The NDIA’s transition to PACE accompanied by its policy decision to restrict providers’ visibility of participants’ budgets, even when consent is explicitly given, is a disingenuous, infantilising act that hurts participants and goes against the scheme’s promise of choice and control. We want to explain why.

In case you’re unaware, the NDIA’s policy is that registered providers, who must already comply with untold conditions in order to operate, are unable to view a participant’s PACE budget. To clarify: this includes when a participant wants their provider to do so. That’s okay, NDIA, let’s deny a participant any agency and perpetuate a cycle of ableism.

Like many providers in the sector, we’re angered by this policy decision, not least because the NDIA’s reasoning doesn’t hold any sway. It’s irrational and irresponsible. We wrote to the NDIA’s Provider Support Team (as well as the Digital Partnerships Office and the previous and current CEOs) to share this sentiment, but we also want to share with you why this inexcusable decision needs to be immediately overhauled.

What does the sector need?

The answer is simple: enable providers to access limited, read-only budget summary data when participants give explicit consent. Respect the participant’s decision and realise it only serves their best interests, in the form of continued quality service provision.

For every plan and/or each funding period (where applicable), access should include data covering:

• budget category;
• period start and end dates;
• allocated, spent and committed amounts; and
• the remaining balance.

Importantly, this access would sit within existing NDIS API frameworks, be purpose-limited, and revocable, if the participant wishes. Again, all power needs to be put in the hands of participants.

Why is the NDIA wrong in this instance?

The NDIA is arguing that its reasons centre around privacy and fraud. But when a participant provides explicit consent, and when the providers who would be accessing this budget data are already registered and adhering to strict compliance practices, both concerns are moot. The NDIA’s decision-making is faulty and, again, takes agency from participants.

If both these reasons can be so quickly disproven, what’s the issue really about? If the NDIA can’t articulate it, then the agency must immediately overturn its policy and recognise that participants actually know what would best support their ongoing care, to assume otherwise is ableism at its worst.

What’s more, overturning the policy would have zero impact on the scheme’s sustainability, and would only ensure improved participant outcomes. Let’s unpack how.

Why does budget visibility matter for service delivery?

For providers delivering complex, ongoing supports—such as Supported Independent Living (SIL) and Specialised Disability Accommodation (SDA)—budget visibility isn’t a convenience. It’s essential to safe, sustainable care.

Right now, providers must rely on plan managers and support coordinators to manually share budget information. This gatekeeping is bureaucracy at its worst. (It’s also worth mentioning that not all participants have plan managers and support coordinators (i.e., their plan is agency-managed), so sometimes there isn’t even a theoretical path for providers to gain visibility over budgets.) Even with participant consent, this process is fragmented and slow. The result is a cascade of unintended consequences.

1. Financial risk drives conservative service delivery

Without reliable budget insight, providers risk delivering supports that can’t be claimed if funds are exhausted. To manage this exposure, some providers may reduce service intensity—potentially impacting participant outcomes.

2. Participants experience end-of-plan spending pressure

When participants lack ongoing budget visibility, it can trigger a “use it or lose it” mindset near plan end. This creates stress, administrative churn and less strategic support planning.

3. Inefficient workarounds increase cost and risk

Providers, plan managers and support coordinators spend countless hours on calls, emails and spreadsheets just to answer a simple question: How much funding remains? These manual processes introduce errors, delays and compliance risks.

4. Administrative burden on Plan Managers and Support Coordinators

Repeated status requests divert plan managers and coordinators from higher-value support activities, contributing to system inefficiency.

Addressing fraud and misuse concerns

We recognise the NDIA’s caution around budget visibility, particularly regarding fraud risk. However, a blanket restriction may not effectively target bad actors and is effectively punishing compliant providers and participants for the sins of the fraudulent few.

A consent-based, technically controlled model could strengthen oversight by replacing informal data sharing with traceable, auditable API access.

In other words: visibility with safeguards is safer than opacity with workarounds.

A practical safeguard framework

To ensure privacy, security and participant control, we propose a layered safeguard model:

• Participant-led consent: Explicit, informed and revocable consent—visible within participant and provider systems—ensures participants remain in control of their data.
• Data minimisation: Providers would access only budget summaries, not detailed claim histories or unnecessary personal information.
• Scoped access controls: Using OAuth scopes and role-based access, visibility could be limited to specific participants, budget categories and defined timeframes.
• Full auditability: Immutable logs capturing who accessed data, when and for what purpose would support compliance and NDIA oversight.
• Rate limiting and anomaly detection: Technical controls could throttle excessive access and flag unusual patterns for review.
• Provider eligibility requirements: Access could be restricted to registered providers and approved integrators meeting NDIA security standards.

Why this aligns with the NDIS vision

At its heart, the NDIS is built on choice, control and continuity of support. Enabling participants to share budget visibility with trusted providers strengthens all three:

• Participants gain confidence their supports can continue sustainably
• Providers can deliver services aligned to real-time funding realities
• The NDIA benefits from improved transparency and reduced administrative noise.

The path forward

As PACE continues to evolve, closing the budget visibility gap represents a meaningful opportunity to reduce friction across the ecosystem. A consent-driven API model balances privacy, risk management and operational efficiency—while empowering participants and providers alike.

At quickclaim, we remain committed to collaborating with the NDIA and the broader sector to modernise claiming workflows and unlock smarter integrations that improve outcomes for everyone in the NDIS.