

Personal Observation

The catalyst for this submission was a simple but surprising realisation.

While supporting an NDIS participant with progressive vision impairment, I assumed there would be a dedicated individual responsible for maintaining continuity across the participant’s support network. Given the number of organisations involved— including the NDIA, Local Area Coordinators, Plan Managers, Occupational

The Problem

The NDIS consists of numerous organisations and stakeholders:

• NDIA
• Local Area Coordinators
• Plan Managers
• Occupational Therapists
• Support Coordinators
• Service Providers
• Informal carers and family members

Each organisation performs a specialised role.

However, responsibility for coordinating communication between these entities frequently falls to the participant.

When Communication Breaks Down

When communication breaks down, participants often become responsible for:

• Identifying errors
• Determining who is responsible
• Contacting multiple organisations
• Navigating websites and online portals
• Completing forms and support requests
• Repeating the same information multiple times
• Following up unresolved issues

This expectation is particularly problematic when participants have disabilities that directly affect their ability to manage administration, technology, communication, memory, mobility, vision, cognition, or executive functioning.

The system often assumes a level of administrative capability that many participants do not possess.

A Practical Example

Recently, an invoice for an approved support service was queried following a plan transition.

Investigation suggested that the service had not been correctly transferred into the participant’s new plan.

The issue was not caused by the participant.

The issue was not caused by the provider.

The issue arose during an administrative process.

Yet the burden of resolving the matter initially fell upon the participant.

This highlights a broader structural issue.

When errors occur between organisations, the participant should not become the courier, investigator, coordinator, and troubleshooter.

The organisations involved should communicate directly and resolve the issue internally wherever possible.

Participant-Centred Versus System-Centred Efficiency

Discussions about efficiency often focus on:

Page 6

• Processing times
• Budget management
• Compliance requirements
• Risk management
• Fraud prevention
• Administrative performance

These are important considerations.

However, there is another form of efficiency that deserves equal attention:

Participant efficiency.

A process may be administratively efficient for an organisation while being exhausting, confusing, and time-consuming for the participant.

The question should not only be: “How efficiently does the system process plans?” It should also be: “How much effort does the participant expend simply navigating the system?”

Proposal 1: Dedicated Long-Term Participant Case Managers

My strongest recommendation is the creation of a dedicated participant case management role.

Each participant should have a named individual assigned to them for as long as practical.

This person would:

• Understand the participant’s circumstances
• Maintain continuity of knowledge
• Monitor significant changes
• Assist during reviews and transitions
• Coordinate communication between stakeholders
• Identify emerging issues before they become crises
• Advocate for participant outcomes
• Reduce duplication of information gathering

This role would not replace existing providers. Rather, it would provide continuity across them.

Proposal 2: Shared Participant Records with Continuity Checks

The NDIS should maintain a shared participant record accessible to authorised stakeholders.

When plan transitions occur, the system should automatically compare:

• Existing supports
• Proposed supports
• Historical service usage

Significant omissions should be flagged before a plan is finalised.

This would reduce administrative errors, improve continuity of support, and prevent unnecessary participant distress.

Proposal 3: Internal Resolution Pathways

When discrepancies arise between plans, invoices, funding categories, or service approvals, organisations should be encouraged and empowered to communicate directly with one another.

Participants should be informed of progress but should not become the primary mechanism through which information travels.

The participant should be the beneficiary of coordination, not the coordinator.

A Broader Observation

Throughout my professional and personal life, I have observed a recurring principle:

Systems rarely fail because their individual components are incompetent. They fail because the relationships between those components are poorly designed.

This observation applies equally to technology, healthcare, organisations, communities, businesses, and government systems.

Conclusion

The NDIS was created to improve the lives of Australians living with disability.

In pursuing participant choice and control, care should be taken not to unintentionally transfer administrative coordination responsibilities onto participants themselves.

Choice and control should remain with participants.

Administrative burden should remain with the system.

The measure of a successful disability support system is not simply whether services exist, but whether participants can access and benefit from those services without becoming administrators of their own support network.

In my view, the introduction of dedicated long-term case managers, improved continuity mechanisms, and stronger inter-organisational communication pathways would significantly improve participant outcomes while reducing waste, duplication, frustration, and avoidable system costs.

I respectfully submit these observations and recommendations for consideration as NDIS reform continues.