Why these 108 vendors? Who decided?
A published test decided, and you can apply it yourself: does the product contain something only a care provider would ever use?
At least one of the NDIS price guide, claiming to the NDIA, SCHADS award interpretation, worker screening and Practice Standards, or participant plans and budgets. A care landing page is marketing; a care feature is scope.
The rule exists so that inclusion is not a decision. Anyone can see how the list is drawn and how scores are computed, and any figure traces to stored answers on request. We do not get to choose who appears based on who might buy something — which is the only reason a ranking of named businesses is worth anything.
It excludes real companies, on purpose
Products have been removed under this rule after being measured: a payroll platform whose award interpretation is what every payroll product does and whose aged-care page sits beside its grocery and hospitality pages; a GP and specialist records system with no care-scheme logic at all; an AI receptionist add-on. All real software, all bought by real providers, none of them in scope.
Vendors are also removed when no legal entity can be verified — no ABN or ACN under any spelling. A published index carries the operator’s name, and a company that cannot be found in a register does not go on it.
You cannot opt out
Inclusion is not a choice a vendor makes, and neither is removal. An index vendors could leave would measure willingness to be measured, and the ones who left would be the ones with the most to hide. If the rule says you are in scope, you are in the index whether or not you have ever spoken to us. The full rule is on the method page.