Further Erosion of Choice and Control: The Risks Behind NDIS Funding Period Changes

The NDIS idea of "choice"

By Kate Hoad - Director/OT of 18 years

And the NDIS are at it again, folks.

As of this coming Monday 19 May 2025, the way participants receive their NDIS funding is changing — again. For all NEW plans, and reassments (so not current plans/rollovers, as these are sitting within the old system still), there will be the implementation of funding “periods” (typically quarterly, sometimes monthly). With this change, participants will no longer have access to their full plan budget upfront, and instead, funds will be released in instalments across the life of their plan.

Feature	Current Model (Before 19 May 2025)	New Model (From 19 May 2025)
Funding release	Entire plan budget available upfront	Funding released in smaller chunks (periods)
Standard period type	N/A – full access from start	Quarterly (every 3 months)
Home & Living supports	Full category budget available upfront	Monthly release (12 periods/year)
Assistive technology / Home mods	Full amount available once approved	Still released as whole item (no change)
Flexibility across plan	Participant can manage funds as needed across the whole plan (within rules)	Can only use what’s available in current period + any rolled-over funds
Leftover funds	Available any time during plan	Roll over to the next period, but not to a new plan
Claiming supports	Claim for services as delivered, if funds are available in total budget	Claims must match available funds in current period; over-claims are rejected
Moving funds between periods	Not applicable (no periods)	Not allowed unless a variation is approved
Planning for upfront-heavy needs	Can allocate funds freely if in the plan	Must request higher allocation in earlier period(s) during planning
Impact on providers	Can claim if funds are available	Must track period balances; claims outside limits will be rejected
Visibility	Participants, Plan Managers, and Support Coordinators can see total budget	Participants, PMs, and SCs can see funding period breakdown in PACE

On the surface, this might appear to be a harmless administrative change — a method of staged release, possibly intended to manage underspending or prevent budget misuse. But in reality, this is yet another blow to the foundational principles of the NDIS: choice and control. Follow along for the issues this presents to NDIS Participants, and also the Businesses trying very hard to support them.

Locking funds up for quarterly use, means it can't be spent as it's needed over the life of a year. Disability needs are not always stable, some participants need early assessments, or support coordination to 'plan' for the rest of the plan.

Shortcomings for Participants:

At its core, this change assumes that people with disability require ‘budgeting by restriction,’ not autonomy. This is gross stereotyping, and frankly - Ableist.

The staged release of funds introduces unnecessary complexity, particularly for participants with higher support needs at the beginning of a plan — for example, those needing diagnostic assessments, assistive technology prescriptions, or intensive support coordination. These are often front-loaded supports, needed early in a plan to inform needs-based service provision, stabilise routines and improve access to other services.

Participants, their families and NDIS Representatives and will be at huge risk of financial stress, and ultimately, debt collection and/or legal action to claim for invoices submitted but unpaid due to enhausting of periodic budget allocation, despite there being adequate yearly balances available, as invoices cannot be paid for from a future allocation period.

By locking the majority of a participant’s funds behind a quarterly gate, the NDIA is making an implicit statement: "We don’t trust you." This is especially heinous for participants who are self-managed or plan-managed and who have previously demonstrated responsible use of their funds. It disproportionately impacts those who are proactive — the very people who should be rewarded with greater flexibility, not less.

The risk of under-allocation early in a plan has real-world consequences: delayed services, increased stress, and poorer outcomes.

Despite assurances that planners can release more funds earlier if needed, the burden of proof now falls to participants to justify this — often upfront, and within a constrained planning meeting and without full visibility of how their supports will be split. This is near on impossible.

Risks to Business and Provider Sustainability

For providers, the funding period model creates new administrative and financial risks that must be carefully managed. and that will then spill over into effecting clients. These issues include:

• Non-Payment Due to Budget Period Over-claiming: If a provider delivers supports exceeding the participant’s available funds within a given period (even if well within the total plan budget), the claim will be rejected in full (i.e. not partially paid, even if there is some budget remaining).

  
  

  Clearly, this puts providers at risk of delivering services for which they will not be paid, unless they are constantly checking available funding per period — something most providers DON'T have access to (via the NDIS portal), and which can change on a daily basis - this is NOT sustainable for any business, but especially not smaller businesses. Many businesses have already experienced this with 12 monthly budget allocations, and have had to write off debts that haven't been recovered from participants and their representatives. This is only going to increase with a greater number of 'periods' for which budgets are allocated.

  
  

• Cash Flow Disruption: Providers, particularly smaller organisations and sole traders, operate on tight margins. Unpredictable payment patterns — or a sudden refusal of claims — can destabilise already fragile cash flow models, making it harder to retain staff or invest in business growth. This greatly increases the risk of market exit for smaller providers who cannot continue to operate in such an unstable climate - only further reducing choice and control for participants.

  
  

• Service Planning Challenges: Without a clear picture of what a participant can actually access across the life of a plan, it becomes significantly harder to coordinate long-term service provision. Providers may hesitate to book regular appointments or plan for intensive early intervention if they're unsure whether the claim will be processed. This reduces the effectiveness of therapy for the participant, as much as providing another seemingly insurmountable challenge for the business.

  
  

• Increased Admin Burden: Claims that span multiple funding periods will require additional splitting and processing, increasing the administrative overhead for providers. With NDIS rates having been frozen for most Allied Health Professionals for 6 years now (Not even a CPI increase in that time), this is unfathomable for many practices.

  
  

  This might result in providers having to charge more for service coordination or admin, pass on costs to participants as out of pocket fees, or reduce service availability altogether. Again, this impacts choice and control for the participants, especially if businesses have to close.

  
  

  

  Many small Businesses are going to find these challenges unsustainable.

Consequences for Participants: Delays, Gaps, and “Too Hard Baskets”

Perhaps most worryingly, the business risks posed by this new model are likely to trickle down to participants in very real and personal ways.

• Some providers may begin to limit the services they offer to participants with new plans, delay onboarding, or even decline clients entirely if the financial risk feels too great.

  
  

• Others may require payment guarantees or written confirmation of available funds, placing additional pressure on families to act as intermediaries in a system they already find complex.

  
  

• Participants with more intensive or higher-cost needs — who already struggle to find suitable providers — may be placed in the "too hard basket," leading to service gaps, disengagement, and poorer outcomes.

Essentially - A Huge Step Backwards

The NDIS was founded on the principles of choice, control, flexibility, and individualised support. These changes may make internal NDIA budget tracking easier, but they undermine participants' ability to plan and direct their lives. It risks entire parts of the support sector exiting the market as it is unsustainable to continue to run a business in this climate, with risk and loss so high.

If the Agency’s concern is misuse or underutilisation of funds, there are more targeted ways to address that without penalising every participant and every provider. Education, support, and better transparency in budgeting tools would be a good start.

Instead, we’re seeing another bureaucratic mechanism that introduces friction, slows down access, and increases the risk for both participants and service providers.

The NDIA must urgently review the implementation of this model, consult widely with the sector, and build safeguards into the system that maintain participants’ autonomy and protect providers from unintentional or intentional non-payment.