Writing NDIS Assistive Technology Requests for Power Wheelchairs: What Gets Approved?

A power wheelchair can be life-changing — restoring independence, reducing carer fatigue, and enabling full participation in daily life. Yet NDIS funding requests for powered mobility are among the most commonly rejected AT applications in Australia. In many cases, the equipment is clearly the right clinical choice. The problem lies in how the request is written.

Whether you're an occupational therapist preparing an AT report, a support coordinator guiding a participant, or a plan manager trying to understand why a request was knocked back, this guide breaks down exactly what the NDIA looks for — and how to make sure your next submission gets a yes.

Understanding NDIS Funding Categories for Power Wheelchairs

Power wheelchairs are funded under Capital Supports — Assistive Technology in an NDIS plan. The NDIA categorises AT by risk level, and this classification directly affects what evidence and who can prescribe it.

• Low-risk AT (e.g. simple aids, grab rails) — minimal evidence required, broad prescriber eligibility
• Mid-risk AT (e.g. basic manual wheelchairs, shower chairs) — some clinical justification needed
• High-risk AT — power wheelchairs fall into this category. A qualified allied health professional (typically an OT with relevant experience) must complete the AT assessment and report, and the NDIA scrutinises these requests closely

For any AT item priced above $15,000, the NDIA also requires at least one quote from a registered AT provider, along with a clear justification for the chosen product over comparable lower-cost options. Many power wheelchairs, particularly custom-configured complex rehab chairs, exceed this threshold.

What NDIS Assessors Actually Look For

NDIS planners and AT advisors reviewing your request are asking three core questions. Your report must answer all three clearly.

1. What is the functional impact of the participant's disability?

This is the foundation of any successful request. Describe the participant's current functional capacity in concrete, measurable terms. Avoid vague language like "has difficulty walking." Instead, document endurance limits (e.g. "can propel a manual wheelchair independently for no more than 15 metres before fatigue"), upper limb strength scores, pain ratings, and the downstream effects on daily tasks, community access, and employment or education participation.

2. Has the participant trialled the equipment?

A formal, documented trial is one of the strongest pieces of evidence you can include. The NDIA wants to see that the recommended chair has been tested in real-world environments relevant to the participant's life — not just a clinic corridor. Document the trial date, duration, environments tested, the participant's performance, any postural or safety observations, and their own reported experience. Without trial evidence, requests are far more likely to be queried or rejected.

3. Why is a power wheelchair the most appropriate option?

The NDIA applies a "value for money" principle. You must explicitly justify why a lower-cost alternative — a manual wheelchair, a transport chair, or a scooter — is not clinically appropriate for this participant. This is not a formality. Address it directly, with reference to the participant's specific functional profile.

Key Terminology That Strengthens Your Request

The language you use in an AT report matters. NDIS assessors are trained to look for alignment with the framework's own principles. Incorporate these concepts deliberately.

• Goal-linking: Tie the recommended AT to specific, named goals in the participant's NDIS plan. "This powerchair will enable [Name] to independently access their community and attend weekly work placement (Plan Goal 3)" is far more compelling than a generic statement about mobility.
• Functional independence vs. carer burden: Quantify how the AT reduces reliance on paid or informal supports. If a carer currently spends 45 minutes per day manually propelling the participant, and the powerchair eliminates this, that is a funded support reduction that represents value for money to the scheme.
• The "least intrusive" principle: Demonstrate that you have considered the full spectrum of options and selected the one that best supports independence without over-engineering the solution. Recommending the highest-specification chair without clinical justification is a common red flag for assessors.
• Reasonable and necessary: Frame every element of your recommendation against the NDIS Act's definition — the AT must be related to the participant's disability, represent value for money, and reflect what would be expected in a community context.

The AT Report Structure That Gets Results

A well-structured AT report for a power wheelchair should include the following sections in this order:

1. Prescriber qualifications — Your name, professional registration (AHPRA), years of experience, and specific experience with complex AT or powered mobility
2. Participant background — Diagnosis, relevant medical history, current living situation, support network, daily routine
3. Functional assessment findings — Objective measures: ROM, strength, endurance, cognitive capacity for safe powerchair operation, postural assessment outcomes
4. Trial documentation — Chair trialled, dates, environments, outcomes, participant feedback
5. Clinical rationale — Why this specific chair, seating configuration, and features are indicated for this participant
6. Alternatives considered and rejected — Documented with clinical reasoning for each
7. Linkage to NDIS goals — Explicit reference to plan goals
8. Quote(s) — From a registered AT provider; required above $15,000
9. Maintenance and review plan — Outline expected lifespan, servicing needs, and when reassessment would be warranted

Common Reasons Power Wheelchair Requests Are Rejected

Understanding why requests fail is the fastest way to improve approval rates. The most frequent issues include:

• Insufficient functional evidence: The report describes the diagnosis but not the functional impact. Fix: include objective assessment data and scored outcome measures (e.g. FIM, COPM).
• No trial documentation: The OT recommends a chair the participant has never used. Fix: always conduct and document a real-world trial before submitting.
• Missing justification for alternatives: The report doesn't address why a manual wheelchair or scooter isn't suitable. Fix: add a dedicated "alternatives considered" section.
• Weak goal-linking: The request makes no connection to the participant's funded goals. Fix: pull direct quotes from the participant's current plan.
• Prescriber not deemed qualified: The recommending OT has insufficient AT or powered mobility experience documented. Fix: include a brief prescriber CV or competency statement with your report.
• Specification mismatch: The chair spec doesn't match the stated clinical need. Fix: ensure every feature is clinically justified.

Partner with Assistive Team for Successful NDIS Submissions

At Assistive Team, we work directly with occupational therapists, support coordinators, and NDIS participants across Queensland and Australia to ensure the right powered mobility solution is identified, trialled, and correctly specified for NDIS submission.

Our team can assist with:

• Arranging formal powerchair trials in clinical or home environments
• Providing detailed product specifications and NDIS-compliant quotes for AT reports
• Comparing models to help justify "why this chair" in your clinical rationale
• Supporting participants through the review and appeals process if a request is queried

Get in touch with the Assistive Team at assistiveteam.com.au — we're here to support you at every step of the NDIS AT journey.