Disability advocates are raising serious concerns about the sweeping overhaul planned for how the NDIS assesses participants’ support needs. From mid-2026, the NDIA intends to phase out the current reliance on medical and allied-health reports in favour of structured interviews and a digital tool called I-CAN (Instrument for the Classification and Assessment of Support Needs). The proposed change aims to simplify and standardise assessment across Australia, but many participants and support organisations warn the reforms could erode dignity, accuracy and trust.
Under the current model, individuals typically seek medical or allied health-professional reports that detail diagnosis, functional impact and recommended supports. These reports can be time-consuming and expensive, arguably favouring participants who can afford extra evidence. The independent review of the NDIS noted this system was inefficient and sometimes inconsistent. In contrast, the new approach would have participants engage in a one-to-three-hour interview with an NDIA-employed assessor, using the I-CAN categories across 12 life-activity domains such as self-care, mobility, communication and health.
While the Government positions the change as a move toward greater fairness, advocates say many key questions remain unanswered. They are demanding clarity on whether home-visits will be mandatory, how professional reports will be weighed, and how the I-CAN interview results will translate into funding levels and support budgets. Many worry that by removing or de-emphasising specialist reports, the system might inadequately capture complex or nuanced disabilities.
Some participants say the shift may feel disempowering. One advocate with cerebral palsy pointed out that the idea of sitting for a three-hour interview with an unfamiliar assessor in one’s home could be intimidating or distressing — particularly for those who have experienced trauma or have communication or sensory needs. “How would you feel if you were a woman with a disability who’s already experienced trauma, and someone you don’t know comes into your home asking personal questions?” the advocate asked. That same individual noted: “These three hours could decide your next five years of funding. That’s incredibly stressful.”
Advocates also emphasise that the removal of specialist evidence from treating doctors or therapists risks reducing the depth of understanding of a participant’s needs. “If the agency doesn’t trust self-assessment in court, why would it build a whole tool around it?” one supporter commented. There is concern that standardised interviews combined with digital tools may insufficiently account for cultural, linguistic, age-related or regional diversity — particularly among First Nations communities, people with autism, or individuals for whom English is not first language.
Experts caution that while standardisation may help reduce delays and cut costs, it must not come at the expense of individualised, human-centred assessment. The fear is that the system could start treating people as data points inside an algorithm rather than recognising lived experience, personal context and specialist insight. Disability groups are urging that any new system retains the option for participants to provide external reports and be accompanied by trusted advocates, and that the process be co-designed with the community.
In response, government officials say consultations with participants, families and carers will continue ahead of the rollout, and that safeguards are being developed to ensure the rights, dignity and safety of participants remain central. However, with the proposed reforms already announced and scheduled for implementation in stages from 2026, many in the disability community emphasise that the time to speak up is now.
In short, the planned changes to the NDIS assessment process represent a major shift in how individual needs are measured and funded. If done well, the reforms could streamline assessments and reduce burdens. But if key protections are not embedded and transparency maintained, they risk undermining confidence in the scheme — and ultimately the very purpose of providing support to people with disability in a way that respects their lives, rights and choices.
