National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1366
To whom it may concern,
I am writing anonymously as someone concerned about the long-term sustainability, fairness, and effectiveness of the NDIS.
I strongly support maintaining essential supports for participants while identifying opportunities to reduce unnecessary administrative and service costs that may place avoidable strain on both participant budgets and overall scheme funding.
One key area of concern is the frequent requirement for costly Occupational Therapy (OT) reports in situations where existing medical evidence already clearly establishes participant needs.
In many cases, NDIS participants already provide documentation from qualified medical professionals, including GPs, psychologists, and specialist doctors, confirming substantial functional impairment and recommending necessary supports.
Despite this, participants are often required to obtain additional OT assessments at significant expense—sometimes costing thousands of dollars from their own NDIS funding—only for the OT report to confirm what the existing medical evidence had already established.
This process:
• Reduces the funding available for essential participant supports • Delays access to urgent modifications and services • Creates unnecessary administrative burden and additional costs for the NDIS • Increases overall scheme expenditure without proportional benefit to participants
I respectfully suggest that greater weight be given to documentation provided by GPs, psychologists, and specialist medical practitioners, rather than routinely requiring additional OT reports where the clinical evidence is already clear and sufficient. Reducing unnecessary duplication would improve efficiency while preserving participant funding for direct supports.
A second area of concern relates to psychosocial recovery coaches.
It is important to consider whether funding allocated to recovery coaching consistently provides the highest clinical and financial value for participants. In some cases, recovery- focused interventions may be more effectively delivered by psychologists and other appropriately trained clinicians who utilise evidence-based therapeutic approaches and recovery strategies.
I appreciate your consideration of these concerns and hope these suggestions may contribute to improving both participant wellbeing and the long-term sustainability of the scheme.
Sincerely,
A concerned advocate