Getting Psychology Into a Plan: Evidence That Survives the Delegate

The advice always comes from somewhere kind. Just get a letter from your GP saying you need psychology. So the letter gets written, warm and true and two paragraphs long, and months later the plan arrives with no therapy in it, or a fraction of what was asked. Nobody lied to you. They just mistook a necessary ingredient for a sufficient one. A funding request under the NDIS is not a note excusing you from the ordinary rules. It is a case, measured against criteria written in legislation, decided by a delegate who will likely never meet you. Once you see the criteria, the whole exercise stops being mysterious. It becomes work, which is better, because work can be done well.

The seven tests, in plain language

Since the 2024 amendments, section 34 asks seven things of a support. Does it address needs arising from the impairment that got you into the scheme, not some other difficulty however real? Will it help you pursue the goals in your plan? Will it help you participate socially and economically? Is it value for money against alternatives, including the future cost of not funding it? Is it likely to be effective and beneficial, which for psychology means naming the evidence based approach and how progress will be measured? Does it account reasonably for what family and informal supports already provide? And is it the NDIS's job rather than another system's, the boundary Parts 1 and 2 of this series map in detail. A two paragraph letter cannot carry seven tests. A well built report answers each one, sometimes with a single sentence, before the delegate ever has to ask.

Where the money actually sits

Psychology is almost always claimed from Capacity Building under Improved Daily Living, and by a psychologist against the dedicated line for that profession. A Core funded route exists but is the exception, so if a plan has no Improved Daily Living funding, that is a planning conversation, not a workaround. Two mechanical realities shape the year. Plans built since mid 2025 typically release funding in periods, usually three months at a time, so a support schedule has to live within the release rhythm, not just the annual total. And under the 2026-27 Pricing Schedule the psychology price limit is $252.99 per hour nationally, with travel claimable at half the hourly rate, and telehealth, non face to face work, NDIA requested reports and short notice cancellations, now defined as within two business days for therapy, each sitting on their own line item. A request that quotes the right numbers and the right structure reads as credible before a single clinical word is weighed.

What strong evidence actually contains

Across the reports I write and the ones I am asked to rescue, the pattern is consistent. Strong evidence opens with function, not diagnosis: what this person cannot currently do, in which settings, with what support propping up the current level. It links every recommendation to a named plan goal. It specifies the dose, frequency, duration and review point, because open ended requests read as unmanaged risk. It states the approach and why it fits this person, and how outcomes will be measured in functional terms. It costs the alternative, what regression, informal carer strain or future paid support looks like if capacity is not built. And it never leans on the words treatment, symptoms or clinical care to do its lifting, because those words file the request under the wrong system.

The quiet trap of asking small

One pattern deserves its own paragraph. People trim their requests before anyone asks them to, requesting ten sessions because it sounds modest, hoping goodwill will top it up later. The scheme does not work that way, and mid plan changes have never been harder to get; the reform direction is explicitly toward fewer unscheduled adjustments. Ask for what the clinical reasoning supports, with a review point built in. Modesty is not a criterion in section 34. Evidence is.

What participants can do

• Before your planning meeting, write goals that connect to what you want psychology for. Supports are assessed against goals, and vague goals produce vague budgets.
• Give your report writer the actual brief: the seven criteria, your plan goals, and the everyday tasks at stake. A report written blind is a report written twice.
• Read the draft report and check one thing above all: does it describe your hard days and the support behind your good ones, or does it accidentally certify you as fine?
• Ask what the recommended supports cost against the current price limits so the request adds up, literally, on the delegate's screen.
• Keep copies of everything lodged. Part 6 and Part 7 of this series both begin with the file you kept.

What Support Coordinators can do

• Send providers a one page brief at referral: qualifying impairment, plan goals, budget category, reassessment date, and the functional questions the report must answer.
• Audit draft reports against the seven criteria as a checklist. If any test has no sentence answering it, the report is not finished.
• Sequence the year around funding periods so therapy does not stall in month three of a release cycle.
• Quantify value for money in submissions: hours of paid support avoided, carer sustainability, the cost curve of doing nothing.
• Build a small stable of report writers who understand this structure, and be candid with providers whose reports keep costing your participants funding.