From mid-2026, a small group of participants started going through a new kind of planning conversation. A trained assessor sits with you, walks through a structured tool called I-CAN v6, and what comes out the other end is a proposed budget. The NDIA says a person still signs off on your plan, not a computer. Advocates are asking a more specific question: sign off on what, exactly, and can they actually change it?
That distinction, between approving a number and being able to move it, is the whole debate. It’s worth understanding properly, because if you haven’t been through a new framework planning assessment yet, you probably will be eventually.
What I-CAN v6 actually does
I-CAN, the Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs, is a structured tool developed with the University of Melbourne and the Centre for Disability Studies, adapted from a model already used in aged care [1]. The official description is straightforward: it’s “a guided conversation with a trained NDIS assessor to understand a participant’s disability support needs,” paired with a questionnaire on personal and environmental circumstances, and the results inform a proposed budget [2].
The NDIA’s own line is clear on one point: “NDIS plans will continue to be approved by trained NDIS staff, not automated systems” [2]. Participants keep the right to ask for a review, including external review through the Administrative Review Tribunal.
What isn’t clearly spelled out is what “approved by staff” actually covers. Does a delegate reviewing your plan have the authority to look at the number I-CAN produced and change it if it looks wrong? Or does their sign-off sit on top of a calculation they don’t have the tools to second-guess? That’s the gap advocates have been pushing on since the tool was announced.
What advocates say is missing
Every Australian Counts, People with Disability Australia, the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations and academics from UNSW have all raised versions of the same concern: a budget calculated by a tool nobody outside the NDIA can fully see is hard to trust and harder to challenge [3][4].
A few of the specific gaps they’ve flagged:
- The budget calculation method itself hasn’t been released, so the disability community can’t give informed feedback on how a support need actually turns into a dollar figure [4].
- Assessments will largely be conducted by NDIA staff, not allied health professionals. One participant put it bluntly in response to the announcement: assessors “need to be degree holding health professionals… a glorified admin officer has no place in determining disability funding which can impact lives significantly” [5].
- Your own evidence may carry less weight than it used to. Every Australian Counts is currently running a parliamentary petition arguing that under the new rules, “the NDIA no longer has to consider the evidence you provide, like your own written account, and reports from your occupational therapist, psychologist or GP” [6][5].
- The tool was tested for experience, not outcomes. Every Australian Counts says only how the assessment felt to go through was tested in pilots, not whether the funding it produced was accurate [4].
- Some groups may not be well captured by a standardised instrument, including autistic people, people with sensory disabilities or complex communication needs, people with degenerative or episodic conditions, First Nations people and people from culturally diverse communities [4]. There’s also currently no version of the tool suited to participants under 16, despite a rollout planned for that group from mid-2027 [4].
Dr George Taleporos, from Every Australian Counts, summed up the underlying worry: “The NDIS must never reduce us to data points in a secret algorithm, people with disability are not numbers” [3]. It’s also worth knowing that critics point to the current system’s own track record as part of the case for caution: 64% of NDIS cases that reached the Administrative Review Tribunal in 2025–26 ended with the NDIA’s decision changed, which is the argument for why an opaque replacement system deserves real scrutiny before it scales up, not after [3][8].
On the other side, Professor Jason Thompson from the University of Melbourne, who worked on adapting the tool, has said the process aims to be “grounded in evidence and lived experience” and to uphold “validity, fairness and transparency” [5]. People With Disability Australia’s own position isn’t a rejection of the tool, it’s a set of conditions: genuine co-design, the right to submit your own health professionals’ reports, review rights protected at every stage, and full transparency from government throughout [7].
Where this actually lands for you right now
The rollout is still small and gradual, starting with a limited group of adult participants and expanding over several years, so most people reading this haven’t been through a new framework planning assessment yet [2]. A few things worth doing regardless:
- If you’re invited to an assessment, ask directly whether your own OT, psychologist or GP reports will be considered, and get the answer in writing, not assumed.
- If you want your evidence protected as a right rather than a courtesy, Every Australian Counts’ petition is open now and is exactly the kind of thing that’s meant to be signed by participants, not just peak bodies [6].
- Keep your existing review rights front of mind. Until the rules change, you can still ask for a plan reassessment and escalate to external review if a decision doesn’t reflect your actual support needs.
Where we stand on this
Hai Helper is built on one line we don’t move off: a tool should show you what’s happening with your plan, it doesn’t get to decide it for you. That principle has to apply just as much to the systems assessing your eligibility and your budget as it does to the app tracking your spend. A trained assessor sitting across from you is a good start. A human who can actually see how the number was reached, and change it when it’s wrong, is what “human in the loop” is supposed to mean. Right now, that second part is still the open question, and it’s the one worth asking the NDIA directly, not assuming the answer to.
If clarity over what’s happening with your own plan and budget matters to you, that’s exactly what Hai Helper is built to give you, regardless of which system is doing the assessing on the other end. Request a demo and see how it works.
Sources
- [1] NDIS, “New tool to deliver simpler pathway to disability supports,” 25 September 2025, ndis.gov.au
- [2] NDIS, “Update on the new way of planning for the NDIS,” 9 February 2026, ndis.gov.au
- [3] Information Age (ACS), “Calls grow to reveal secret NDIS algorithm,” 7 October 2025
- [4] Every Australian Counts, “New Framework Planning: What We Know So Far,” 12 March 2026
- [5] Powerd Media, “New NDIS assessment tool sparks concern among disability community,” 26 September 2025
- [6] Every Australian Counts, petition on NDIS evidence and assessment rules, ongoing
- [7] People with Disability Australia, “PWDA Statement: NDIS Needs Assessment Tool I-CAN Version-6,” 26 September 2025
- [8] ABC News, “Fears NDIS tribunal delays will worsen as federal government tightens scheme,” 2 August 2026
This article is general information, not personal financial, legal or NDIS advice. Hai Helper is not affiliated with the NDIA. Facts current as at the publish date and checked against primary or reputable sources.