Submission 796
Care Plus Management Submission
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by: Care Plus Management Pty Ltd
Executive Summary
The proposed panel arrangements for Plan Management providers represent a significant shift in the way the NDIS marketplace operates. Whilst presented as a measure to improve sustainability and market stewardship, the proposal risks creating unintended consequences that may undermine participant choice, accelerate market concentration and weaken some of the informal safeguards that have evolved within the Scheme over the past decade.
Care Plus Management supports efforts to strengthen the sustainability and integrity of the NDIS. However, sustainability should not be assessed solely through administrative efficiency. The long-term success of the Scheme depends equally on the strength, diversity and responsiveness of the markets that support participants.
This submission argues that the proposed panel arrangements risk altering the participant-directed market architecture that has underpinned the NDIS since its inception. In doing so, they may accelerate consolidation within the Plan Management market, reduce competition and increase the concentration of market power within a smaller number of organisations. Over time, this may also contribute to increased economic leakage from local communities and reduce the diversity of providers available to participants.
Most importantly, these changes may ultimately affect participants themselves. The current marketplace has evolved in ways that extend far beyond simple invoice processing. Plan Managers increasingly perform informal safeguarding, education and integrity functions that contribute to participant outcomes and Scheme sustainability. Any reform that alters market dynamics should carefully consider these broader consequences.
About Care Plus Management
Care Plus Management is a registered NDIS Plan Management provider supporting participants throughout Tasmania and across Australia.
The organisation was established through lived experience. Like many families, we entered the disability community following the diagnosis of our son with a significant disability and experienced first-hand the challenges of navigating healthcare systems, education systems, disability services and the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
That experience provided an appreciation of how important trusted support networks are to families navigating complex systems. It also highlighted the gap that often exists between policy design and the realities experienced by participants and carers.
Today, Care Plus Management supports participants across a broad range of disabilities, ages and circumstances. Through this work we engage daily with participants, providers, support coordinators and the NDIA, providing a practical perspective on how policy decisions influence participant outcomes and market behaviour.
Submission 796
Care Plus Management Submission
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by: Care Plus Management Pty Ltd
The Proposed Panel Arrangements Represent a Fundamental Shift in the NDIS Market Architecture
The proposed panel arrangements raise a much broader question than simply how Plan Management services should be commissioned. At their core, they raise questions about the future direction of the NDIS marketplace itself.
The Scheme was intentionally designed to place participants at the centre of market decision-making. This was not an incidental feature of the NDIS; it was one of its defining reforms. For decades disability services had largely operated through systems in which governments determined which organisations would deliver supports and participants exercised limited influence over those decisions. The NDIS sought to reverse that dynamic by creating a participant-directed marketplace in which providers succeeded because participants chose them.
Over the past decade that marketplace has matured. It has not developed perfectly and there remain legitimate challenges regarding sustainability, consistency and market stewardship. However, the diversity that has emerged within the sector should not be viewed as a flaw requiring correction. It is evidence that participants have exercised the very choice and control the Scheme was designed to provide.
The proposed panel arrangements risk altering that balance. Whilst participants may retain a degree of choice, market outcomes will inevitably become influenced by procurement decisions made outside the participant provider relationship. Over time, organisations best positioned to navigate procurement frameworks, tender processes and administrative requirements are likely to gain increasing market share.
The concern is not that larger providers are incapable of delivering quality services. Many large providers play an important role within the sector. The concern is that procurement success and participant value are not necessarily the same thing.
The characteristics that enable an organisation to succeed in a procurement process are often very different from the characteristics that cause participants to place their trust in a provider. Procurement frameworks tend to reward scale, standardisation and administrative capability. Participants tend to value responsiveness, continuity, accessibility and relationships.
The question therefore is not whether panel arrangements can create administrative efficiencies. The question is whether those efficiencies justify a shift away from the participant-directed market philosophy upon which the Scheme was built.
Market Concentration, Competition and Economic Consequences
One of the most likely consequences of panel-based arrangements is accelerated market concentration.
This is not unique to disability services. Across many sectors, procurement frameworks naturally favour organisations with greater administrative capacity, procurement expertise and economies of scale. Over time, this tends to concentrate market share within a smaller number of organisations.
The disability sector is already experiencing this trend.
Submission 796
Care Plus Management Submission
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by: Care Plus Management Pty Ltd
Over recent years, a growing number of independent providers have been acquired by larger organisations. Many of these acquisitions have involved interstate entities, investment-backed organisations and, in some cases, businesses with overseas ownership interests.
Again, the issue is not foreign ownership itself. The issue is market concentration.
As ownership becomes increasingly concentrated, competition reduces, diversity diminishes and market resilience can weaken. Smaller providers that once offered participants genuine alternatives gradually disappear. Innovation becomes more difficult. Service models become increasingly standardised. Participant choice narrows.
There is also a broader economic consideration that warrants attention.
The NDIS represents one of the largest social investments undertaken by the Commonwealth. When participants engage local providers, Scheme funding circulates throughout local communities. It supports local employment, local businesses and regional economies.
As ownership becomes increasingly concentrated, a greater proportion of Scheme funding is extracted from local communities and, in some cases, from Australia itself. This represents economic leakage from a Scheme intended to improve the lives of Australians with disability whilst simultaneously supporting a substantial Australian workforce.
Market stewardship should not be concerned solely with reducing the number of providers operating within a market. It should also be concerned with preserving diversity, encouraging competition and ensuring that public investment continues to generate broad social and economic value.
Participants Ultimately Bear the Consequences
The discussion surrounding panel arrangements is often framed as an administrative or procurement issue. In practice, the consequences are experienced by participants.
One of the assumptions underpinning the proposal appears to be that Plan Management is primarily an administrative function. Whilst invoice processing remains an important component of the role, this no longer reflects the reality of how Plan Management operates within the Scheme.
Over time, Plan Managers have evolved into one of the NDIS’s most significant informal safeguarding mechanisms.
By virtue of their position within the Scheme, Plan Managers frequently identify issues before they escalate into complaints, compliance matters or participant crises. They observe spending patterns, identify billing anomalies, detect pricing errors and help participants navigate increasingly complex funding arrangements.
Much of this work is invisible because successful intervention prevents problems from escalating.
Submission 796
Care Plus Management Submission
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by: Care Plus Management Pty Ltd
Participants rarely see the duplicate invoice that was identified before payment. The NDIA rarely sees the pricing breach that was corrected before a claim was processed. Yet these interventions occur every day across the Scheme.
Importantly, they occur because relationships exist.
Participants often contact their Plan Manager before contacting the NDIA because trust has been established over time. Concerns are raised early. Questions are asked. Problems are addressed before they become larger issues.
These functions have evolved organically within the existing market. They were not created through legislation or procurement frameworks. They emerged because participants exercised choice and built relationships with providers they trusted.
Any reform that significantly alters market dynamics should carefully consider whether those benefits are being preserved.
Conclusion
The question before the Committee is not whether the NDIS requires strong market stewardship. It does.
The question is whether the proposed panel arrangements represent the most effective way to achieve that objective.
The NDIS was designed as a participant-directed marketplace. That design has produced challenges, but it has also produced diversity, innovation, competition and choice.
The proposed arrangements risk shifting the balance of influence away from participants and towards procurement processes. In doing so, they may accelerate market concentration, reduce diversity and weaken some of the participant protections that have developed within the current marketplace.
The long-term sustainability of the NDIS will depend not only on financial controls but also on the strength and resilience of the markets that support participants. Reforms should therefore be assessed not only by their administrative efficiency, but by their impact on participant outcomes, market diversity and the principles of choice and control that underpin the Scheme.
I appreciate your consideration, and hope that this submission is both read and understood.
Kind regards