NDIS eligibility study reveals major inequities
February 25, 2025
New research has uncovered some alarming statistics on who qualifies for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), with women, older Australians and those from disadvantaged areas facing greater barriers to access.
A study of nearly 500,000 NDIS applications between 2016 and 2022 found that there was a lack of consistency on who was accepted into the scheme. While people with intellectual disabilities, autism, or brain injuries were highly likely to be accepted (with more than 900 approvals per 1,000 applications), those with physical or psychosocial disabilities faced much higher rejection rates.
The study, by academics at Melbourne University and UNSW Sydney and first reported in The Conversation, also found women were disproportionately affected, particularly those with physical or psychosocial disabilities. For every 1,000 applications, 145 more women with physical disabilities and 83 more women with psychosocial disabilities were rejected compared with men. Age was another major factor – older Australians with physical disabilities faced 235 more rejections per 1,000 applications than younger applicants with the same condition.
These disparities may stem from the NDIS’s historical reliance on “List A” – a pre-approved set of conditions that fast-tracked certain applicants, including those with Level 2 or 3 autism and intellectual disabilities. However, conditions such as Down syndrome or motor neurone disease are not on the list, requiring applicants to provide extensive additional evidence – something that can be especially difficult for those from lower-income backgrounds who may lack access to specialist medical assessments.
Once in the scheme, funding levels were relatively equal across groups, but inequalities persisted in how funds were used. Women with psychosocial disabilities, for example, spent more than men with similar-sized budgets, suggesting they had greater unmet support needs.
The NDIS is reviewing its eligibility criteria as part of broader reforms, including the proposed removal of List A in favour of functional assessment tools to evaluate applicants’ support needs more objectively. However, experts warn that these tools have been criticised for failing to account for cultural, gender and socioeconomic differences.
With major NDIS changes coming, researchers stress the need for reforms that are co-designed with diverse disability communities to ensure they do not reinforce existing inequalities or introduce new ones.
