Nicht abgerechnete Leistungen bei AT‑Assessments und Beschaffung
Definition
The Australian Assistive Technology Equity Studies identify more than 100 separate AT funders and schemes across Australia, with 108 schemes operating outside the NDIS alone, each with different requirements and benefits.[3] This patchwork means that assistive technology assessment, trials, procurement and training are often not funded or are funded separately from the device itself, and many schemes “provide assistive products, [but] few fund the wraparound services that are critical to supporting effective service delivery,” including skilled assessment, trials and procurement.[3] As a result, AT professionals frequently perform assessment, trial and procurement coordination work that is not billable to any scheme, or they fail to code and lodge the service under the correct program in time, resulting in lost revenue. The Review of Assistive Technology Programs in Australia notes that AT is currently procured under disparate and disconnected programs, representing a “lost opportunity” to streamline procurement and funding.[5] In a vocational rehabilitation context, where AT assessments feed into return‑to‑work plans and workers’ compensation or insurer funding, manual cross‑walking of rules for NDIS, aged‑care AT programs, workers’ compensation, and employer‑funded schemes increases the chance that services are provided before funding approval or against ineligible categories, leading to write‑offs.
Key Findings
- Financial Impact: Quantified (logic-based): For a medium provider performing ~1,000 AT assessment/procurement episodes per year, if 5–10% of episodes involve 1–2 hours of assessment/procurement time that cannot be billed or is rejected (1.5 hours average at AUD 180/hour clinical rate), this equals 75–150 hours/year or AUD 13,500–27,000 in direct unbilled labour. Adding 1–2 large equipment orders per month written off due to funding ineligibility or missed prior approval (24 per year at average margin AUD 1,500) adds ~AUD 36,000/year. Total indicative revenue leakage: ~AUD 50,000–60,000 per site, or AUD 100,000–300,000 for multi‑site providers.
- Frequency: Ongoing in every funding cycle where AT assessments and procurement are billed to multiple Australian schemes with distinct rules; especially frequent when staff are unfamiliar with less‑used state or insurer programs.
- Root Cause: Highly fragmented AT funding environment in Australia with more than 100 funders and divergent rules; lack of funding for wraparound AT services (assessment, trials, procurement) under many schemes; manual, spreadsheet‑based mapping of assessment and procurement tasks to funding categories; poor integration between clinical documentation and billing systems; inconsistent training of clinicians on scheme‑specific claiming rules.
Why This Matters
The Pitch: Vocational rehabilitation and AT providers in Australia 🇦🇺 waste an estimated AUD 100,000–300,000 per year in unbilled or rejected claims across assessment, trials and procurement steps. Automation of scheme‑specific pricing, documentation and claim submission for each AT episode eliminates this revenue leakage.
Affected Stakeholders
Occupational therapists and AT assessors, Rehabilitation consultants in vocational rehabilitation services, Billing and revenue cycle staff in AT and rehab providers, Practice managers, Suppliers of AT devices involved in quote and procurement management
Deep Analysis (Premium)
Financial Impact
Financial data and detailed analysis available with full access. Unlock to see exact figures, evidence sources, and actionable insights.
Current Workarounds
Financial data and detailed analysis available with full access. Unlock to see exact figures, evidence sources, and actionable insights.
Get Solutions for This Problem
Full report with actionable solutions
- Solutions for this specific pain
- Solutions for all 15 industry pains
- Where to find first clients
- Pricing & launch costs
Methodology & Sources
Data collected via OSINT from regulatory filings, industry audits, and verified case studies.
Related Business Risks
Überhöhte Beschaffungskosten und Lagerbestände bei Hilfsmitteln
Kundenabwanderung durch langsame und uneinheitliche Versorgung mit Hilfsmitteln
Fehlentscheidungen bei der Auswahl von Hilfsmitteln und Finanzierungswegen
Nicht abrechenbare Leistungen durch fehlende oder verspätete Kostengenehmigungen
Verwaltungsaufwand durch komplexe Zulassungs- und Autorisierungsanforderungen
Verzögerte Zahlungen durch unvollständige oder nicht konforme Leistungsdokumentation
Request Deep Analysis
🇦🇺 Be first to access this market's intelligence