TL;DR:
Australia’s NDIS is rolling out a new AI-informed assessment tool (I-CAN v6) to simplify support budgeting. While the government touts it as efficient, advocates fear it could replicate the “cookie-cutter” assessments once rejected. Critics warn it risks depersonalising care and disproportionately hurting people with psychosocial disabilities.
A Quick NDIS Primer: From Lifeline to Lightning Rod
The NDIS, launched in 2013, provides individualised funding for Australians with disabilities. It’s been transformative but increasingly costly—now topping $40 billion a year. To “sustain” it, the government has introduced I-CAN version 6, a University of Melbourne tool that quantifies support needs through participant self-reports and algorithmic analysis.
Minister Jenny McAllister calls it a “crucial step forward” in efficiency. Yet, echoes of the scrapped 2021 “independent assessments” trial—criticised for lumping people into broad categories—have many advocates uneasy.
The Tool’s Mechanics: Evidence-Based or Black Box?
I-CAN v6 collects data from self-reports or carer inputs and matches them to standardised support packages. The process may or may not involve allied health professionals, raising transparency concerns. Its algorithm determines “typical support packages,” adjusting slightly for individual variation but largely anchored in disability type and severity.
Dr. Stevie Lang Howson, a researcher and NDIS participant, warns that without professional input, assessments could dismiss lived experiences—especially for cognitive or psychosocial conditions. The Occupational Therapy Society for Invisible Disability adds that such tools often “shrink options rather than enhance them,” overlooking episodic disabilities like bipolar disorder or PTSD.
Who Gets Hit Hardest? Psychosocial Disabilities in the Crosshairs
Psychosocial disability participants already face declining approval rates—from 67% historically to 25% in FY 2024/25. They now comprise just 9% of active participants. As new “foundational supports” shift mental health care outside the NDIS, many fear being left in limbo—eligible for neither comprehensive support nor stable community services.
The Grattan Institute supports redirecting NDIS funds to community-based supports, but advocates see this as exclusionary. One-off assessments risk underfunding people whose needs fluctuate over time, especially during crises.
Children with autism and developmental delays are similarly vulnerable, as low-to-moderate cases are reassigned to cheaper, less intensive services under “early intervention” models.
Government’s Defense: Efficiency Over Everything?
The NDIA claims the new model improves fairness and reduces administrative burden, using trained assessors and evidence-backed tools. Minister Mark Butler argues it’s about “restoring balance” so that all Australians with disabilities—not just those on the NDIS—get support.
Still, upcoming therapy funding guidelines will ban using NDIS funds for therapist reports, limiting participants’ ability to challenge NDIA decisions. Critics say this centralises control and silences participant voices.
My Take: Proceed with Caution, Demand Transparency
The I-CAN v6 rollout could deliver consistency—but only if it safeguards personalisation. The NDIA must:
– Ensure assessments are conducted by qualified professionals.
– Include input from treating clinicians.
– Audit algorithmic bias and publish transparency reports.
– Maintain appeal rights for participants.
Without these, the NDIS risks reverting to a bureaucratic, one-size-fits-all model—precisely what the community fought to end in 2021. Efficiency cannot come at the cost of empathy.
This algorithmic reform could be transformative—or destructive. The difference lies in whether it empowers people or merely manages them.
FAQs
- What is the I-CAN tool?
The Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN) is a University of Melbourne-developed tool used to measure disability-related support needs. - How is it different from the old “independent assessments”?
While the I-CAN tool is academically validated, its implementation mirrors past models—standardising budgets via algorithmic averages. - Who might lose out under the new system?
People with psychosocial, autism spectrum, or episodic conditions could face reduced funding due to reliance on one-time, self-reported data. - Why is the government changing the process?
To reduce administrative costs and create budget predictability amid rising NDIS expenditure. - What can participants do?
Engage advocacy groups like People with Disability Australia and request full transparency on assessment outcomes.
