Why travel and add-on claims are where money leaks
If you work in NDIS operations or finance, this will feel familiar. Your team either avoids claiming travel and non-face-to-face time because it feels risky, or you do claim it and end up stuck in invoice disputes, plan manager queries, or payment delays. Both situations cost you money and time.
Travel, non-face-to-face, reports, cancellations and other add-ons are not optional extras you decide to include. They are tightly controlled by pricing rules and support item conditions. When they are claimed correctly, they are legitimate revenue. When they are claimed loosely, they become a compliance and relationship problem.
This guide focuses on practical application. It explains what you can claim, when you can claim it, and how to structure claims and invoices so they are clear, defensible, and less likely to be challenged. It also looks at how simple automation and AI-style checks can help you catch high-risk patterns early.
In day-to-day provider language, add-ons usually mean claim types that sit alongside a primary support rather than replacing it. Common examples include:
The key operational rule is simple. You do not decide to add these because they feel reasonable. The pricing arrangements determine whether they are claimable, and the service agreement determines whether they are dispute-resistant.
Recommended Reads
Since the landmark change on 1 July 2025, therapy providers have been required to cap travel claims at 50 percent of the relevant price limit for the support being delivered. This applies to all therapy supports, including early childhood, and functions alongside the standard MMM travel time caps. If your billing system hasn't been updated to reflect this lower rate, you are likely sitting on a significant "clawback" risk from the NDIA.
What providers should do now:
Travel time caps remain tied to the Modified Monash Model (MMM) classification of the participant's location at the time of support. With the 2026 focus on "justifiable claiming," providers must ensure they are using the most recent MMM data (MMM 1–7) to calculate these caps, as boundaries can shift following census updates.
The Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits set maximum claimable travel time per eligible worker as follows:
Return travel from the last participant back to the usual place of work can also be claimed, but only if the provider must pay the worker for that return travel time. The return travel cap matches the same 30 or 60 minute limit based on MMM.
For MMM6 and MMM7 areas, PAPL v1.1 states that there is no travel time limit within those areas. Providers can enter specific arrangements with participants to cover higher travel time and costs, provided this is agreed in advance.
For therapy providers, the 50 percent travel rate still applies even in remote areas, rather than reverting to a full hourly rate.
The practical risk is not the absence of a cap. The risk is failing to document and pre-agree what travel looks like in remote settings.
Providers who have fewer invoice disputes tend to apply the same non-negotiable rules across their teams.
These rules reduce most “why am I paying for this?” conversations before they start.
Non-face-to-face claiming causes frustration when it feels like a flat admin charge. The pricing rules are clear that NF2F must genuinely assist the participant, and that general business overheads are already built into price limits.
Examples allowed under PAPL include:
These activities must be linked to the participant and usually require prior agreement.
PAPL explicitly excludes general administration, including:
A simple internal test helps teams decide. If the work would still exist even if this participant did not, it is likely overhead, not NF2F.
Charging a fee not linked to completed participant-specific work is not permitted.
Many disputes are caused by poor invoice structure rather than incorrect claiming. Bundling everything into one line makes it hard for participants and plan managers to understand what they are paying for.
Best practice invoice structure
Always separate lines for:
This mirrors how claims are submitted in the portal and makes invoices easier to review.
Example: therapy invoice (MMM1–3)
A short note helps prevent disputes:
“Travel and non-face-to-face time are billed separately in line with NDIS claiming rules and our service agreement.”
Example: support work travel with return travel (MMM4–5)
If return travel cannot be confidently justified, it is safer not to claim it.
Many providers either miss legitimate non-labour travel costs or claim them inconsistently.
PAPL v1.1 allows non-labour travel costs to be claimed against the relevant provider travel non-labour item, provided they are pre-agreed and apportioned when multiple participants are involved.
Operational best practice
This avoids renegotiating costs each time travel occurs.
AI should not approve claims. Its value is in flagging what humans should review.
High-value checks include:
For MMM6–7 areas, controls should focus on:
A simple dashboard that shows travel hours by worker, travel-to-support ratios, MMM splits, and exceptions makes compliance operational rather than theoretical.
Travel, non-face-to-face and other add-on claims are not minor extras. They are structured parts of NDIS revenue that must be handled with precision. When pricing rules, MMM caps, service agreements and invoice formatting are aligned, providers can claim confidently without triggering disputes or clawbacks.
The difference between compliant revenue and compliance risk is rarely the rule itself; it is the workflow behind it. Tight systems, clear documentation and proactive internal checks turn add-on claiming from a grey area into a controlled, predictable process.