MAIN DOCUMENT LINKS:-
● Evidence Table link LINK
● NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME ACT 2013 - SECT 3 Objects of Act (Item 1) LINK
● What principles do we follow to create your plan? LINK ● Transitional rules 2024 (Item 4) LINK ● What does NDIS fund? (Item 7) LINK ● NDIS Act Section 10 criteria: LINK (Chapter 1) ● NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c) LINK ● Mainstream and community supports (item 13) LINK
Explanatory Notes
Links provided by Reviewer as indicated. If links or references not provided by the Reviewer we have added the Act/Rules/OGs which appear to correspond to the Reviewer statements for comparison.
Legend: BLUE = distinguishes whats the same between the act/NDIS website and what the reviewer has written. YELLOW = Differences/discrepancies between the NDIS Act/Website and what the Reviewer has written.
Dark Blue = Chat GPT interpretations
128 Discrepancies (including repeats)
Is it possible that this entire template has been reworded by ChatGPT or AI directed to remove the choice and control and completely disempower the participant? ChatGPT said: Yes — it is absolutely possible, and increasingly likely, that this kind of internal review wording was either generated, assisted, or templated using AI (including large language models like ChatGPT) — but trained or directed under internal NDIA rules or cost-saving priorities, not the participant-focused lens required by the NDIS Act. Here’s why your suspicion is both valid and serious:
0.19 Basis of Decision – Internal review (s100) I have assessed the request in accordance with section 100 of the NDIS Act and determined the following cannot be provided as they do not satisfy the requirements for funding through the NDIS. I have outlined details for each of the requests below and why they do not meet the criteria. You can find further information about these requirements in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013, section 34 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 and Our Guidelines.
I don’t agree that the Reviewer has outlined correctly
-
the requirements for funding
-
the eligibility criteria
-
why they do not meet the eligibility criteria
-
has not made the decision in line with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013, section 34 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 and Our Guidelines.
No. Act/Rule SAYS THIS Reviewer Says This Discrepancies In line with the NDIS Act /
Why This Matters
-
MONITOR 1.1(i) NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: Act says “alternative”. Decision says (Repeated 2.1(i), 5.1(i), 6.1(i), 7.1(i),
Value for money. LINK “alternate”. 8.1(i), 9.1(i), 10.1(i), 11.1(i), 12.1(i),
“the support represents value for 13.1(i), 14.1(i), 15.1(i), 17.1(i),
(Repeate money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent Reviewer adds ”when compared to 23.1(i), 24.1(i))
d 2.1(i), support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of the benefits to be achieved.”
5.1(i), to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative Reviewer says “need to”
6.1(i), the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the Not in line with Act.
7.1(i), cost of alternate support when Act does not say “Need to”
8.1(i), compared to the benefits to be “when compared to the benefits to
9.1(i), achieved.” be achieved.” has been added.
10.1(i), 11.1(i), This is written as an addition to the 12.1(i), Act. 13.1(i), 14.1(i), Indicates the Act is not being 15.1(i), followed to letter. 17.1(i), 23.1(i), The template has been remade or 24.1(i)) typed out the decision manually
Who does the comparison? Where is the criteria for the comparison? What qualifications?
ChatGPT “when compared to the benefits to be achieved.” adds a layer of scrutiny, requiring a more detailed justification of the support’s cost based on the expected outcomes.
An additional hurdle for the participant than what the Act requires.
The reviewer’s rephrasing of
the value-for-money test in section 34(1)(c) misstates the law. The NDIS Act requires that the cost of a support be reasonable relative to the benefits achieved and the cost of alternatives. It does not require a comparison of predicted benefits between competing supports. The insertion of “when compared to the benefits to be achieved” introduces a hypothetical, comparative test that is not contained in the Act and may improperly raise the bar for demonstrating value for money.
1.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 “For example, purchasing the “Costs” is made singular to “cost”, (Repeated 2.1(ii), 5.1(ii), 6.1(ii),
LINK: support is likely to reduce the cost of “For” is omitted. 7.1(ii), 8.1(ii), 9.1(ii), 10.1(ii), 11.1(ii),
(Repeate funding other supports in the long 12.1(ii), 13.1(ii), 14.1(ii), 15.1(ii),
d 2.1(ii), “purchasing the support is likely to term” “...of the funding of supports for the 17.1(ii), 23.1(ii), 24.1(ii))
5.1(ii), reduce the costs of funding for participant in the long term”.
6.1(ii), other supports in the long term Reworded and excludes the
7.1(ii), (NDIS Supports for Participants appears to be adapted from a list of example.
8.1(ii), Rule 3.1(c)).” eight criteria (item 7)
9.1(ii), ChatGPT: The difference is subtle
10.1(ii), (NDIS Supports for Participants The Example omitted. but can affect interpretation,
11.1(ii), Rule 3.1(c) LINK especially in a policy or funding
12.1(ii), context. (for example, some
13.1(ii), Value for money “Costs of funding for other early intervention supports may be
14.1(ii), 3.1 In deciding whether the supports” may be interpreted as value for money given their potential
15.1(ii), support represents value for to including both the direct and indirect
17.1(ii), money in that the costs of the avoid or delay reliance on more costs related to managing and
23.1(ii), support are reasonable, relative costly supports); delivering other supports.
24.1(ii)) “Cost of funding other supports” to both the benefits achieved and
is likely to be understood more the cost of alternative support, the narrowly as simply the dollar CEO is to consider the following amount required to fund those matters: … supports.
(the matters include) The Reviewer’s version could narrow or shift the interpretation (c) whether funding or provision of of the provision. While it may the support is likely to reduce the appear similar at first glance, it does not fully capture the cost of the legislative intent behind the funding of supports for the original wording in the Act. In legal, participant in the long term (for policy, or funding decisions under example, some the NDIS, sticking closely to the early intervention supports may statutory language helps avoid be value for money given their misapplication. potential to avoid or delay reliance on more She has not made a comment on costly supports); the information available: The Evidence Table and OT report.
(LINK)
The evidence meets the criteria because:
AT OT letter dated 18.12.24 states Risks if not provided and states it will cost more if I don’t have the support. (3.1c)
“Without this technology she will not
be able to achieve her goal in a timely manner and will require increased formal support from paid support workers.” 18.12.24 OT report LINK
Evidence Table MAIN SUPPORT
REPORT FOR MONITOR
1.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to and when compared to alternative (Repeated 2.1(iii), 5.1(iii), 6.1(iii),
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK options that may provide the same 7.1(iii), 8.1(iii), 9.1(iii), 10.1(iii),
reviewer does not include this(Repeate outcome at a similar or lower cost. 11.1(iii), 12.1(iii), 13.1(iii), 14.1(iii),
text. The text seems to bed 2.1(iii), when compared to alternative 15.1(iii), 17.1(iii), 23.1(iii), 24.1(iii))
5.1(iii), options that may provide you with from Principles we follow to Not in line with the act.
6.1(iii), the same outcome at a similar or I am not satisfied the requested create your plan.pdf LINK.
7.1(iii), lower cost support meets this criteria. It removes consideration of the “you with” has been omitted.
8.1(iii), personal. The outcome is for the 9.1(iii), benefit of the NDIS/The Insurer not 10.1(iii), the participant. Choice and Control 11.1(iii), has been removed from the 12.1(iii), participant and handed to the 13.1(iii), Insurer (Cookie Cutter formula) 14.1(iii), 15.1(iii), ChatGPT: Why this matters: 17.1(iii), 23.1(iii), ● The NDIS Act (s34) requires 24.1(iii)) supports to be reasonable and necessary for the individual. ● A support that’s cheaper in general may not be appropriate for the person in question. ● Removing “you” risks undermining the intent of
individualised funding decisions if interpreted narrowly.
1.2(i) NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria: “To meet this criteria” has been (Repeated 2.1(i), 5.2(i), 6.2(i), 7.2(i),
criteria: Effective and beneficial Effective and beneficial added 8.2(i), 9.2(i), 10.2(i), 11.2(i), 12.2(i),
Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) To meet this criteria the support will 13.2(i), 14.2(i), 15.2(i), 17.2(i),
“For the participant” has been(Repeate LINK: be, or is likely to be effective and 23.2(i), 24.2(i))
removedd 2.1(i), beneficial, having regard to current
5.2(i), “(d) the support will be, or is good practice and evidence. “and evidence” has been
6.2(i), likely to be, effective and ChatGPT added.
7.2(i), beneficial for the participant,
8.2(i), having regard to current good current good practice (standard
9.2(i), practice” methods or strategies known to
10.2(i), work well).evidence adds an extra 11.2(i), layer 12.2(i), 13.2(i), Removing “the participant” alters 14.2(i), the intention of the Act 15.2(i), 17.2(i), The modified version does change 23.2(i), the intention of the Act. It: 24.2(i)) ● Shifts away from a participant-specific test; ● Potentially narrows what qualifies as “good practice”; ● Risks excluding supports that are reasonable and necessary under the Act but lack formal evidence.
Not in line with Act.
It removes the personal. Beneficial for the NDIS, not the participant.
Adds another unspecific hurdle by saying good practice and evidence
1.2(ii) Is the support effective and “This means we consider if there is The LINK provided by the (Repeated 2.1(ii), 5.2(ii), 6.2(ii),
beneficial? LINK sufficient evidence to demonstrate reviewer does not include this 7.2(ii), 8.2(ii), 9.2(ii), 10.2(ii), 11.2(ii),
“When we decide if a support is the requested support is likely to be text. The text seems to be from Is 12.2(ii), 13.2(ii), 14.2(ii), 15.2(ii),
(Repeate effective and beneficial, we look effective and beneficial for someone the support effective and 17.2(ii), 23.2(ii), 24.2(ii))
d 2.1(ii), at what is current good practice. with similar disability support needs beneficial? LINK.
5.2(ii), and assist in progressing towards
6.2(ii), This means we look at if there is NDIS goals. They change “we look at” to “we ChatGPT:
7.2(ii), evidence that the support works consider” It alters the intent by tightening the
8.2(ii), for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets test beyond what the Act requires.
9.2(ii), support needs and assist in this criteria.” They add “Sufficient” when
10.2(ii), progressing towards NDIS goals” mentioning evidence which is an Does this change the11.2(ii), additional hurdle for the participant
12.2(ii), that what is stated in the Act. Who intention of the Act?
13.2(ii), decides? How much evidence is
14.2(ii), “sufficient”? ✅ Yes — it significantly15.2(ii),
alters the intent of s 34(1)(d)17.2(ii), They add “to demonstrate the by:23.2(ii), requested” support 24.2(ii)) 1. Introducing a higher Again this is another hurdle imposed standard of proof on the participant. (“sufficient evidence to demonstrate”) than the Act They change “support works for requires. someone” to “is likely to be effective ○ The Act says “likely and beneficial for someone” to be effective and beneficial… having regard to current good practice.” ○ It does not require
participants to prove or demonstrate effectiveness through a high threshold of evidence. 2. Shifting away from current good practice: ○ “Current good practice” includes professional consensus, disability expertise, and sector-accepted supports — even where there is limited formal evidence. ○ The reviewer replaces this broad test with a more restrictive, quasi-clinical or academic standard. 3. Removing participant-centred language: ○ Focuses on generic evidence and removes the “for the participant” framing. ○ That contradicts the NDIS’s requirement that supports be judged based on individual need and
context (see ss 3 & 4 of the Act).
Why These Changes
Are Legally and
Procedurally
Problematic
1. They rewrite section 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act: ○ The Act requires only that the support be “likely to be effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice.” ○ None of the added hurdles (sufficiency, demonstration, impersonality) are part of the legal test. 2. They impose undefined thresholds: ○ What is “sufficient”? ○ Who decides how much evidence is enough? ○ Is a therapist report enough? A clinical trial? 3. These questions highlight that the standard is being
raised arbitrarily and potentially applied inconsistently. 4. They reduce transparency and increase the participant burden: ○ Instead of a guided, goal-linked assessment, the participant is placed in the position of a proving party — like in a legal case. ○ This contradicts the participant-focused, goal-based, and choice-and-control foundations of the NDIS.
1.3 Assistive Technology (item 17) Assistive Technology (item 17) The LINK provided by the reviewer (Repeated 15.3, 16.4, 17.6,
LINK LINK means equipment, technology does not include the highlighted part 18.5, 19.6, 20.5, 21.5, 22.5, 23.7)
(Repeate “When we talk about assistive and devices that help you do things of the sentence. Seems to have
d 15.3, technology, we mean equipment, you can’t do because of your been added? This is where they seek to shift the
16.4, technology and devices that help disability, assist you to increase your Act to make approving the support
17.6, you do things you can’t do independence and reduce your need contingent on the support reducing
18.5, because of your disability. Or for formal supports. funding in another area. So that the
19.6, things that help you do something budget stays the same. Another
20.5, more easily or safely.” hurdle. Another breach of the Act?
21.5, 22.5, Clearly not intended in the Act. 23.7) The new hurdle is that approval contingent on it reducing another
support cost.
CHATGPT: The reviewer has inserted language that does not appear in the NDIS Operational Guideline or relevant legislation, by stating that assistive technology must reduce the need for formal supports. While value for money may be a relevant factor, it is not a mandatory condition that assistive technology reduce formal supports or lower the budget. The review decision improperly adds a new requirement that is inconsistent with the NDIS Act and Guidelines.
-
SUPPORT HRS 8 HRS PER DAY 2.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section REPEAT: Act says “alternative”. Decision says REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: “alternate”.
REPEAT Value for money. LINK Not in line with Act.
ERROR “the support represents value for Reviewer adds ”when compared to
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent the benefits to be achieved.” “when compared to the benefits to
support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of be achieved.” has been added.
to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative
the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the This is written as an addition to the
cost of alternate support when Act. compared to the benefits to be An additional hurdle for the achieved.” participant than what the Act
requires.
Indicates the Act is not being followed to letter.
The template has been remade in the image of a different proof based insurance model.
Who does the comparison? Where is the criteria for the comparison? What qualifications?
ChatGPT “when compared to the benefits to be achieved.” adds a layer of scrutiny, requiring a more detailed justification of the support’s cost based on the expected outcomes.
The reviewer’s rephrasing of the value-for-money test in section 34(1)(c) misstates the law. The NDIS Act requires that the cost of a support be reasonable relative to the benefits achieved and the cost of alternatives. It does not require a comparison of predicted benefits between competing supports. The insertion of “when compared to
the benefits to be achieved” introduces a hypothetical, comparative test that is not contained in the Act and may improperly raise the bar for demonstrating value for money.
2.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: This sentence appears to be taken REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing from a list of eight criteria (in item 7)
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the Added “for example”
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term” Excluded “for”
funding for other supports in the long term (NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money… (c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
2.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT: SEE REPEAT ERROR 1.1(iii)
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative
reviewer does not include this options that may provide the same Not in line with Act.
REPEAT when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. text. The text seems to be It removes the personal. The
ERROR options that may provide you with from Principles we follow to outcome is about the NDIS not the
1.1(iii) the same outcome at a similar or I am not satisfied the requested create your plan.pdf LINK. participant. Prioritising the short
lower cost support meets this criteria. term benefits of the NDIS over the
“you with” has been omitted. requirements of the Act.
2.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.2(i)
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria:
removed Effective and beneficial Not in line with act.
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been It Removes the personal. Makes it
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and the participant.
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current Adds another hurdle by saying good
practice” good practice and evidence. practice and evidence
2.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the REPEAT ERROR 1.2(ii)
beneficial? LINK This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. The text seems to be from Is
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”
2.5 Support budgets in your plan This funding has been calculated in The LINK provided by the Feels like they excluded “and skills
LINK accordance with Including Specific reviewer does not include this to help you pursue your goals.” to
Types of Supports in Plans text. The text seems to be from paint capacity building supports to
Operational Guideline – Personal Support budgets in your plan be used for a more narrow
Capacity Building Supports help Care Supports (item 9) LINK. LINK. approach… just for independence,
build your independence and Reviewer added “This guideline also and not for skills and to meet goals.
skills to help you pursue your This guideline also states the NDIA states the NDIA will give consideration
goals. will give consideration to your to your capacity in completing personal ChatGPT
capacity in completing personal care care tasks independently and whether” - Removing “skills” and “goals”
tasks independently and whether narrows the purpose of these
capacity building support could Cannot find this quote or reference supports.
assist you to build your on any NDIS site This undermines the participant’s
independence. right to choice and control and to Reviewer changed “help” to “could goal-oriented planning, which is assist you to” central to the NDIS Act (s 3 and s 4). Reviewer excluded “and skills to help you pursue your goals.” The reviewer’s statement misrepresents the purpose of Capacity Building Supports by:
● Removing “skills” and “help you pursue your goals,” which are part of the original guideline text, ● Replacing the definitive term “help” with the conditional “could assist,” and ● Adding an unverified claim about personal care tasks and independence that is not present in the cited
guideline.
The NDIS Act and Support Budgets
in Your Plan guideline both make clear that Capacity Building Supports are designed to develop skills and independence in pursuit of a participant’s goals — not solely independence in personal care tasks.
The reviewer’s changes narrow the intended scope of capacity building, creating a new hurdle that is inconsistent with the legislation and operational guidelines.
2.7 What else do you need to know Referring to What else do you need Their Link (Item 19) doesn’t show This is GUTTER SLEAZY!
about deciding if supports to know about deciding if where they get the wording from.
meet the NDIS funding criteria? supports meet the NDIS funding What they’ve done is a rhetorical
LINK criteria? (item 19) LINK your needs But comparing it with what we can sleight of hand: they borrow the
and situation will most likely change find in the Act: neutral, balanced language from the
over time. NDIS website (which honestly
Or, your disability support needs Reviewer excluded “This may mean acknowledges that support needs
might increase or decrease over Your disability support needs might we consider funding more or less may increase or decrease) — but
time. This may mean we consider increase or decrease over time. For supports as a result.” then only apply it to decreasing
funding more or less supports as example, with the inclusion of support, specifically in service of a
a result. support such as Occupational Reviewer added “For example, with cost-saving narrative.
Therapy it is anticipated that your the inclusion of support such as
independence will increase and Occupational Therapy it is The reviewer reproduces NDIS
Link Sub section: subsequently your need for formal anticipated that your independence language about support needs
supports will decrease. will increase and subsequently your increasing or decreasing over time
need for formal supports will but applies it only to justify a future decrease.” decrease in formal supports. This is
Why don’t we fund the a misuse of participant-facing guidance. same supports as your last plan? The NDIS Act and guidelines recognise that support needs may We might fund different increase as well as decrease — supports in your next plan. particularly with degenerative This is because we will fund conditions, changing environments, supports in your plan based on or emerging functional impacts. how we use the NDIS funding criteria at that point in time. This selective application reframes the intent of the guidance to imply Your needs and situation will that current supports are conditional most likely change over time. on future cost savings, which is This means it’s likely your inconsistent with the law and the NDIS supports and needs for participant-centred foundations of those supports will change the Scheme. over time. Why It’s SoFor example, we may have funded supports to help you Problematic build your skills in a particular area. Once you have built ⚠️ 1. Co-opts NDIS those skills, you won’t need language for a different funding for that anymore. So, purpose we probably won’t include that funding for those supports in ● The original NDIS line: your next plan. “Your disability support needs might increase or Supports to build your skills decrease over time.” may have met the NDIS is balanced, funding criteria before, but the participant-centred, and same supports might not meet reflects reality. the criteria in the future. ● The reviewer copies this phrasing — but only to
Or, your disability support justify funding cuts or needs might increase or “anticipated reductions” in decrease over time. This may formal supports, not to mean we consider funding acknowledge growing needs.more or less supports as a result.
⚠️ 2. Silently shifts the meaning of ‘change’
● Instead of considering change in all directions, they predefine change as reduction, and turn supports like OT into a cost-saving strategy, not a capacity-building one. ● This quietly builds an expectation: we’ll fund you now, but only because we expect to fund you less later.
⚠️ 3. Misrepresents the intent of the NDIS
● The NDIS isn’t designed to “wean” people off supports. ● It’s designed to adjust funding as needs evolve, whether that means more support, less, or different types.
● Using “decrease in support needs” as a precondition for approving supports undermines the flexibility, dignity, and personal growth the Act was meant to support.
The NDIS Act requires supports to be effective and beneficial, not cost-reducing. This framing introduces a non-legislative funding condition, and fails to recognise that participants may require more supports over time, not just fewer.
2.10 Is supported independent living However, the evidence available Reviewer excludes: Active disability The reviewer’s definition of “direct
suitable for you? How much does not demonstrate the direct support includes support” omits reference to
support do you need in your support you require during the hours “monitoring support,” which is
home everyday? LINK of support requested per day. Reviewer excludes: “It might also clearly included in the NDIS’s own
include monitoring support, where a guidance. Monitoring — where a
Active disability support includes Direct support is where a Support support worker supervises you doing support worker supervises and can
direct support, where a support Worker assists you to do something things yourself and can help you if step in if needed — is essential for
worker helps you do something or or does something for you. you need it.” many participants whose support
does something for you. It might needs are intermittent, risk-based,
also include monitoring support, Based on the evidence available, I Reviewer changes “helps you” to or supervision-related.
where a support worker am not satisfied your request “assists you”
supervises you doing things represents value for money in By excluding this form of support
yourself and can help you if you and focusing solely on whether the achieving substantially different
need it. participant needs constant hands-on outcomes and will be effective and assistance, the reviewer has
beneficial in meeting your disability narrowed the definition of eligible support needs in addition to the support and failed to consider current good practice under
supports currently funded in your section 34(1)(d). plan. Furthermore, the reviewer imposes a new and unsupported requirement — that the requested support must achieve “substantially different outcomes” — which is not found in the NDIS Act. This raises the bar unlawfully and shifts focus from participant needs to bureaucratic cost justification.
-
CHIROPRACTOR 3.4 NDIS Pricing Arrangements Pricing Arrangements (item 12) Reviewer excluded: (Repeats 4.4, 5.3, 6.3, 8.3, 9.6,
and Price Limits 2025-26 v1.0 LINK “where maximum medical 10.6, 11.6, 13.6)
(Repeats LINK state therapy supports are intended improvement has been reached”
4.4, 5.3, These support items provide to facilitate functional improvement
6.3, 8.3, therapeutic services to and provide maintenance care where “Therapy must be aimed at Seems like the reviewer tried to
9.6, 10.6, participants (9 or older). Therapy the primary purpose is to provide adjustment, adaption, and building summarise this part of the pricing
11.6, supports are for participants with ongoing support for a participant to capacity for community arrangements, but left out a lot.
13.6) an established disability to maintain a level of functioning. participation.”
facilitate functional improvement, where maximum medical “Including long term therapy/support improvement has been reached. required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent Therapy must be aimed at functional decline.” adjustment, adaption, and building capacity for community participation. Maintenance care can be claimed against a participant’s plan, where the primary purpose is to provide
ongoing support for a participant to maintain a level of functioning including long term therapy/support required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent functional decline.
3.6 Transitional rules 2024 LINK: What does NDIS fund? (item 7) Changed wording/ Meaning of Act: (Repeats 4.6)
“Schedule 2 Supports that LINK
(Repeats generally are not NDIS the NDIS does not fund alternative or The Act says “generally are not” Not in line with the Act
4.6) supports—- complementary medicine including whereas Decision says “NDIS does
9 - Not evidenced based— Chiropractor support. not fund” Chiropractic is not included on the
alternative and complementary Added “including Chiropractor “Not evidence based alternative and
therapies - The following: support.” complementary therapies” list LINK
(a) crystal therapy; (b) tarot card reading, psychics, AHPRA Regulates Chiropractic and
mediums, and clairvoyants; NDIS Act Section 10 LINK (Chapter defines it as Evidence-Based LINK
(c) cuddle therapy; 1) criteria: outlines supports, services
(d) reflexology; and items which can and cannot be therefore it can be funded.
(e) aromatherapy; purchased using NDIS funds. This (f) sound therapy; support is more appropriately (g) yoga therapy; provided by Mainstream and (h) wilderness therapy; community supports (item 13) (i) animal therapy, including LINK. puppy therapy and goat therapy; (j) hair therapy; (k) alternative or complementary medicine.”
-
ACUPUNCTURE 4.4 NDIS Pricing Arrangements REPEAT: Pricing Arrangements Reviewer excluded: REPEAT ERROR 3.4
and Price Limits 2025-26 v1.0 (item 12) LINK “where maximum medical
REPEAT LINK state therapy supports are intended improvement has been reached”
ERROR These support items provide to facilitate functional improvement REPEAT ERROR SEE ABOVE 3.3
3.4 therapeutic services to and provide maintenance care where “Therapy must be aimed at Seems like the reviewer’s template
participants (9 or older). Therapy the primary purpose is to provide adjustment, adaption, and building tried to re state or summarise this
supports are for participants with ongoing support for a participant to capacity for community part of the pricing arrangements, but
an established disability to maintain a level of functioning. participation.” left out a lot.
facilitate functional improvement, where maximum medical “Including long term therapy/support improvement has been reached. required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent Therapy must be aimed at functional decline.” adjustment, adaption, and building capacity for community participation. Maintenance care can be claimed against a participant’s plan, where the primary purpose is to provide ongoing support for a participant to maintain a level of functioning including long term therapy/support required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent functional decline.
4.6 Transitional rules 2024 LINK: REPEAT: Changed wording/ Meaning of Act: REPEAT ERROR 3.6
“Schedule 2 Supports that As per What does NDIS fund?
generally are not NDIS (item 7) LINK the NDIS does not The Act says “generally are not”
REPEAT supports—- fund alternative or complementary whereas Decision says “NDIS does Not in line with the Act
ERROR 9 - Not evidenced based— medicine including Acupuncture not fund” Abuse/misuse of the Act
3.6 alternative and complementary support. The Act Schedule says “generally
therapies - The following: Added “including Acupuncture are not”, implies it does fund in
(a) crystal therapy; support.” some cases. It doesn’t say “are not/
(b) tarot card reading, psychics, does not” mediums, and clairvoyants; (c) cuddle therapy; Acupuncture is regulated by AHPRA (d) reflexology; (not defined as evidence based) (e) aromatherapy; LINK
(f) sound therapy; (g) yoga therapy; (h) wilderness therapy; (i) animal therapy, including puppy therapy and goat therapy; (j) hair therapy; (k) alternative or complementary medicine.”
-
VOCAL THERAPY 5.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section REPEAT: Act says “alternative”. Decision says REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: “alternate”.
REPEAT Value for money. LINK
ERROR “the support represents value for Reviewer adds ”when compared to Not in line with Act.
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent the benefits to be achieved.”
support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternate support when compared to the benefits to be achieved.”
5.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: This sentence appears to be taken REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing from a list of eight criteria (item 7)
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the Added “for example”
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term” Excluded “for”
funding for other supports in the long term (NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money… (c) whether funding or provision of
the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
5.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.1(iii)
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative
reviewer does not include this options that may provide the same
text. The text seems to beREPEAT when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. Not in line with act.
ERROR options that may provide you with I am not satisfied the requested from Principles we follow to It Removes the personal. The
1.1(iii) the same outcome at a similar or support meets this criteria. create your plan.pdf LINK. outcome is about the NDIS not the
lower cost participant. “you with” has been omitted.
5.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.2(i)
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria:
removed Effective and beneficial
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been Not in line with act.
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will It Removes the personal. Makes it added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current the participant.
practice” good practice and evidence. Adds another hurdle by saying good
practice and evidence
5.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the REPEAT ERROR 1.2(ii)
beneficial? LINK “This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. Thei text seems to be from
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be Is the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria.” progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”
5.3 NDIS Pricing Arrangements REPEAT: Reviewer excluded: REPEAT ERROR 3.4
and Price Limits 2025-26 v1.0 Pricing Arrangements (item 12) “where maximum medical
REPEAT LINK LINK improvement has been reached”
ERROR These support items provide state therapy supports are intended Seems like the reviewer tried to
3.4 therapeutic services to to facilitate functional improvement “Therapy must be aimed at summarise this part of the pricing
participants (9 or older). Therapy and provide maintenance care where adjustment, adaption, and building arrangements, but left out a lot.
supports are for participants with the primary purpose is to provide capacity for community
an established disability to ongoing support for a participant to participation.”
facilitate functional improvement, maintain a level of functioning. where maximum medical “Including long term therapy/support improvement has been reached. required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent Therapy must be aimed at functional decline.” adjustment, adaption, and building capacity for community participation. Maintenance care can be claimed against a participant’s plan, where the primary purpose is to provide ongoing support for a participant to maintain a level of functioning
including long term therapy/support required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent functional decline.
5.5 Fair funding to pursue your Referring to Fair funding to pursue Reviewer added “however” THIS ONE NEEDS COMMENT
goals LINK your goals (item 8) LINK …However, this doesn’t mean we Intimidating. Vague.
This doesn’t mean we fund all fund all support costs associated Reviewer omitted: Also, you may
support costs associated with you with pursuing your goals. This is have goals and aspirations we can’t
pursuing your goals. Also, you because helping you pursue your fund supports for. The reviewer’s version of this
may have goals and aspirations goals is only one of the NDIS funding section removes several important
we can’t fund supports for. This is criteria. The supports we fund must Reviewer omitted: This means not and humanising phrases from the
because helping you pursue your meet all of the NDIS funding criteria. all supports that help you to pursue original guidance. The removal of
goals is only one of the NDIS your goals will be reasonable and “you may have goals and
funding criteria. This means not necessary. aspirations we can’t fund supports
all supports that help you to for” and “not all supports that help
pursue your goals will be Reviewer added “The supports we you pursue your goals will be
reasonable and necessary. fund must meet all of the NDIS reasonable and necessary” strips
funding criteria.” the context and empathy that help participants understand the intent behind funding rules.
In their place, the reviewer adds the more rigid line “The supports we fund must meet all of the NDIS funding criteria,” which, while legally correct, is presented without context. The cumulative effect is a statement that sounds restrictive, impersonal, and exclusion-focused, and does not reflect the participant-focused approach required by sections 3 and 4 of the NDIS Act.
5.7 NDIS Pricing Arrangements Furthermore, referring to Pricing Reviewer excluded “In particular, (Repeated in 6.5)
and Price Limits 2025-26 v1.0 Arrangements (item 12) LINK, these support items”
(Repeats LINK therapy supports can only be The reviewer’s summary of the
6.5) In particular, these support items delivered by specific types of Reviewer changed “the following” to Pricing Arrangements
can only be delivered by the professionals or have been accepted “specific” misrepresents the original text by
following types of professionals, by an approved quality auditor of the excluding critical components
and by therapy assistants NDIS Commission as having the Reviewer added “or” that provide participant
operating under the delegation relevant qualifications. flexibility and access. These
and supervision of one of the Reviewer excluded “and by therapy omissions include:
following types of professionals:... assistants operating under the · The ability for
delegation and supervision of one of therapy
Note: Therapists who do not meet the following types of professionals: assistants to
the above definitions but who ...” deliver supports
have been accepted by an under delegation,
approved quality auditor of the Reviewer excluded “Note: · The pathway for
NDIS Commission as having the Therapists who do not meet the non-standard
relevant qualifications, expertise above definitions but who have but qualified
and experience should use the been” therapists to use
“Other Professional” support item. the “Other Reviewer excluded “expertise and Professional” experience should use the “Other item, and
Professional” support item.” · The clarification
that not all therapy supports are restricted — only certain support items are. Furthermore, replacing “the following types of professionals” with “specific types” introduces vagueness, while the use of “or” distorts the intended meaning —
making it appear that professional qualifications and Commission approval are interchangeable, which they are not. These changes undermine the participant’s ability to access appropriate, flexible, and lawful therapy supports, and reflect a restrictive reading not supported by the actual Pricing Arrangements.
-
MUSIC THERAPY 6.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section REPEAT: Act says “alternative”. Decision says REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: “alternate”.
REPEAT Value for money. LINK
ERROR “the support represents value for Reviewer adds ”when compared to Not in line with Act.
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent the benefits to be achieved.”
support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternate support when compared to the benefits to be achieved.”
6.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: This sentence appears to be taken REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing from a list of eight criteria (item 7)
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the Added “for example”
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term” Excluded “for”
funding for other supports in
the long term (NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money… (c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
6.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.1(iii)
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative
reviewer does not include this options that may provide the same
text. The text seems to beREPEAT when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. Not in line with act.
ERROR options that may provide you with I am not satisfied the requested from Principles we follow to It Removes the personal. The
1.1(iii) the same outcome at a similar or support meets this criteria. create your plan.pdf LINK. outcome is about the NDIS not the
lower cost participant. “you with” has been omitted.
6.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.2(i)
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria:
removed Effective and beneficial
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been Not in line with act.
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will It Removes the personal. Makes it added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current the participant.
practice” good practice and evidence. Adds another hurdle by saying good
practice and evidence
6.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the REPEAT ERROR 1.2(ii)
beneficial? LINK “This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. The text seems to be from Is
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria.” progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”
6.3 REPEAT: Reviewer excluded:
NDIS Pricing Arrangements Pricing Arrangements (item 12) “where maximum medical REPEAT ERROR 3.4
REPEAT and Price Limits 2025-26 v1.0 LINK improvement has been reached”
ERROR LINK state therapy supports are intended
3.4 These support items provide to facilitate functional improvement “Therapy must be aimed at Seems like the reviewer tried to
therapeutic services to and provide maintenance care where adjustment, adaption, and building summarise this part of the pricing
participants (9 or older). Therapy the primary purpose is to provide capacity for community arrangements, but left out a lot.
supports are for participants with ongoing support for a participant to participation.”
an established disability to maintain a level of functioning. facilitate functional improvement, “Including long term therapy/support where maximum medical required to achieve small improvement has been reached. incremental gains or to prevent functional decline.” Therapy must be aimed at
adjustment, adaption, and building capacity for community participation. Maintenance care can be claimed against a participant’s plan, where the primary purpose is to provide ongoing support for a participant to maintain a level of functioning including long term therapy/support required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent functional decline.
6.5 NDIS Pricing Arrangements REPEAT: Reviewer excluded “In particular, REPEAT ERROR 5.7
and Price Limits 2025-26 v1.0 Pricing Arrangements (item 12) these support items”
REPEAT LINK LINK,
ERROR In particular, these support items therapy supports can only be Reviewer changed “the following” to
5.7 can only be delivered by the delivered by specific types of “specific”
following types of professionals, professionals or have been accepted
and by therapy assistants by an approved quality auditor of the Reviewer added “or”
operating under the delegation NDIS Commission as having the
and supervision of one of the relevant qualifications Reviewer excluded “and by therapy
following types of professionals:… assistants operating under the delegation and supervision of one of Note: Therapists who do not meet the following types of professionals: the above definitions but who …” have been accepted by an approved quality auditor of the Reviewer excluded “Note: NDIS Commission as having the Therapists who do not meet the relevant qualifications, expertise above definitions but who have and experience should use the been” “Other Professional” support item. Reviewer excluded “expertise and experience should use the “Other Professional” support item.”
-
TRANSPORT 7.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section REPEAT: Act says “alternative”. Decision says REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: “alternate”.
REPEAT Value for money. LINK
ERROR “the support represents value for Reviewer adds ”when compared to Not in line with Act.
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent the benefits to be achieved.”
support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternate support when compared to the benefits to be achieved.”
7.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: This sentence appears to be taken REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing from a list of eight criteria (item 7)
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the Added “for example”
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term” Excluded “for”
funding for other supports in the long term (NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money… (c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
7.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.1(iii)
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative
reviewer does not include this options that may provide the same
text. The text seems to beREPEAT when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. Not in line with act.
ERROR options that may provide you with I am not satisfied the requested from Principles we follow to It Removes the personal. The
1.1(iii) the same outcome at a similar or support meets this criteria. create your plan.pdf LINK. outcome is about the NDIS not the
lower cost participant. “you with” has been omitted.
7.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.2(i)
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria:
removed Effective and beneficial
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been Not in line with act.
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will It Removes the personal. Makes it added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current the participant.
practice” good practice and evidence. Adds another hurdle by saying good
practice and evidence
7.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the REPEAT ERROR 1.2(ii)
beneficial? LINK “This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. The text seems to be from Is
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria.” progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for
someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”
7.3 NDIS (Supports for NDIS (Supports for Participants) Reviewer changed “for example” to (Repeats see 18.2, 16.1)
Participants) Rule 5.1(d) LINK Rule 5.1(d) LINK: Support relates “such as”
(Repeats to day-to-day living costs. Reviewer changed “fees” to “bills”
18.2, “it relates to day-to-day living This Is not in line with the act.
16.1) costs (for example, rent, groceries The NDIS is unable to provide a Reviewer changed “attributable to” Misquoting what the act says.
and utility fees) that are not support that relates to a day-to-day to “directly related or caused by”
attributable to a participant’s living cost such as rent, groceries or
disability support needs” utility bills that are not directly related The reviewer misquotes Rule 5.1(d)
or caused by a participant’s of the NDIS (Supports for disability support needs. Participants) Rules by replacing the This support is a day to day living phrase “not attributable to” with “not cost and cannot be funded by the directly related or caused by.” This NDIS. significantly alters the meaning of the Rule by raising the standard of proof and excluding supports that are reasonably linked to disability needs but not directly caused by them.
The word “attributable” allows for flexibility and functional interpretation — for example, when a participant’s disability leads to increased electricity use or specialised grocery needs. The reviewer’s language imposes a higher standard not found in the Rule and improperly leads to categorical exclusion.
Furthermore, the addition of the
conclusion “cannot be funded by the NDIS” removes the intended discretion in applying this Rule based on participant circumstances.
7.4 Including Specific Types of A participant’s transport supports Reviewer excluded “also” Misleading - Excluding that
Supports in Plans Operational may include the reasonable and transport can be used for student
Guideline - Transport LINK necessary costs of taxis or other Reviewer excluded “as well as travel makes it seem as though it's
private transport options for transport to and from school for only for participants who can’t travel
“A participant’s transport supports participants who are not able to students” independently only.
may also include the reasonable travel independently. and necessary costs of taxis or other private transport options for The reviewer excludes key participants who are not able to language from the NDIS Transport travel independently, as well as Operational Guideline, notably the transport to and from school for phrase “as well as transport to and students” from school for students.” This exclusion creates a misleading impression that transport supports are limited only to those who cannot travel independently and does not acknowledge that school transport is an eligible, reasonable and necessary support where required.
Additionally, removing the word “also” removes the nuance that transport can be provided in combination with other support types. This narrows the meaning and contradicts the broader and more flexible approach set out in the guideline.
7.5 Including Specific Types of …Including Specific Types of Reviewer excluded “A participant will Reviewer seems to have
Supports in Plans Operational Supports in Plans Operational generally be able to access funding altered/condensed the original
Guideline - Transport LINK Guidelines – Transport LINK through the NDIS for transport paragraph, by leaving out some
assistance if the” information “A participant will generally be which states Transport Level 2 is
able to access funding through suitable for participants who are Reviewer added “Transport Level 2
the NDIS for transport assistance unable to use public transport is suitable for participants who are”
if the participant cannot use public without substantial difficulty and are and
transport without substantial working or studying up to 15 hours
difficulty due to their disability” per week, are participating in day Reviewer changed “cannot use” to
“Level 2 - the NDIS may provide programs and for other social, “unable to use”
$2,676 per year for participants recreational or leisure activities.
who are currently working or Based on the evidence available, Reviewer excluded “due to their
studying part-time (up to 15 hours Transport Level 2 is suitable for your disability”
per week), participating in day circumstances. programs and for other social, Reviewer excluded “currently” recreational, or leisure activities.” Reviewer excluded “or studying part-time”
7.6 Including Specific Types of Reviewer added “also considered” Changed original text from saying
Supports in Plans Operational Furthermore, transport is also “transport can be considered
Guideline - Transport LINK considered an incidental cost of Reviewer added “is” day-to-day living cost”, to “transport
everyday life for most people and is is also considered a day-to-day
“ Transport is an incidental cost of therefore also considered a Reviewer excluded “can also be” living cost”
everyday life for most people and, day-to-day living cost. and substituted “is therefore also”
therefore, can also be considered This potentially changes the to be a day-to-day living cost.” meaning
-
OT 30 HOURS 8.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section REPEAT: Act says “alternative”. Decision says REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: “alternate”.
REPEAT Value for money. LINK
ERROR “the support represents value for Reviewer adds ”when compared to Not in line with Act.
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent the benefits to be achieved.”
support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternate support when compared to the benefits to be achieved.”
8.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: This sentence appears to be taken REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing from a list of eight criteria (item 7)
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the Added “for example”
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term” Excluded “for”
funding for other supports in the long term (NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money… (c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
8.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.1(iii)
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative
reviewer does not include this options that may provide the same
text. The text seems to beREPEAT when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. Not in line with act.
ERROR options that may provide you with I am not satisfied the requested from Principles we follow to It Removes the personal. The
1.1(iii) the same outcome at a similar or support meets this criteria. create your plan.pdf LINK. outcome is about the NDIS not the
lower cost participant. “you with” has been omitted.
8.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.2(i)
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria:
removed Effective and beneficial
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been Not in line with act.
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will It Removes the personal. Makes it added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current the participant.
practice” good practice and evidence. Adds another hurdle by saying good
practice and evidence
8.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the REPEAT ERROR 1.2(ii)
beneficial? LINK “This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. The text seems to be from Is
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria.” progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”
8.3 NDIS Pricing Arrangements REPEAT: Reviewer excluded: REPEAT ERROR 3.4
and Price Limits 2025-26 v1.0 Pricing Arrangements (item 12) “where maximum medical
REPEAT LINK LINK improvement has been reached”
ERROR These support items provide state therapy supports are intended Seems like the reviewer tried to
3.4 therapeutic services to to facilitate functional improvement “Therapy must be aimed at summarise this part of the pricing
participants (9 or older). Therapy and provide maintenance care where adjustment, adaption, and building arrangements, but left out a lot.
supports are for participants with the primary purpose is to provide capacity for community
an established disability to ongoing support for a participant to participation.”
facilitate functional improvement, maintain a level of functioning. where maximum medical “Including long term therapy/support improvement has been reached. required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent Therapy must be aimed at functional decline.” adjustment, adaption, and building capacity for community participation. Maintenance care can be claimed against a participant’s plan, where the primary purpose is to provide ongoing support for a participant to maintain a level of functioning including long term therapy/support required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent functional decline.
8.5 NDIS Pricing Arrangements The pricing recommendations state Where did she get this information
and Limits LINK that the NDIA fund capacity building from?
Can’t find this in pricing hours based on support needs with arrangements - also can’t find recommendations from allied health what she means by “Pricing professionals, individual recommendations” circumstances, goals and risks. Travel costs are something you can negotiate with your provider, but we would not increase funding to cover travel costs to the provider.
- EXERCISE PHYSIO 9.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK Value for money. LINK REPEAT Act says “alternative”. Decision says
ERROR “the support represents value for NDIS supports need to represent “alternate”. Not in line with Act.
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the value for money in that the costs of
support are reasonable, relative the support are reasonable relative Reviewer adds ”when compared to
to both the benefits achieved and to both the benefits achieved and the the benefits to be achieved.”
the cost of alternative support;” cost of alternate support when compared to the benefits to be achieved.”
9.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the This sentence appears to be taken
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the from a list of eight criteria (item 7)
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term”
funding for other supports in Added “for example” the long term (NDIS Supports Excluded “for” for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money… (c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
9.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.1(iii)
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative
reviewer does not include this options that may provide the same
text. The text seems to beREPEAT when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. Not in line with act.
ERROR options that may provide you with I am not satisfied the requested from Principles we follow to It Removes the personal. The
1.1(iii) the same outcome at a similar or support meets this criteria. create your plan.pdf LINK. outcome is about the NDIS not the
lower cost participant. “you with” has been omitted.
9.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.2(i)
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria:
removed Effective and beneficial
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been Not in line with act.
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will It Removes the personal. Makes it added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current the participant.
practice” good practice and evidence. Adds another hurdle by saying good
practice and evidence
9.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the REPEAT ERROR 1.2(ii)
beneficial? LINK “This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. The text seems to be from Is
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria.” progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for
someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”
9.6 NDIS Pricing Arrangements REPEAT: Reviewer excluded: REPEAT ERROR 3.4
and Price Limits 2025-26 v1.0 Pricing Arrangements (item 12) “where maximum medical REPEAT ERROR 3.4
REPEAT LINK LINK state therapy supports are improvement has been reached”
ERROR These support items provide intended to facilitate functional
3.4 therapeutic services to improvement and provide “Therapy must be aimed at Seems like the reviewer tried to
participants (9 or older). Therapy maintenance care where the primary adjustment, adaption, and building summarise this part of the pricing
supports are for participants with purpose is to provide ongoing capacity for community arrangements, but left out a lot.
an established disability to support for a participant to maintain a participation.”
facilitate functional improvement, level of functioning. where maximum medical “Including long term therapy/support improvement has been reached. required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent Therapy must be aimed at functional decline.” adjustment, adaption, and building capacity for community participation. Maintenance care can be claimed against a participant’s plan, where the primary purpose is to provide ongoing support for a participant to maintain a level of functioning including long term therapy/support required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent functional decline.
-
PHYSIO 10.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section REPEAT: Act says “alternative”. Decision says REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: “alternate”.
REPEAT Value for money. LINK
ERROR “the support represents value for Reviewer adds ”when compared to Not in line with Act.
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent the benefits to be achieved.”
support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternate support when compared to the benefits to be achieved.”
10.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: This sentence appears to be taken REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing from a list of eight criteria (item 7)
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the Added “for example”
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term” Excluded “for”
funding for other supports in the long term (NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money… (c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
10.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.1(iii)
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative
reviewer does not include this options that may provide the same
text. The text seems to beREPEAT when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. Not in line with act.
from Principles we follow to
ERROR options that may provide you with I am not satisfied the requested create your plan.pdf LINK. It Removes the personal. The
1.1(iii) the same outcome at a similar or support meets this criteria. outcome is about the NDIS not the
“you with” has been omitted. lower cost participant.
10.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.2(i)
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria:
removed Effective and beneficial
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been Not in line with act.
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will It Removes the personal. Makes it added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current the participant.
practice” good practice and evidence. Adds another hurdle by saying good
practice and evidence
10.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the REPEAT ERROR 1.2(ii)
beneficial? LINK “This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. The text seems to be from Is
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria.” progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”
10.6 NDIS Pricing Arrangements REPEAT: Reviewer excluded: REPEAT ERROR 3.4
and Price Limits 2025-26 v1.0 Pricing Arrangements (item 12) “where maximum medical
LINK LINK state therapy supports are improvement has been reached”
REPEAT These support items provide intended to facilitate functional Seems like the reviewer tried to
ERROR therapeutic services to improvement and provide “Therapy must be aimed at summarise this part of the pricing
3.4 participants (9 or older). Therapy maintenance care where the primary adjustment, adaption, and building arrangements, but left out a lot.
supports are for participants with purpose is to provide ongoing capacity for community
an established disability to support for a participant to maintain a participation.”
facilitate functional improvement, level of functioning. where maximum medical “Including long term therapy/support improvement has been reached. required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent Therapy must be aimed at functional decline.” adjustment, adaption, and building capacity for community participation. Maintenance care can be claimed against a participant’s plan, where the primary purpose is to provide ongoing support for a participant to maintain a level of functioning including long term therapy/support required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent functional decline.
10.9 NDIS Pricing Arrangements Referring to Pricing Arrangements Changed “these support items” to Supports that are not “NDIS
LINK (item 12) LINK, Therapy support “therapy support” Supports” LINK:
“These support items cannot be cannot be used for massage, “Wellness and coaching related
used for massage, delivered delivered directly to impact a body - Massage that is not provided
directly to impact a body part or part or body system, as these by an allied health
body system, as these supports supports are more appropriately professional for disability
are more appropriately funded by funded by the health system. related purposes.”
the health system.”
- SPEECH PATHOLOGY
11.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section REPEAT: Act says “alternative”. Decision says REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: “alternate”.
REPEAT Value for money. LINK
ERROR “the support represents value for Reviewer adds ”when compared to Not in line with Act.
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent the benefits to be achieved.”
support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternate support when compared to the benefits to be achieved.”
11.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: This sentence appears to be taken REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing from a list of eight criteria (item 7)
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the Added “for example”
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term” Excluded “for”
funding for other supports in the long term (NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money… (c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
11.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT:
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative REPEAT ERROR 1.1(iii)
reviewer does not include this options that may provide the same
text. The text seems to beREPEAT when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. Not in line with the Act.
ERROR options that may provide you with I am not satisfied the requested from Principles we follow to It removes the personal. The
1.1(iii) the same outcome at a similar or support meets this criteria. create your plan.pdf LINK. outcome is about the NDIS not the
lower cost participant. “you with” has been omitted.
11.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.2(i)
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria:
removed Effective and beneficial
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been Not in line with the Act.
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will It removes the personal. Makes it added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current the participant.
practice” good practice and evidence. Adds another hurdle by saying good
practice and evidence
11.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the REPEAT ERROR 1.2(ii)
beneficial? LINK “This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. Thai text seems to be from
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be Is the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria.” progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for
someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”
11.6 NDIS Pricing Arrangements REPEAT: Reviewer excluded: REPEAT ERROR 3.4
and Price Limits 2025-26 v1.0 Pricing Arrangements (item 12) “where maximum medical
REPEAT LINK LINK state therapy supports are improvement has been reached”
ERROR These support items provide intended to facilitate functional Seems like the review summarised
3.4 therapeutic services to improvement and provide “Therapy must be aimed at this part of the pricing
participants (9 or older). Therapy maintenance care where the primary adjustment, adaption, and building arrangements, but left out a lot.
supports are for participants with purpose is to provide ongoing capacity for community
an established disability to support for a participant to maintain a participation.”
facilitate functional improvement, level of functioning. where maximum medical “Including long term therapy/support improvement has been reached. required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent Therapy must be aimed at functional decline.” adjustment, adaption, and building capacity for community participation. Maintenance care can be claimed against a participant’s plan, where the primary purpose is to provide ongoing support for a participant to maintain a level of functioning including long term therapy/support required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent functional decline.
- PODIATRIST
12.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section REPEAT: Act says “alternative”. Decision says REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: “alternate”.
REPEAT Value for money. LINK
ERROR “the support represents value for Reviewer adds ”when compared to Not in line with Act.
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent the benefits to be achieved.”
support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternate support when compared to the benefits to be achieved.”
12.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: This sentence appears to be taken REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing from a list of eight criteria (item 7)
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the Added “for example”
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term” Excluded “for”
funding for other supports in the long term (NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money… (c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
12.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.1(iii)
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative
reviewer does not include thisREPEAT options that may provide the same
text. Thai text seems to beERROR when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. Not in line with act.
1.1(iii) options that may provide you with I am not satisfied the requested from Principles we follow to It Removes the personal. The
the same outcome at a similar or support meets this criteria. create your plan.pdf LINK. outcome is about the NDIS not the
lower cost participant. “you with” has been omitted.
12.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.2(i)
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria:
removed Effective and beneficial
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been Not in line with act.
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will It Removes the personal. Makes it added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current the participant.
practice” good practice and evidence. Adds another hurdle by saying good
practice and evidence
12.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the REPEAT ERROR 1.2(ii)
beneficial? LINK “This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. Thai text seems to be from
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be Is the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria.” progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for
someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”
12.6 NDIS (Supports for NDIS (Supports for Participants) The link provided does not include (Repeats see 23.3, 14.6)
Participants) Rule 5.1(b) LINK Rule 5.1(b) LINK: Support is not any of what she wrote below the first
(Repeats “A support will not be provided or related to the participant’s disability. sentence. The source of this
see 23.3, funded under the NDIS if: (b) it is information was from NDIS website:
14.6) not related to the participant’s Is the support related to your
disability; or” disability?. The reviewer has changed the wording as well: Is the support related to your The NDIS can’t fund a support if it’s
disability? LINK not related to the participant’s ● Reviewer changed “we’ll only” to
we’ll only fund a support if it disability. There must be a direct link “the NDIS can’t”
relates to your disability. This or a connection between the ● Reviewer added “it’s not”
means there must be a direct link disability and the supports funded. ● Reviewer changed “your” to
between your disability support “the participant’s”
needs and the NDIS supports we We look at whether the support ● Reviewer added “or a connection”
fund. addresses disability support needs. ● Reviewer changed “your” to
This support is not related to the “the”
We consider if the support participant’s disability and cannot be ● Reviewer changed “NDIS
addresses your disability support funded by the NDIS. supports we fund” to “supports
needs. funded” ● ● Reviewer changed “consider if” to “look at whether” ● Reviewer omitted “your”
-
ORTHOTIST/ NECK BRACE 13.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section REPEAT: Act says “alternative”. Decision says REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: “alternate”.
REPEAT Value for money. LINK
ERROR “the support represents value for Reviewer adds ”when compared to Not in line with Act.
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent the benefits to be achieved.”
support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of
to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternate support when compared to the benefits to be achieved.”
13.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: This sentence appears to be taken REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing from a list of eight criteria (item 7)
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the Added “for example”
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term” Excluded “for”
funding for other supports in the long term (NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money… (c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
13.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.1(iii)
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative
reviewer does not include this options that may provide the same
text. Thai text seems to beREPEAT when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. Not in line with act.
ERROR options that may provide you with I am not satisfied the requested from Principles we follow to It Removes the personal. The
1.1(iii) the same outcome at a similar or support meets this criteria. create your plan.pdf LINK. outcome is about the NDIS not the
lower cost participant. “you with” has been omitted.
13.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: ERROR 1.2(i)
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria:
removed Effective and beneficial Not in line with act.
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been It Removes the personal. Makes it
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and the participant.
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current Adds another hurdle by saying good
practice” good practice and evidence. practice and evidence
13.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the REPEAT ERROR 1.2(ii)
beneficial? LINK “This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. The text seems to be from Is
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria.” progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”
13.6 NDIS Pricing Arrangements REPEAT: Reviewer excluded: REPEAT ERROR 3.4
and Price Limits 2025-26 v1.0 Pricing Arrangements (item 12) “where maximum medical
REPEAT LINK LINK state therapy supports are improvement has been reached” Seems like the reviewer tried to
ERROR These support items provide intended to facilitate functional summarise this part of the pricing
3.4 therapeutic services to improvement and provide “Therapy must be aimed at arrangements, but left out a lot.
participants (9 or older). Therapy maintenance care where the primary adjustment, adaption, and building
supports are for participants with purpose is to provide ongoing capacity for community
an established disability to support for a participant to maintain a participation.”
facilitate functional improvement, level of functioning. where maximum medical “Including long term therapy/support improvement has been reached. required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent Therapy must be aimed at functional decline.” adjustment, adaption, and building capacity for community participation. Maintenance care can be claimed against a participant’s plan, where the primary purpose is to provide ongoing support for a participant to maintain a level of functioning including long term therapy/support required to achieve small incremental gains or to prevent functional decline.
13.8 Supports that are not NDIS Referring to What does NDIS Added “including pain management” Item 7 does not state anything
supports (Item 7) LINK fund? (item 7) LINK the NDIS does about NDIS not supporting Pain
not fund time-limited, Management. “Time-limited, recovery-oriented recovery-oriented services and
services and therapies: therapies where the predominant Chronic pain is seen as a disability
where the predominant purpose is purpose is treatment directly related that can be funded by NDIS if its
treatment directly related to the to the person’s health status, permanently disabling and all
person’s health status, or including pain management. This medical avenues have been
provided after a recent medical or support is more appropriately explored:
surgical event, with the aim of provided by Mainstream and
improving the person’s functional community support (item 13). LINK There was a tribunal that found
status, including post-acute chronic pain is a disability LINK
rehabilitation or post-acute care.” “In this instance, chronic pain conditions were determined to be a disability for the purposes of the NDIS. However, in this case, on the basis that there are suitable treatment options (which are most appropriately provided by the public health system) that had not been fully explored, the AAT decided not to overturn the original decision because JM’s disability was not considered permanent.”
Another tribunal case LINK “Given the findings of permanency, being a severe disability and that the Applicant suffers constant and disabling pain, together with the fact that there are supports that the Applicant will require which cannot be provided by the healthcare system or commonly used items as contended by the Respondent, the Tribunal finds that on the preponderance of evidence the Applicant is likely to require support under the NDIS for her lifetime within the meaning of section 24 (1) (e).”
Additionally Supports that are not “NDIS Supports” LINK: “Equipment or assistive products prescribed or issued as a result of
clinical care, treatment or management from a medical practitioner and then delivered in the clinical setting, unrelated to the person’s disability. For example, a knee brace issued following an acute knee ligament injury after sport or gardening accident.”
-
DIETICIAN 14.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section REPEAT: Act says “alternative”. Decision says REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: “alternate”.
REPEAT Value for money. LINK Not in line with Act.
ERROR “the support represents value for Reviewer adds ”when compared to
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent the benefits to be achieved.”
support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternate support when compared to the benefits to be achieved.”
14.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: This sentence appears to be taken REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing from a list of eight criteria (item 7)
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the Added “for example”
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term” Excluded “for”
funding for other supports in the long term (NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money…
(c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
14.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.1(iii)
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative
reviewer does not include this options that may provide the same
text. The text seems to beREPEAT when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. Not in line with act.
ERROR options that may provide you with I am not satisfied the requested from Principles we follow to It Removes the personal. The
1.1(iii) the same outcome at a similar or support meets this criteria. create your plan.pdf LINK. outcome is about the NDIS not the
lower cost participant. “you with” has been omitted.
14.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.2(i)
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria:
removed Effective and beneficial Not in line with act.
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been It Removes the personal. Makes it
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and the participant.
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current Adds another hurdle by saying good
practice” good practice and evidence. practice and evidence
14.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the ERROR 1.2(ii)
beneficial? LINK “This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. The text seems to be from Is
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria.” progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”
14.6 NDIS (Supports for REPEAT: The link provided does not include REPEAT ERROR
Participants) Rule 5.1(b) LINK NDIS (Supports for Participants) any of what she wrote below the first 12.6
REPEAT “A support will not be provided or Rule 5.1(b) LINK: Support is not sentence. The source of this
ERROR funded under the NDIS if: (b) it is related to the participant’s disability. information was from NDIS website:
12.6 not related to the participant’s Is the support related to your
disability; or” disability?. The reviewer has changed the wording as well: Is the support related to your
disability? LINK The NDIS can’t fund a support if it’s ● Reviewer changed “we’ll only” to
we’ll only fund a support if it not related to the participant’s “the NDIS can’t”
relates to your disability. This disability. There must be a direct link ● Reviewer added “it’s not”
means there must be a direct link or a connection between the ● Reviewer changed “your” to
between your disability support disability and the supports funded. “the participant’s”
needs and the NDIS supports we ● Reviewer added “or a connection”
fund. We look at whether the support ● Reviewer changed “your” to
addresses disability support needs. “the”
We consider if the support This support is not related to the ● Reviewer changed “NDIS
addresses your disability support participant’s disability and cannot be supports we fund” to “supports
needs. funded by the NDIS. funded”
●
● Reviewer changed “consider if” to “look at whether” ● Reviewer omitted “your”
-
NECK BRACE/ COLLAR 15.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section REPEAT: Act says “alternative”. Decision says REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: “alternate”.
REPEAT Value for money. LINK Not in line with Act.
ERROR “the support represents value for Reviewer adds ”when compared to
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent the benefits to be achieved.”
support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternate support when compared to the benefits to be achieved.”
15.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: This sentence appears to be taken REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing from a list of eight criteria (item 7)
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the Added “for example”
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term” Excluded “for”
funding for other supports in the long term (NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money… (c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may
be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
15.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.1(iii)
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative
reviewer does not include this options that may provide the same Not in line with act.
text. The text seems to beREPEAT when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. It Removes the personal. The
ERROR options that may provide you with I am not satisfied the requested from Principles we follow to outcome is about the NDIS not the
1.1(iii) the same outcome at a similar or support meets this criteria. create your plan.pdf LINK. participant.
lower cost “you with” has been omitted.
15.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.2(i)
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria:
removed Effective and beneficial Not in line with act.
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been It Removes the personal. Makes it
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and the participant.
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current Adds another hurdle by saying good
practice” good practice and evidence. practice and evidence
15.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the REPEAT ERROR 1.2(ii)
beneficial? LINK “This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. The text seems to be from Is
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria.” progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”
15.3 Assistive Technology (item 17) REPEAT: The LINK provided by the reviewer REPEAT ERROR 1.3
LINK Assistive Technology (item 17) does not include the highlighted part
REPEAT “When we talk about assistive LINK means equipment, technology of the sentence. Seems to be This is where the new line is to
ERROR technology, we mean equipment, and devices that help you do things added? make approving the support be
1.3 technology and devices that help you can’t do because of your contingent on it reducing funding
you do things you can’t do disability, assist you to increase your needs in another area. So budget
because of your disability. Or independence and reduce your need stays the same. Another hurdle.
things that help you do something for formal supports. Another breach of the Act?
more easily or safely.” new hurdle is that approval contingent on it reducing another support cost.
- DRAWERS 16.1 NDIS (Supports for REPEAT: Reviewer changed “for example” to
Participants) Rule 5.1(d) LINK NDIS (Supports for Participants) “such as” REPEAT ERROR 7.3
REPEAT Rule 5.1(d) LINK: Support relates Reviewer changed “fees” to “bills”
ERROR “it relates to day-to-day living to day-to-day living costs. This Is not in line with the act.
7.3 costs (for example, rent, groceries Reviewer changed “attributable to” Misquoting what the act says.
and utility fees) that are not The NDIS is unable to provide a to “directly related or caused by”
attributable to a participant’s support that relates to a day-to-day disability support needs” living cost such as rent, groceries or utility bills that are not directly related or caused by a participant’s disability support needs. This support is a day to day living cost and cannot be funded by the NDIS.
16.4 Assistive Technology (item 17) REPEAT: The link provided by the reviewer REPEAT ERROR 1.3
LINK Assistive Technology (item 17) does not include the highlighted part
REPEAT “When we talk about assistive LINK means equipment, technology of the sentence. Seems to be
ERROR technology, we mean equipment, and devices that help you do things added?
1.3 technology and devices that help you can’t do because of your
you do things you can’t do disability, assist you to increase your because of your disability. Or independence and reduce your need things that help you do something for formal supports. more easily or safely.”
16.5 Supports that are not “NDIS What does NDIS fund? (item 7) GP and Neurologist Recommended (Repeats 19.7)
Supports” LINK: LINK the NDIS does not fund Organizing Drawers on Wheels
(Repeats “Standard furniture, fixtures or standard furniture. NDIS Act Section LINK. DOES NOT MENTION “organising”
19.7) fittings. For example, lounges, 10 criteria LINK (Chapter 1): outlines This type of item is not mentioned in DRAWERS on standard furniture list
beds, fire alarms, blinds.” supports, services and items which the examples of standard furniture. or recliners
can and cannot be purchased using NDIS funds. It’s the mobile which is important.
-
RECLINER CHAIR 17.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section REPEAT: Act says “alternative”. Decision says REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: “alternate”.
REPEAT Value for money. LINK Not in line with Act.
ERROR “the support represents value for Reviewer adds ”when compared to
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent the benefits to be achieved.”
support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternate support when compared to the benefits to be achieved.”
17.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: This sentence appears to be taken REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing from a list of eight criteria (item 7)
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the Added “for example”
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term” Excluded “for”
funding for other supports in the long term (NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money… (c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
17.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.1(iii)
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative
reviewer does not include this options that may provide the same Not in line with act.
text. The text seems to be
REPEAT when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. from Principles we follow to It Removes the personal. The
ERROR options that may provide you with I am not satisfied the requested create your plan.pdf LINK. outcome is about the NDIS not the
1.1(iii) the same outcome at a similar or support meets this criteria. participant.
“you with” has been omitted. lower cost
17.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.2(i)
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria:
removed Effective and beneficial Not in line with act.
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been It Removes the personal. Makes it
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and the participant.
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current Adds another hurdle by saying good
practice” good practice and evidence. practice and evidence
17.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the REPEAT ERROR 1.2(ii)
beneficial? LINK “This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. The text seems to be from Is
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria.” progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”
17.6 Assistive Technology (item 17) REPEAT: The link provided by the reviewer
LINK Assistive Technology (item 17) does not include the highlighted part REPEAT ERROR 1.3
REPEAT “When we talk about assistive LINK means equipment, technology of the sentence. Seems to be
ERROR technology, we mean equipment, and devices that help you do things added?
1.3 technology and devices that help you can’t do because of your
you do things you can’t do disability, assist you to increase your because of your disability. Or independence and reduce your need things that help you do something for formal supports. more easily or safely.”
17.6 Recliners and lift chairs LINK: “To determine if a Recliner chair is an Reviewer summarises information <Takes out examples, and removes
“To work out whether an electric NDIS support for you we require about the evidence needed for a connections to the participant
lift chair is an NDIS support for evidence that assists us to recliner chair into just:
Brenda, we look at the determine if the recliner chair will be “We require evidence”
information she gives us against effective and beneficial in meeting
the NDIS funding criteria. She your needs in the long term, can be Reviewer “summarised” some of the
would have to show written used safely by yourself and whether websites criteria and added “in
evidence that she needs the lower cost options have been meeting your needs in the long term”
furniture because of her disability explored that could assist you to
support needs. This could be a achieve the same or similar Reviewer changed meaning from
report, letter or email from a outcomes.” “[lower lost options] would not be < Reviewer trying to imply that lower
registered therapist. adequate in meeting Brenda’s lost options must show that they
disability support needs” don’t achieve the same OR
It would need to show us the lift To: SIMILAR outcomes, whereas, the
chair: “[lower cost options] that could website does not imply similar
- is needed as a result of assist you to achieve the same or outcomes must be met, it implies
Brenda’s disability support similar outcomes.” that lower cost options must show
needs they do not meet the participant’s
- can be properly installed disability support needs.
and safely operated by Brenda Trying to change the meaning of
- will be effective and what lower cost options can and
beneficial in increasing her cannot be considered? Almost independence when adding an element of discretion by moving between sitting saying “same or similar outcomes”…
and standing. who decides whether it’s similar It also needs to show the lift chair enough? What about meeting is value for money. This may needs? include giving us evidence from a therapist or clinician that shows either: - a comparable support, such as a more standard chair, would not be adequate in meeting Brenda’s disability support needs - the lift chair would likely reduce the long-term cost of other supports, for example home care support hours.”
-
WHITEBOARD 18.2 NDIS (Supports for REPEAT: Reviewer changed “for example” to
Participants) Rule 5.1(d) LINK NDIS (Supports for Participants) “such as” REPEAT ERROR 7.3
REPEAT Rule 5.1(d) LINK: Support relates Reviewer changed “fees” to “bills”
ERROR “it relates to day-to-day living to day-to-day living costs. is not in line with the act.
7.3 costs (for example, rent, groceries Reviewer changed “attributable to” Misquoting what the act says.
and utility fees) that are not The NDIS is unable to provide a to “directly related or caused by”
attributable to a participant’s support that relates to a day-to-day disability support needs” living cost such as rent, groceries or utility bills that are not directly related or caused by a participant’s disability support needs. This support is a day to day living cost and cannot be funded by the NDIS.
18.5 Assistive Technology (item 17) REPEAT: The link provided by the reviewer
LINK Assistive Technology (item 17) does not include the highlighted part REPEAT ERROR 1.3
REPEAT “When we talk about assistive LINK means equipment, technology of the sentence. Seems to be
ERROR technology, we mean equipment, and devices that help you do things added?
1.3 technology and devices that help you can’t do because of your
you do things you can’t do disability, assist you to increase your because of your disability. Or independence and reduce your need things that help you do something for formal supports. more easily or safely.”
18.6 Supports that are not “NDIS What does NDIS fund? (item 7) A Whiteboard is not a standard The Reviewer does not explain
Supports” LINK: Household Item. how it was determined a LINK
“Standard household (including whiteboard is included as a
“The NDIS does not fund standard garden) items, appliances, tools It's not explicitly stated on the list. household item when it is directly
and products. For example, a household items. NDIS Act Section linked to a disability, it is not
dishwasher, fridge, washing 10 criteria: outlines supports, Nothing on the example list is similar included or implied in the list or
machine, non-modified kitchen services and items which can and to a whiteboard. examples. The Reviewer does not
utensils and crockery, food cannot be purchased using NDIS explain why the stated direct
processors, electric toothbrushes, funds.” relationship to the disability is
floor rugs, beanbags, standard not relevant. mattresses, and bedding.” “Whiteboard for music composition - use of a whiteboard with post it notes and magnets has already been effective in assisting Catherine to organise her thoughts and support her information processing and memory when composing the opera. When Catherine starts composing the music notation, a mobile whiteboard with music staves would assist her memory, information processing and allow
her to use a range of postures”.
18.7 Examples of employment …The evidence available reports you The link provided by the Reviewer (Repeats see 22.7, 21.7, 20.7, 19.8)
supports that are not NDIS does not contain the wording stated. utilise a whiteboard to develop the
(Repeats supports LINK opera. As per What does NDIS
see 22.7, Work specific aids and equipment The link that the reviewer provided This was the basis for refusal to
fund? (item 7) LINK, the NDIS does21.7, you need for your disability to does not include “work specific aids fund multiple supports related to
not fund work-specific aids and20.7, perform your work tasks, and equipment” or mentions of a Catherine’s ongoing goal of
19.8) including modified hardware and equipment required to perform a job. “job”. composing an opera.
software This is the responsibility of
Mainstream and Community The wording provided by the They have not considered the OT
supports to provide (item 13) LINK. Reviewer is not contained in the link report:
provided by the Reviewer. “Catherine is not currently able to This wording only appears and only work due to her impairments but is in part in Examples of employment highly motivated to continue to supports that are not NDIS perform and compose music where supports LINK which information possible.” the reviewer did not provide There is nowhere that the evidence Notwithstanding this, the Reviewer states Catherine is doing a job. changed the end of the sentence in that section and added required to This appears to be a sleight of hand perform a job. - an excuse to refuse.
They do not define “job” anywhere.
-
SIT/ STAND DESK 19.6 Assistive Technology (item 17) REPEAT: The link provided by the reviewer
LINK Assistive Technology (item 17) does not include the highlighted part REPEAT ERROR 1.3
REPEAT “When we talk about assistive LINK means equipment, technology of the sentence. Seems to be
ERROR technology, we mean equipment, and devices that help you do things added?
1.3 technology and devices that help you can’t do because of your
you do things you can’t do disability, assist you to increase your
because of your disability. Or independence and reduce your need things that help you do something for formal supports. more easily or safely.”
19.7 Supports that are not “NDIS REPEAT: OT Recommended Small height REPEAT ERROR 16.5
Supports” LINK: What does NDIS fund? (item 7) adjustable mobile desk for laptop
REPEAT “Standard furniture, fixtures or LINK the NDIS does not fund when using the desktop magnifier
ERROR fittings. For example, lounges, standard furniture. NDIS Act Section LINK.
16.5 beds, fire alarms, blinds.” 10 criteria LINK (Chapter 1): outlines This type of item is not mentioned in
supports, services and items which the examples of standard furniture. can and cannot be purchased using NDIS funds.
19.8 Examples of employment REPEAT: Could not find words in reviewers REPEAT ERROR 18.7
supports that are not NDIS …The evidence available reports given link, found words in Examples
REPEAT supports LINK of employment supports that are you utilise a height adjustable desk
ERROR Work specific aids and equipment not NDIS supports LINK whilst working on your opera. As per
18.7 you need for your disability to
What does NDIS fund? (item 7) perform your work tasks, Reviewer changed the end of the
LINK, the NDIS does not fund including modified hardware and sentence
software work-specific aids and equipment required to perform a job. This is the responsibility of Mainstream and Community supports to provide (item
- LINK.
-
ROLLER PENS 20.5 Assistive Technology (item 17) REPEAT: The link provided by the reviewer
LINK Assistive Technology (item 17) does not include the highlighted part REPEAT ERROR 1.3
REPEAT “When we talk about assistive LINK means equipment, technology of the sentence. Seems to be
ERROR technology, we mean equipment, and devices that help you do things added?
1.3 technology and devices that help you can’t do because of your
you do things you can’t do disability, assist you to increase your because of your disability. Or independence and reduce your need
things that help you do something for formal supports. more easily or safely.”
20.7 Examples of employment REPEAT: Could not find words in reviewers REPEAR ERROR 18.7
supports that are not NDIS …The evidence available reports given link, found words in Examples
REPEAR supports LINK of employment supports that are you utilise roller pens* to develop the
ERROR Work specific aids and equipment not NDIS supports LINK opera. As per What does NDIS
18.7 you need for your disability to
fund? (item 7) LINK, the NDIS does perform your work tasks, *All words are the same as 18.5,
not fund work-specific aids and including modified hardware and except for “height adjustable desk”
software equipment required to perform a job. being changed to “roller pens”
This is the responsibility of Mainstream and Community Reviewer changed the end of the supports to provide (item 13) LINK. sentence
-
STICKY NOTES 21.5 Assistive Technology (item 17) REPEAT: The link provided by the reviewer REPEAT ERROR 1.3
LINK Assistive Technology (item 17) does not include the highlighted part
REPEAT “When we talk about assistive LINK means equipment, technology of the sentence. Seems to be
ERROR technology, we mean equipment, and devices that help you do things added?
1.3 technology and devices that help you can’t do because of your
you do things you can’t do disability, assist you to increase your because of your disability. Or independence and reduce your need things that help you do something for formal supports. more easily or safely.”
21.7 Examples of employment REPEAT: Could not find words in reviewers REPEAT ERROR 18.7
supports that are not NDIS …The evidence available reports given link, found words in Examples
REPEAT supports LINK of employment supports that are you utilise sticky notes* to develop
ERROR Work specific aids and equipment not NDIS supports LINK the opera. As per What does NDIS
18.7 you need for your disability to
fund? (item 7) LINK, the NDIS does perform your work tasks, *All words are the same as 18.5,
not fund work-specific aids and including modified hardware and except for “height adjustable desk”
software equipment required to perform a job. being changed to “sticky notes”
This is the responsibility of
Mainstream and Community Reviewer changed the end of the supports to provide (item 13) LINK. sentence
-
MAGNETS 22.5 Assistive Technology (item 17) REPEAT: The link provided by the reviewer
LINK Assistive Technology (item 17) does not include the highlighted part REPEAT ERROR 1.3
REPEAT “When we talk about assistive LINK means equipment, technology of the sentence. Seems to be
ERROR technology, we mean equipment, and devices that help you do things added?
1.3 technology and devices that help you can’t do because of your
you do things you can’t do disability, assist you to increase your because of your disability. Or independence and reduce your need things that help you do something for formal supports. more easily or safely.”
22.7 Examples of employment REPEAT: Could not find words in reviewers REPEAT ERROR 18.7
supports that are not NDIS …The evidence available reports given link, found words in Examples
REPEAT supports LINK of employment supports that are you utilise magnets* to develop the
ERROR Work specific aids and equipment not NDIS supports LINK opera. As per What does NDIS
18.7 you need for your disability to
fund? (item 7) LINK, the NDIS does perform your work tasks, *All words are the same as 18.5,
not fund work-specific aids and including modified hardware and except for “height adjustable desk”
software equipment required to perform a job. being changed to “magnets”
This is the responsibility of Mainstream and Community Reviewer changed the end of the supports to provide (item 13) LINK. sentence
-
AIRPODS 23.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section REPEAT: Act says “alternative”. Decision says REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: “alternate”.
REPEAT Value for money. LINK
ERROR “the support represents value for Reviewer adds ”when compared to Not in line with Act.
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent the benefits to be achieved.”
support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of
to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternate support when compared to the benefits to be achieved.”
23.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: This sentence appears to be taken REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing from a list of eight criteria (item 7)
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the Added “for example”
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term” Excluded “for”
funding for other supports in the long term (NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money… (c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
23.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.1(iii)
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative
reviewer does not include this options that may provide the same
text. The text seems to beREPEAT when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. Not in line with act.
ERROR options that may provide you with I am not satisfied the requested from Principles we follow to It Removes the personal. The
1.1(iii) the same outcome at a similar or support meets this criteria. create your plan.pdf LINK. outcome is about the NDIS not the
lower cost participant. “you with” has been omitted.
23.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: REPEAT ERROR 1.2(i)
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria:
removed Effective and beneficial
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been Not in line with act.
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will It Removes the personal. Makes it added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current the participant.
practice” good practice and evidence. Adds another hurdle by saying good
practice and evidence
23.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the REPEAT ERROR 1.2(ii)
beneficial? LINK “This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. The text seems to be from Is
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria.” progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”
23.3 NDIS (Supports for REPEAT: The link provided does not include REPEAT ERROR
Participants) Rule 5.1(b) LINK NDIS (Supports for Participants) any of what she wrote below the first 12.6
REPEAT “A support will not be provided or Rule 5.1(b) LINK: Support is not sentence. The source of this
ERROR funded under the NDIS if: (b) it is related to the participant’s disability. information was from NDIS website:
12.6 not related to the participant’s Is the support related to your
disability; or” disability?. The reviewer has changed the wording as well: Is the support related to your
disability? LINK The NDIS can’t fund a support if it’s ● Reviewer changed “we’ll only” to
we’ll only fund a support if it not related to the participant’s “the NDIS can’t”
relates to your disability. This disability. There must be a direct link ● Reviewer added “it’s not”
means there must be a direct link or a connection between the ● Reviewer changed “your” to
between your disability support disability and the supports funded. “the participant’s”
needs and the NDIS supports we ● Reviewer added “or a connection”
fund. We look at whether the support ● Reviewer changed “your” to
addresses disability support needs. “the”
We consider if the support This support is not related to the ● Reviewer changed “NDIS
addresses your disability support participant’s disability and cannot be supports we fund” to “supports
needs. funded by the NDIS. funded”
● ● Reviewer changed “consider if” to “look at whether” ● Reviewer omitted “your”
23.7 Assistive Technology (item 17) REPEAT: The link provided by the reviewer REPEAT ERROR 1.3
LINK Assistive Technology (item 17) does not include the highlighted part
REPEAT “When we talk about assistive LINK means equipment, technology of the sentence. Seems to be
ERROR technology, we mean equipment, and devices that help you do things added?
1.3 technology and devices that help you can’t do because of your
you do things you can’t do disability, assist you to increase your because of your disability. Or independence and reduce your need things that help you do something for formal supports. more easily or safely.”
-
SPECIALIST SUPPORT COORDINATION 24.1(i) Actual NDIS Act Section REPEAT: Act says “alternative”. Decision says REPEAT ERROR 1.1(i)
34(1)(c) LINK “NDIS Act Section 34(1)(c) criteria: “alternate”.
REPEAT Value for money. LINK Not in line with Act.
ERROR “the support represents value for Reviewer adds ”when compared to
1.1(i) money in that the costs of the NDIS supports need to represent the benefits to be achieved.”
support are reasonable, relative value for money in that the costs of to both the benefits achieved and the support are reasonable relative the cost of alternative support;” to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternate support when compared to the benefits to be achieved.”
24.1(ii) What does NDIS fund? Item 7 REPEAT: This sentence appears to be taken REPEAT ERROR 1.1(ii)
LINK: “For example, whether purchasing from a list of eight criteria (item 7)
REPEAT the support is likely to reduce the
ERROR “purchasing the support is cost of funding other supports in the Added “for example”
1.1(ii) likely to reduce the costs of long term” Excluded “for”
funding for other supports in the long term (NDIS Supports for Participants Rule 3.1(c)).” LINK:
“Value for money… (c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);”
24.1(iii) OG - Principles we follow to REPEAT: Not in line with act.
The LINK provided by the create your plan.pdf LINK and when compared to alternative It Removes the personal. The
reviewer does not include this options that may provide the same outcome is about the NDIS not the
text. The text seems to beREPEAT when compared to alternative outcome at a similar or lower cost. participant.
from Principles we follow to
ERROR options that may provide you with I am not satisfied the requested create your plan.pdf LINK.
1.1(iii) the same outcome at a similar or support meets this criteria.
“you with” has been omitted. lower cost
24.2(i) Act NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) REPEAT: Not in line with act.
“For the participant” has been LINK: NDIS Act Section 34(1)(d) criteria: It Removes the personal. Makes it
removed Effective and beneficial out to be beneficial for the NDIS, not
REPEAT “(d) the support will be, or is “and evidence” has been the participant.
ERROR likely to be, effective and To meet this criteria the support will Adds another hurdle by saying good added.
1.2(i) beneficial for the participant, be, or is likely to be effective and practice and evidence
having regard to current good beneficial, having regard to current practice” good practice and evidence.
24.2(ii) Is the support effective and REPEAT: The LINK provided by the
beneficial? LINK “This means we consider if there is reviewer does not include this
REPEAT “When we decide if a support is sufficient evidence to demonstrate text. The text seems to be from Is
ERROR effective and beneficial, we look the requested support is likely to be the support effective and
1.2(ii) at what is current good practice. effective and beneficial for someone beneficial? LINK.
with similar disability support needs They change “we look at” to “we
This means we look at if there is and assist in progressing towards consider”
evidence that the support works NDIS goals.
for someone with similar disability I am not satisfied this support meets They add “Sufficient”
support needs and assist in this criteria.” progressing towards NDIS goals” They add “to demonstrate the requested” support
They change “support works for someone” to “is likely to be effective and beneficial for someone”