It All Starts With the Right Plan
Everything starts with the plan.
An NDIS plan is more than a budget. It is the foundation for everything that follows. If a plan does not accurately reflect a participant’s disability, functional capacity and support needs, achieving their goals becomes significantly more difficult.
That’s why I place such a strong emphasis on evidence-led plan reassessments and reviews. Before we focus on implementing a plan, I want to be confident it gives the participant the best opportunity to succeed.
Once the right funding is in place, the next step is building the right support team.
Finding a provider is easy. Finding the right provider is something entirely different.
I don’t simply work through provider lists. I take the time to understand each participant’s goals, communication style, personality, complexity and preferences before making recommendations. Whether it’s an Occupational Therapist, Psychologist, Speech Pathologist or Support Worker, I look for the best fit, not just the first available appointment.
My standard is simple:
If I wouldn’t trust a provider to support my own family, I won’t recommend them to yours.
I believe participants deserve thoughtful recommendations, not referrals made for convenience. The right provider can make an enormous difference, and I take that responsibility seriously.
A Different Approach to Plan Reviews
Whilst Support Coordination is at the heart of Propel Pathways, over time I have developed a particular speciality in plan reassessments, s100 internal reviews and Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) matters.
My background in law gives me a different perspective to many Support Coordinators. Rather than simply requesting additional funding, I understand the legislative framework, the NDIS Act, the NDIS Rules, operational guidelines and the available evidence to identify what information is required to properly support a participant’s case.
Every review is approached as an evidence-based submission. Clinical reports are reviewed, gaps in evidence are identified and additional supporting documentation is obtained where appropriate. My role is to ensure that a participant’s circumstances are presented clearly, accurately and in a way that directly addresses the relevant legislative and funding criteria.
Importantly, no Support Coordinator can promise a particular funding outcome. Every participant’s circumstances are different and every decision remains a matter for the NDIA or, where applicable, the Administrative Review Tribunal.
However, I believe participants deserve real preparation and strong advocacy at every stage of the review process, regardless of the eventual outcome. Even where a review does not result in additional funding (none of my submissions have resulted in funding reductions), participants deserve to know that their circumstances have been presented with a strong supporting submission.
The funding outcomes below reflect matters that have concluded favourably. They represent only one part of my work. The real measure of success is ensuring that every participant receives careful preparation, honest advice and dedicated advocacy throughout their NDIS journey.
Every dollar of additional funding represents a participant whose support needs have been recognised and whose opportunities to pursue their goals have been strengthened.
That’s why I do this work.
2026 Plan Review Outcomes
Understanding the Different Types of Reviews
Not every NDIS review is the same. Depending on the participant’s circumstances, I may recommend either a Plan Reassessment or an s100 Internal Review.
A Plan Reassessment is appropriate where a participant’s circumstances, functional capacity or support needs have changed. The purpose is to ask the NDIA to develop a new plan that better reflects the participant’s current needs and goals.
An s100 Internal Review (also known as an Internal Review of a Reviewable Decision) is different. Rather than requesting a new plan because circumstances have changed, it asks the NDIA to reconsider a decision that has already been made. The submission explains why the original decision was incorrect and provides evidence demonstrating why the decision should be varied.
The outcomes below include successful examples of both approaches. Which pathway is appropriate depends entirely on the participant’s individual circumstances and the nature of the NDIA decision.
Funding increases have been calculated using annual equivalent funding where plan lengths differed to ensure a like for like comparison.
| Month Resolved | Submission Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| May 2026 | Plan Reassessment | 175% plan increase compared to previous plan |
| June 2026 | s100 Internal Review | 42% plan increase through existing plan variation |
| June 2026 | Plan Reassessment | 78% plan increase compared to previous plan |
| June 2026 | Plan Reassessment | 168% plan increase compared to previous plan |
| July 2026 | s100 Internal Review | 7% plan variation increase through existing plan variation |