KB Type: Concept
Domain Area: Legislative
Confidence: Provisional — requires Andrew's research to verify
Depth Hint: Standard
Version: 1.0 — 2026-04-23
Status: Provisional

Provisional article — seeded from NbLM. Requires Andrew's research to verify.

In the context of the NDIS, Value for Money is a core assessment criterion used to determine if a requested support will receive funding. It requires demonstrating that the costs of a requested support are reasonable when compared to the expected benefits and the costs of alternative options. As the NDIA faces pressure to manage the scheme's financial sustainability, establishing that supports are cost-effective is becoming a critical battleground for Support Coordinators and Psychosocial Recovery Coaches advocating for participant plans.

Section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act 2013 mandates that the NDIA CEO cannot fund a support unless satisfied that "the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support."

This criterion has three components:

Costs are Reasonable: The support's cost must be appropriate for the service being delivered, considering market rates and NDIS price limits.

Benefits Achieved: The support must deliver measurable benefits to the participant that justify its cost.

Cost of Alternative Support: The support must be cost-effective compared to alternative options that could achieve similar outcomes.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) actively audits the NDIA on whether delegates are strictly applying the value for money criterion. This means coordinators must proactively provide value for money justification to ensure plan approval. The ANAO's oversight has made value for money one of the most scrutinised elements of the Section 34(1) criteria.

Why This Support is Cost-Effective: Demonstrate how the support delivers maximum benefit per dollar spent. This may involve:

Cheaper Alternatives Have Been Trialed or Are Unavailable: Document that:

Investing Now Reduces Future Cost of Care: Demonstrate how the support:

The NDIS was founded as a rights-based social insurance scheme, not a pure cost-benefit program. This creates a tension for coordinators:

Rights-Based Approach: Participants have a right to reasonable and necessary supports to pursue their goals, regardless of cost.

Cost-Benefit Mindset: Value for money requires demonstrating cost-effectiveness, which can feel like adopting an input-output framework.

Coordinators must argue for value for money without undermining the participant's fundamental right to reasonable and necessary supports. The key is framing cost-effectiveness as good stewardship of scheme resources while maintaining the participant's rights.

Missing value for money narratives are a common rejection trigger. NDIA delegates, under ANAO scrutiny, are increasingly likely to reject supports without explicit Section 34(1)(c) justifications. A well-documented value for money argument can be the difference between approval and rejection.

The Participant Statement Toolkit explicitly integrates value for money to pre-empt NDIA planner objections. The toolkit incorporates a specific Value for Money Justification field where the coordinator must explicitly argue:

Why the Requested Support is the Most Cost-Effective Option: Direct response to the "cost of alternative support" requirement.

Whether Investing in This Support Now Will Reduce the Cost of Care in the Future: Forward-looking cost-benefit analysis.

If the Participant Has Already Trialed Cheaper Alternatives That Failed: Evidence that alternatives were considered and rejected.

While standard NDIA progress reports generally just list recommended supports, they rarely provide the deep legislative justification of why those supports are the most cost-effective option — the toolkit bridges this gap by embedding Section 34(1)(c) requirements directly into the justification fields.