The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), Australia’s flagship disability support program, is preparing to implement one of the most significant changes to how participant funding plans are designed and finalised. From mid-2026, the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) will begin rolling out a computer-generated planning system intended to make plan creation more consistent, efficient and predictable — but critics warn this shift could fundamentally alter how people with disability experience the scheme.
The change was publicly highlighted in December 2025 after reports circulated that new plans were already being issued in draft to participants.*1 The reform comes amid broader efforts by the federal government to control scheme costs, increase administrative consistency and reduce reliance on third-party clinical reports, with NDIS spending projected to exceed $50 billion in 2025–26.
What Is Changing: The New Framework Planning Model
At the heart of the overhaul is what the NDIA refers to as the New Framework Planning model. Under this system, the funding decisions that determine a participant’s support plan will be generated using a computer-based tool instead of being individually tailored by planners using clinical evidence, reports and planner discretion.
The Tool: I-CAN v6
The new planning system will use a licensing arrangement for a needs-assessment tool known as the Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN) version 6, developed through the University of Melbourne and the Centre for Disability Studies and used informally in parts of the disability sector for decades. I-CAN is now being adopted centrally to determine participant support needs and associated funding.
Under the New Framework Planning model:
- Assessors will conduct a structured support needs assessment — typically a guided conversation covering a person’s personal and environmental circumstances.
- Inputs from that needs assessment are fed into the I-CAN tool, which generates a funding amount — or “budget” — for that participant.
- NDIA staff no longer have the ability to alter the budget decided by the tool; they can only agree that the assessment was conducted properly or request a new need assessment using the same process.
This is a major departure from the current system, where computer-assisted tools help planners draft support plans, but human decision-makers have significant discretion to adjust funding, consider evidence and respond to individual circumstances before finalising a plan. Under the new model, by contrast, the computer tool itself produces the plan budget, and the planner’s role is largely procedural.
An NDIA spokesperson insists the system is “not automated” — that is, assessments will still be conducted by trained human assessors — but once I-CAN generates a plan budget no further adjustments can be made by staff on subjective grounds.
Human Role, and Limits on Planner Discretion
Initially, the NDIA has said that assessors will be recruited from within the agency and will have relevant training. It is “highly desirable but not mandatory” that they have an allied health background or lived experience of disability.
Under the current planning system, planners consider medical reports and evidence from long-term treating clinicians when determining what supports a participant needs. However, under the New Framework Planning model, there will be no requirement for planners to consider independent medical evidence when allocating funding. This has sparked concern from advocates who argue that removing this requirement may disadvantage participants whose needs are complex or not fully captured by a standardised assessment framework.
The NDIA’s own briefing materials indicate that assessors will conduct “semi-structured conversations” and use questionnaires to feed data into the I-CAN tool. While more targeted assessments will be available for specific needs — such as home modifications or assistive technology — the core funding decision will nevertheless be determined by the computer’s output.
Government Rationale: Consistency, Fairness and Cost Control
Senior NDIA officials argue the shift to a standardised, computer-generated system addresses long-standing criticisms about inconsistent decision-making across regions. They also assert that it will reduce reliance on expensive medical reports and cut down on subjective variation in plans, which some see as a barrier to fairness.
The federal government has emphasised scheme sustainability as a key driver for reform, with growth in participant numbers and costs continuing to outpace earlier projections. As part of a National Cabinet agreement, governments committed to efforts to moderate NDIS growth and ensure the scheme “can continue to support people with disability now and into the future.”
Health Minister Mark Butler and disability sector officials have said the changes reflect recommendations from the Independent NDIS Review, which called for a simpler and more consistent assessment process to ensure participants can access supports they need without unnecessary barriers.
Reactions: Reassurance and Alarm in the Disability Community
The planned shift has drawn strong reactions from disability advocates, sector organisations and some politicians.
Some community advocates and Disability Representative Organisations (DROs) have publicly called for greater transparency and safeguards around the new system, warning that automating core aspects of plan generation without robust public oversight could undermine participants’ rights and experiences. They argue that disability communities must be part of the design and implementation process, and that details about how the algorithm works, what data it uses and how human oversight will operate still need to be publicly disclosed.
Critics also highlight proposed changes to review and appeal processes. Under the New Framework Planning model, the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) — formerly a key avenue for challenging NDIS decisions — may no longer have the authority to directly alter a funding plan. Instead, ART could only send a plan back for reassessment using the same digital tool, potentially limiting participants’ ability to challenge funding levels and seek improvements.
Independent disability advocates have argued this could create a “robo-planning” environment, in which participants are boxed into predetermined outcomes generated by code rather than negotiation and human judgement. Some disability rights campaigners have warned this carries risks for participants whose needs are nuanced or not well captured by structured questionnaires alone.
Concerns About Equity, Appeal Rights and Data Use
Concerns have also been raised about appeal rights, evidence use and algorithmic transparency. As highlighted by disability groups, the combination of computer-generated budgets and narrowed appeal pathways could make it harder for participants to seek meaningful review or introduce new evidence into the planning process.
Participatory organisations have also emphasised the importance of public scrutiny around how automated systems are designed — including what datasets the tool relies on, how it weighs different needs, what auditing occurs, and what human oversight is built into the process to catch errors or outliers. Without clear standards, advocates fear discriminatory or inaccurate outcomes could occur.
What It Means for Participants Today
For current NDIS participants and families, the shift means that:
- Future plans issued from mid-2026 will increasingly be determined by I-CAN outputs rather than planner discretion.
- Medical and therapist reports may no longer carry the same weight in shaping funding outcomes.
- Appeal rights may be significantly altered, with external tribunals limited in their ability to amend plans directly.
- Human involvement remains in assessments, but the final funding amount will largely be determined algorithmically.
For participants whose needs are well described by standardised questions and captured by I-CAN, the new system may provide faster decision-making and greater consistency. However, for those with complex, fluctuating or unique support needs, narrowing discretionary input raises significant concerns about whether the system can fully capture their circumstances.
Looking Ahead: Implementation and Community Engagement
The NDIA plans to roll out the New Framework Planning model gradually from mid-2026, with information sessions for participants, staff and stakeholders underway to explain how the system will operate and what it means for individuals planning meetings.
Disability advocates and organisations have called for continued engagement and co-design work with the community, emphasising that any automated system must be paired with safeguards, transparency, appeal rights and robust human oversight to ensure fair, person-centred outcomes.
As the NDIS moves toward this new planning landscape, discussions about algorithmic fairness, human rights and administrative justice within social support systems are likely to intensify — raising fundamental questions about how best to balance consistency, efficiency and the lived experience of people with disability in Australia.
