Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is preparing to change how participants’ support needs are assessed and how those assessments inform funding decisions.
At the centre of the reforms is the I-CAN assessment tool, a standardised approach designed to make NDIS planning more consistent and reduce the need for participants to pay for repeated professional reports.
However, concerns are emerging about whether the new approach can accurately capture the individual circumstances of people living with disability.
The Herald Sun reported that scientist Dr Sam Arnold, who contributed to earlier versions of the I-CAN tool, had raised concerns about the scientific evidence supporting the updated version intended for the NDIS.
The debate raises an important question: Can a standardised assessment accurately identify someone’s support needs without overlooking the complexities of their everyday life?
Here are five potential problems with the I-CAN assessment process that deserve careful consideration.
What Is the I-CAN Assessment Tool?
The Instrument for the Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN) is a tool developed to identify the support a person with disability requires across different aspects of daily life.
The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) is developing a customised version of I-CAN v6 for its new Support Needs Assessment process.
This assessment involves a structured conversation with a trained assessor covering 12 areas of life, including personal care, communication, mobility, relationships and community participation.
The results will be considered alongside information about personal and environmental circumstances and, where required, additional targeted assessments. This information will help determine participants’ NDIS funding.
The government argues that the new system should make funding decisions fairer, more consistent and less dependent on expensive assessments.
Under the current system, many participants obtain Functional Capacity Assessments (FCAs) from occupational therapists (OTs) or other qualified health professionals.
These reports can involve interviews, clinical assessments, observations and a detailed examination of how disability affects everyday activities.
Importantly, the I-CAN assessment is not simply an occupational therapy assessment under another name. It is a different approach to gathering information about disability-related support needs.
The NDIA has confirmed that reducing participants’ reliance on paid reports is an intended benefit of the new planning system.
While reducing assessment costs could benefit participants, questions remain about what happens when a standardised assessment does not capture important information that an experienced clinician might identify.
1. An Interview May Not Reveal How Someone Actually Functions Day to Day
One of the most significant concerns is that an assessment based heavily on conversation may not provide a complete picture of a participant’s everyday support needs.
Consider a person with intellectual disability who is asked whether they can prepare their own meals.
They might confidently answer, “Yes.”
However, that answer might mean they can make a sandwich or heat a prepared meal, rather than independently plan meals, follow cooking instructions, safely operate appliances and manage kitchen risks.
Another example involves how a participant responds to questions about their emotions or ability to cope with difficult situations.
An assessor might ask, “When something unexpected happens or your routine changes, are you usually able to stay calm and manage the situation?”
The participant might smile and respond, “Yes, I’m fine. I don’t get upset.”
However, in everyday life, that same person may experience significant anxiety, become overwhelmed by unexpected changes or require reassurance and support from a familiar worker to manage their emotions.
Their positive response may not be an accurate reflection of their support needs. Instead, they might be trying to please the assessor, avoid appearing difficult or provide what they believe is the “correct” answer.
This behaviour, sometimes described as people-pleasing or acquiescence, can occur when someone agrees with a question or provides a socially desirable response rather than expressing their actual experience.
There are several reasons why someone’s responses may not fully reflect their needs.
Some people may:
- Give answers they believe the assessor wants to hear, sometimes described as people-pleasing or acquiescence.
- Experience difficulty understanding abstract or broadly worded questions.
- Minimise their difficulties because they value independence.
- Mask disability-related challenges in unfamiliar social situations.
- Struggle to recognise or communicate the amount of assistance they receive.
These behaviours are not universal among people with intellectual disability, autism or other disabilities. They are individual communication and assessment considerations.
The concern is not whether participants should be trusted to explain their experiences. Their voices must remain central. The concern is whether assessors have enough information and time to understand what those answers mean in practice.
An occupational therapist may observe task performance, investigate safety concerns and consider the difference between completing an activity independently and completing it with substantial assistance.
The proposed I-CAN process does involve trained assessors speaking with participants. It has not been established that these assessors will never meet participants physically.
Nevertheless, when direct observation or additional clinical evidence is needed, an interview alone may be insufficient.
A participant saying “I’m fine” does not always mean they require no support. The assessment process must be flexible enough to recognise when further investigation is necessary, rather than treating a positive response as proof of independence.
2. Moving Away From OT Reports Could Mean Losing Important Clinical Context
Another concern involves the reduced reliance on occupational therapy reports and other independently prepared professional evidence.
Under existing arrangements, participants may obtain Functional Capacity Assessments from occupational therapists, psychologists, physiotherapists and other qualified professionals.
These assessments can be expensive and time-consuming. There is a legitimate argument for making the NDIS less dependent on participants repeatedly purchasing reports to demonstrate their support needs.
However, these reports can also provide substantial clinical value.
An experienced occupational therapist may assess how a participant performs tasks in their own environment, whether assistive technology is required, the risks associated with particular activities and the impact of cognitive or physical impairments on independence.
For example, an OT assessing someone who lives in supported accommodation may identify risks associated with transfers, showering, medication routines or preparing meals.
Some of these issues might not become apparent during a relatively short conversation.
The risk is that reducing the need for professional reports could unintentionally reduce access to the detailed evidence required for complex funding decisions.
The NDIA has stated that its new assessments will be completed by trained, accredited assessors. Its initial assessor workforce includes people with allied health qualifications.
That is an important safeguard, and it would be inaccurate to suggest that the new system excludes qualified professionals altogether.
But there remains a meaningful distinction between having a relevant qualification and conducting a comprehensive clinical assessment within someone’s everyday environment.
An assessor may be appropriately trained in I-CAN without having the same specialised knowledge of a participant’s condition as their treating therapist.
The issue is therefore not whether occupational therapists should continue writing every NDIS funding report.
It is whether the new system will consistently recognise when detailed clinical assessments are needed and give that evidence appropriate weight.
3. A Standardised Tool May Struggle to Capture Complex or Fluctuating Disabilities
Disability support needs are not always consistent from one day to another.
Some participants experience substantial changes in their capacity due to pain, fatigue, episodic mental health conditions, neurological conditions or other disability-related factors.
A participant might manage a particular activity during an assessment but require considerable assistance on other days.
For instance, someone with a fluctuating neurological condition may be able to walk independently over short distances during a morning appointment.
That does not necessarily mean they can safely mobilise throughout the day or consistently perform activities without assistance.
Similarly, a person with psychosocial disability may communicate confidently during an appointment while experiencing significant difficulties with everyday functioning at other times.
A standardised rating system needs to account for these differences.
The NDIA’s proposed I-CAN assessment measures both the frequency and intensity of support needs across multiple life domains.
This is a meaningful feature of the tool.
However, disability representatives and advisory groups have questioned whether the approach will adequately capture fluctuating, episodic and complex support requirements.
These concerns have appeared in official NDIA consultation summaries.
An assessment should reflect the assistance someone requires across their ordinary life, not simply what they can achieve on a particular day.
A reliable approach needs to consider patterns of functioning, the impact of fatigue or changing symptoms, and the consequences of insufficient support.
This is particularly important where an assessment may influence funding for essential daily assistance.
4. Questions Remain About the Scientific Validation of the Updated I-CAN Tool
The scientific evidence supporting I-CAN v6 has become a central issue in the public debate.
According to the Herald Sun report published on 15 October 2026, Dr Sam Arnold has questioned whether the updated tool has undergone sufficient independent scrutiny for its proposed use in NDIS funding decisions.
The concern is important because an assessment tool used to support decisions involving essential disability services must be reliable and appropriate for its intended purpose.
There is a distinction between a tool being useful for identifying support needs and that same tool being sufficiently validated to inform funding decisions across a large, diverse population.
The NDIA has defended I-CAN’s research foundations, describing the broader instrument as established and supported by research conducted over many years.
Older versions of I-CAN have been studied and used in disability support settings.
However, critics argue that existing research does not necessarily establish the reliability of the customised version being developed for the NDIS.
This is an important distinction.
A tool may have an established history without every subsequent modification having the same degree of independent validation.
The NDIA has also reported substantial testing activity, including simulated participant assessments and desktop exercises examining the new planning process.
These activities are relevant, but usability testing and implementation testing do not automatically resolve every question about psychometric validity or the accuracy of resulting funding decisions.
Before the new system is widely implemented, participants should be able to understand what evidence supports it, how its accuracy has been tested and what safeguards exist when an assessment gets something wrong.
Greater transparency around independent evaluation would help build confidence among participants, families, clinicians and NDIS providers.
5. An Incorrect Assessment Could Have Real Consequences for Participant Funding and Safety
Perhaps the most important concern is what happens when a participant’s support needs are underestimated.
The proposed assessment process is not simply an information-gathering exercise.
Its findings will help inform NDIS budgets.
This means incomplete or inaccurate information could potentially affect the funding available to meet a participant’s disability-related needs.
For someone requiring support with personal care, community access, daily living activities or safe mobility, an inadequate budget can have practical consequences.
From a provider perspective, the difference between a participant’s assessed needs and their actual support requirements can become particularly significant.
For example, a participant may require regular prompting and supervision throughout the day, but an assessment could underestimate that support if the participant reports being able to complete tasks independently.
A responsible provider cannot simply assume that a participant needs less supervision because their allocated funding is limited.
Providers must continue to consider participant safety, appropriate staffing, service quality and their obligations under relevant NDIS requirements.
Where there is insufficient funding to safely deliver necessary supports, providers may need to work with participants, representatives, Support Coordinators and the NDIA to identify an appropriate way forward.
The broader concern is whether the new planning process will have effective safeguards to identify and correct assessment errors.
Participants should be able to understand the information recorded about them, raise concerns about inaccuracies and access appropriate review processes.
An efficient assessment system is valuable, but efficiency should never come at the expense of accurately recognising people’s disability support needs.
Is the I-CAN Assessment Tool Replacing Occupational Therapists?
Not exactly.
The new assessment model is intended to reduce the need for participants to rely on paid professional reports as the main source of evidence used in creating NDIS budgets.
The NDIA has explicitly identified lower report-related costs as a potential benefit.
However, this does not mean occupational therapists will no longer play a role in the NDIS.
Allied health professionals remain important in areas such as therapy, functional assessment, assistive technology, home modifications and complex support planning.
Some accredited NDIS assessors also have allied health qualifications.
What is changing is the proposed method for gathering support needs information and using that information to determine participant budgets.
The key question is whether the new system will retain access to detailed professional input when it is required.
What Does This Mean for NDIS Participants and Families?
Understandably, news about a new assessment tool may create uncertainty for people who depend on NDIS funding for essential everyday support.
However, it is important to distinguish future reforms from changes that have already occurred.
The NDIA currently plans to begin rolling out the new planning framework from April 2027.
Existing participants will transition over time rather than all moving to the new system immediately.
The NDIA has also confirmed that participation in its current assessment testing is voluntary and does not change a participant’s existing plan, funding, supports or eligibility.
Participants and families can prepare by keeping clear information about everyday support needs, particularly where assistance is not immediately obvious.
This may include records of prompting, supervision, personal care assistance, communication support, mobility assistance and situations where needs fluctuate.
Participants may also benefit from discussing their circumstances with trusted support people or treating professionals.
The goal should not be to exaggerate difficulties or present someone as less independent than they are.
It should be to ensure the assessment captures what a person can do, what support makes that possible and what happens when that support is unavailable.
A Balanced View: The NDIS Does Need a Better Assessment System
The concerns surrounding I-CAN should not overshadow the genuine problems with existing NDIS assessment arrangements.
Participants can face significant costs when obtaining repeated professional reports.
The planning process can be inconsistent, difficult to navigate and stressful for families.
A more accessible and consistent approach to identifying support needs could deliver real benefits.
The challenge is ensuring that consistency does not come at the expense of individual understanding.
A standardised tool can help assessors ask relevant questions, but it cannot replace careful professional judgement, effective communication or the consideration of supporting evidence.
The strongest assessment system would combine consistency with flexibility, clear validation evidence and opportunities to correct mistakes.
Good Assessment Must Reflect Real Life
At Steadway, we believe NDIS funding decisions should be grounded in a meaningful understanding of how participants live, the support they require and the circumstances that affect their independence and wellbeing.
From a provider perspective, support needs are not always obvious during an appointment or conversation.
They can emerge through everyday routines, communication, supervision requirements, changing health conditions and the practical realities of delivering safe and consistent care.
This is why input from participants, families, allied health professionals and people familiar with daily support arrangements can be valuable.
The introduction of I-CAN presents an opportunity to improve how the NDIS assesses support needs.
But the success of that reform should ultimately be measured by whether it produces accurate, fair and practical outcomes for participants.
A better NDIS assessment system should reduce unnecessary paperwork without reducing the depth of understanding behind important funding decisions.
As the new framework approaches, transparent scientific testing, appropriately qualified assessors, participant involvement and effective safeguards will be essential to building trust.
For participants and providers alike, the most important outcome is a system that recognises disability support needs accurately and supports safe, person-centred services.
