NDIS Psychology Funding Declined: What Should Your Report Address Next?

You wrote the report. The NDIA's answer came back as a no, or as less than you recommended.

Before arranging another assessment, check what evidence would address the reasons in the decision letter. A focused addendum may help explain existing findings, identify missing information or clarify why a recommendation remains appropriate.

Information checked 26 October 2026. NDIS law, forms and guidance are changing. Check the decision letter and current official guidance before choosing a review or plan-change pathway. The clinical questions and tables are my own working tools. They aren't NDIA requirements, and no addendum guarantees a different decision. This isn't legal advice, and it doesn't replace an advocate.

For the broader document structure, see how to write an NDIS psychology report. This guide focuses on the additional evidence and reasoning needed after a decision.

Step 1: Identify the decision and the stated reasons

Start with the letter, not with what you think happened.

Copy each stated reason into a column, using the letter's words. In a second column, write the assumptions you or the participant have made about why it was refused. Keep those interpretations separate from the stated reasons. If a concern remains unclear, seek clarification rather than treating your interpretation as a finding.

Record the date the participant received the decision. That date sets the clock for any review. If the reasons are thin, the participant can contact the NDIA and ask it to explain the decision. ^[1]

Two things to separate:

• what the NDIA decided about this support
• what the NDIA said about why

"Not enough evidence of benefit" and "this should be funded by the health system" are different problems. They need different answers.

Step 2: Check the pathway

Evidence only helps if it goes to the right place. There are three common situations, and they don't use the same route.

A reviewable decision. The participant has 3 months from receiving the decision to ask for an internal review. A different NDIA staff member reviews it, and new information can be included. ^[1][2]

The NDIA aims to finish internal reviews within 60 days. ^[2] If the participant still disagrees, they generally have 28 days from receiving the internal review decision to apply to the Tribunal. The Tribunal can consider requests to extend that time limit. ^[1][3]

The internal review decision is made on the evidence available at that point. That includes information given after the original decision. ^[4]

Another person may request an internal review on the participant's behalf with appropriate consent or legal authority. This is different from the rules for requesting a plan reassessment. ^[4]

The Tribunal also says it may be able to review a decision if the NDIA hasn't completed the internal review within 90 days, or another specified period. Seek advice about the applicable pathway rather than waiting indefinitely for an outcome. ^[3]

Record the review deadline separately from the report deadline. Don't assume that gathering evidence or commissioning an addendum extends the time to request a review.

A statutory budget reduction. The NDIA says reductions to affected Improved Daily Living Skills and Social, Economic and Community Participation budgets apply as plans are created or reassessed from 1 October 2026, or renewed from 1 February 2027. Effects differ between participants, and some groups of supports are excluded. ^[5]

You can't ask for a review of the reduction itself. ^[5] Some supports within the group are excluded, including disability-related health supports. I can't tell from the sources whether any given psychology line is treated as excluded, so the participant should check the plan with the NDIA or an advocate.

An addendum doesn't make the statutory reduction itself reviewable. Clinical evidence may still be relevant to a separate reviewable decision or an applicable plan-change pathway.

Changed circumstances. A plan change isn't the route for reviewing a decision. ^[6] A reassessment may be relevant to significant, ongoing changes in support needs or circumstances. A variation may be relevant to urgent, minor or short-term changes. The appropriate pathway depends on the circumstances and current rules. ^[5][7][8]

Since 27 August 2026, the NDIA says only the participant, their nominee or their child representative can request a plan reassessment, using the required form and supporting evidence. A provider can help prepare that material but shouldn't present themselves as the requester unless they hold the relevant representative role. This restriction should not be carried across to internal reviews. ^[7]

One caution belongs here. If a reassessed plan starts on or after 1 October 2026, the new reductions can apply to it. ^[5] That's a decision for the participant, ideally with advocacy support. A report writer shouldn't nudge it.

The Improved Daily Living budget changes guide explains the category-level reductions and their distinction from an individual finding about psychology support.

Step 3: Map each reason to a clinical question

Take each stated reason and turn it into something you can answer from clinical evidence.

The NDIA assesses supports against the reasonable and necessary criteria in section 34 of the NDIS Act. They include whether a support is value for money relative to its benefits and alternatives, and whether it is likely to be effective and beneficial given current good practice. ^[9] The mapping below is my own reading of how reasons tend to line up with those tests.

The fourth row applies the distinction discussed in the NDIA's psychology guide. It separates clinical treatment, which sits with the health system, from supports that build or maintain functional capacity. ^[10]

These are illustrative questions. They aren't NDIA wording. The reasonable and necessary funding criteria guide provides the broader context for connecting findings to a recommendation.

Step 4: Locate the evidence you already have

Start by checking whether existing evidence answers the stated reasons. Organise it by the question it addresses, with dates and limits. This helps identify whether further assessment is needed.

List every source and say what it can and can't show.

If no baseline was collected, say so. Don't build retrospective precision from a general recollection.

Show where sources agree and where they don't. A disagreement is information, and it's better stated than smoothed over. For worked outcome statements, see showing progress alongside ongoing support needs, which keeps achievements, assistance and evidence limits together.

Step 5: Collect only what's genuinely missing

After step 4, some reasons will still lack an answer. Decide what would fill the gap before you order or do anything.

Ask these about each item:

• Which stated reason would this answer?
• What would different results change in my conclusion?
• Does someone else already hold it, such as an occupational therapist, school or support worker?
• Can the participant do it without undue cost or distress, and have they agreed?
• Is it within my competence and role?
• How old will it be when the reader sees it?

If you can't explain how an assessment would inform the clinical question, reconsider its purpose before adding cost or burden. Before billing for additional report work, check what psychologists can charge the NDIS for; the clinical reason for an addendum and permission to claim its cost are separate questions.

New information is sometimes the right call. A dated account of how the participant managed a week when support was unavailable can answer a dependence question that scores can't. A short, targeted collateral report can answer a question about another setting.

Don't withdraw or reduce support to see what happens, unless that's clinically indicated and agreed. A planned, monitored reduction can be good practice. Removing support to produce evidence for a report isn't.

Step 6: Write a focused addendum

Use the length needed to answer the questions clearly. A short addendum may be enough; there is no page limit proposed here as an NDIA requirement. It adds to the original report. It doesn't replace it.

Include:

1. 1The decision and its date, with the stated reasons in the letter's words.
2. 2What this addendum adds, with each source and its date.
3. 3For each reason, what the evidence shows and where it comes from.
4. 4What remains uncertain, including limits on attribution.
5. 5Whether your recommendations have changed, and why.
6. 6Who has seen it and how it will be shared.

Say plainly when nothing has changed. "The recommendation is unchanged" is a legitimate finding. It's better than adjusting a recommendation to look responsive.

Share the draft with the participant before it goes anywhere. The NDIA's guidance on reassessment reports says the participant can provide a report, and a provider can upload it only with their consent. ^[11]

A fictional example

Jordan is a fictional participant. The numbers are invented for illustration.

Addendum to report dated 14 July 2026. Prepared in response to the NDIA letter dated 2 October 2026, which stated that benefit from psychology supports had not been sufficiently demonstrated.What this adds. Jordan's own confidence ratings for leaving home before a work shift (0 to 10), recorded in each of 18 sessions between March and September 2026. A brief account from Jordan's support worker, obtained with Jordan's consent, about missed shifts.What the evidence shows. Jordan's ratings moved from 3 to 6. The support worker reports five missed shifts in March and April and one in August and September. The two sources describe improvement, but measure different things. The support worker also provides transport, so their account cannot isolate the contribution of psychology.What remains uncertain. No standardised baseline exists for this function. Ratings are self-report. Transport support changed in June, so the change can't be attributed to psychology alone.Recommendations. The original recommendation remains unchanged for the clinical reasons set out in the July report: fortnightly sessions for six months, reviewed at three months. These observations show improvement while supports were in place. They don't establish how Jordan would function with less support or whether this frequency is the only appropriate option.

That extract answers one reason. A full addendum repeats the pattern for each reason in the letter.

Before sharing the addendum

Check that each conclusion follows from the evidence described. Distinguish the participant's account, collateral information, observations and your clinical interpretation. Explain any commercial interest in recommending services you or your practice would provide.

Confirm the participant's consent and intended recipient. Keep a copy of the final addendum and the material used to prepare it. Where the process is contested or a deadline is approaching, encourage the participant to seek disability advocacy or legal advice.

Sources

This is educational clinical-writing guidance. The six steps, tables and fictional example are my own tools, not NDIA wording or a guaranteed method. Check the current NDIA decision, forms and deadlines for the individual participant, and refer them to an advocate or legal adviser where the process is contested.

1. 1.National Disability Insurance Agency. Guide to decision reviews.Back
2. 2.National Disability Insurance Agency. How to request a review of a decision.Back
3. 3.Administrative Review Tribunal. National Disability Insurance Scheme.Back
4. 4.National Disability Insurance Agency. Reviewing our decisions (guideline, 24 September 2026).Back
5. 5.National Disability Insurance Agency. (2026, 1 October). Changes to support budgets from 1 October.Back
6. 6.National Disability Insurance Agency. Changing your plan (guideline, 11 December 2025).Back
7. 7.National Disability Insurance Agency. (2026, 27 August). Changes to plan reassessments.Back
8. 8.National Disability Insurance Agency. Guide to changing your plan.Back
9. 9.National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth), s 34.Back
10. 10.National Disability Insurance Agency. Would We Fund It? Psychology Supports and Mental Health (31 August 2026).Back
11. 11.National Disability Insurance Agency. How to write a plan reassessment report.Back