NDIS Minister Stuart Robert announced last week that the NDIS is looking to address a part of the legislation that service providers and the NDIS have struggled with greatly - the definition of "reasonable and necessary".

This change has come about because both participants and NDIS assessors often struggle with the limitations of the term and disagree over what is or isn't actually "reasonable and necessary".

Given that not all NDIS assessors who handle participant claims are medically or allied health trained, coupled with current legislation being too broad and vague, there is often a breakdown in understanding the issue and the necessity of the solution - resulting in an inconsistency between approvals from person to person.

Unfortunately, I have seen way too many cases where this inconsistency affects Australians with a disability by restricting their ability to seek and obtain the support they need.

What participants are concerned about seeing is a blanket yes or no approach to certain items or services depending on their disability, instead of a case by case assessment.

This concern was fuelled by the polarising example used by Mr Robert in his announcement last week, of sex workers being wholly excluded from funding regardless of an individual's unique situation.

Despite concerns and the potential for it to go quite badly, this change to the legislation is actually very important.

Ideally, the change will be about developing a consistent definition of what the NDIS will and will not fund and ultimately a reduction in inconsistencies and polarisation.

I've talked to a number of participants since the announcement, and a common concern is whether these changes will require all items funded by the NDIS to be disability specific, and whether this will unnecessarily increase participants spending and rejections of claims.

For example, a child with a physical disability may need to do regular exercise and have access to equipment for early intervention as well as therapy, physio and support with their motor skills.

If that child lives in the city, the fear is that the NDIS won't support the purchase of personal exercise and physio equipment, because the child can access a range of occupational therapists, physiotherapists or gyms nearby.

A blanket approach may dictate that it is not "reasonable and necessary" for this child to purchase personal equipment, because they have access to these facilities.

Whereas if this child lived in a rural area without the same access, it may be completely reasonable for NDIS to fund some equipment for them to use at home.

The point being, if the legislation defines a blanket yes or no to scenarios based on a generalised hypothetical set of criteria, and not an individual needs-based assessment, it will severely impact vulnerable Australians.

Another example is the controversy around technology being funded by the NDIS. Before the pandemic, tablets were seen as "entertainment" devices, and therefore ineligible to purchase using funding.

This means is that if a child with non-verbal autism uses a tablet to communicate and needs a new one, they can't purchase it using their NDIS funding, and will have to replace it out of their own pocket.

During the pandemic, the NDIS approved funding for tablets as it was determined they needed to be used for eHealth appointments, however funding was still not approved for reasons outside of telehealth.

Situations like this are the reason Australians with a disability avoid the NDIS system altogether! Funding is hard to obtain, even harder to understand and the lack of clarity and rejection of requests can be heart-breaking for participants and carers.

As the legislation evolves, I would like to see clarity and emphasis on testing the benefit of things that are funded, and reviews into how they enhance a participant's independence, therefore making them reasonable and necessary.

I do agree that we need a clearer definition, as the current legislation is based on perception, which leaves room for error and lacks individualisation.

However, too narrow a definition excludes the ability of the NDIS to respond to individual need, individual situations and removes choice and control - which is the essence of the NDIS.

I have faith that the NDIS and disability sector will take a considerate approach to the legislation change and am hopeful that 2021 will prove a more supported and prosperous year for Australians with a disability.

River Night is the chief executive of disability consulting service Australian Communities.