01The case-for-support
One page. Lift verbatim into a Letter of Interest, an expression of interest, or the opening paragraph of any commissioning conversation. Government-facing register — cost economics first, story second.
"Unmanaged terminal-illness household debt is a measurable driver of preventable hospital re-admission, delayed discharge, and social-support system escalation. Life Without Debt resolves it under licence, at $1,840 per case, with a 23-day cycle time — well inside the cost envelope of every downstream state expenditure our absence would trigger."
The problem in one paragraph
Approximately 170,000 Australians die each year (ABS). Roughly 70,000 receive a formal palliative-care diagnosis. Between 40% and 60% carry personal debt at that moment (ASIC debt research, Credit Ombudsman). Households in the terminal-illness cohort with unresolved consumer debt generate measurable downstream costs to the state: delayed hospital discharge (mean state cost $1,300 per bed-day), preventable re-admission via financial-distress presentation (~$5,600 per episode), and social-support escalation through Centrelink hardship, National Debt Helpline case-load, and family-court estate disputes post-bereavement. These downstream costs are absorbed today, unfunded, by the state.
Our intervention in one paragraph
Life Without Debt is a registered Australian charity (ACNC · PBI · DGR Item 1) that funds licensed debt-hardship negotiation for households where one member has a specialist-certified terminal illness. A licensed advocate — Laurence Hugo, operating under Australian Credit Licence 387398 via Credit Mediation Services Pty Ltd — engages creditors under NCCP s.72 hardship provisions, activates life-insurance terminal-illness benefits held via superannuation, and pursues waivers where death is imminent. The unit economics are audited: $1,840 average direct cost per closed case, 23-day cycle time, 87 cents of every donated dollar reaches direct case service. The service is cohort-specific, licence-backed, and structured to be co-funded rather than replace existing state hardship remits.
Why government commissioning, why now
Government does not need to build a bespoke commissioning vehicle to fund this service — LWD's PBI/DGR structure and ACL licensing already sit inside existing philanthropy-integrated and health-integrated commissioning envelopes. PHN palliative-care commissioning, state palliative-care commissioning, DSS Financial Wellbeing and Capability grants, and the National Palliative Care Strategy each have live envelopes for which LWD is directly eligible without adaptation. The Year 3 case for commissioning capital is the same case philanthropic capital funded in Years 1 and 2: an evaluation-grade evidence base, a published methodology, and a per-case cost that sits well below every downstream state expenditure the service displaces. Foundation grants funded the evidence; government commissioning funds the scale.
The four measurable outputs per case
| Output | Definition | Y1 sample |
|---|---|---|
| Total debt extinguished | Creditor debt reduced, waived or restructured under formal hardship arrangement | $1.82M across 31 cases |
| Inter-generational liability prevented | Debt that would have transferred to surviving family, extinguished before death | $340K across 8 cases |
| Case cycle time | Referral to closure, in days | 23 days average |
| Household stress reduction | Pre / post K10 psychological distress score, family-reported | 52 percentage-point drop |
$1,840 per LWD case sits well below the state cost of every downstream expenditure the service displaces. One preventable hospital re-admission via financial-distress presentation costs the state approximately $5,600. One week of delayed discharge because a household cannot resolve creditor pressure costs approximately $9,100. One family-court estate dispute averaging $18,400 in Legal Aid and court-administration cost. LWD prevents these events before they consume state resource. This is not a claim we make loosely — it is the specific comparison the commissioning conversation should draw.
The three points the case must not overreach on
Don't claim
- That LWD replaces government hardship services. It doesn't — LWD takes referrals that sit outside the state's own hardship remit (external consumer debt where the household is in the terminal-illness cohort).
- System-change effects from Y1 data alone. The audited data cohort is 31 cases. Cite outcomes; do not extrapolate to population-level claims until the evaluation-grade study is delivered.
- That LWD is a lower-cost substitute for financial counselling. It isn't. LWD is cohort-specific licensed advocacy under ACL 387398 — different accreditation, different scope, different audience.
02Ask ladder — three commissioning tiers
Room D is not a menu — each tier corresponds to a distinct commissioning framework. Match the tier to the specific commissioning envelope in the room, then read the tier carefully before the formal conversation. All figures below are indicative model economics; every live proposal will be sized against the specific envelope and Board-approved before submission.
State-level pilot commissioning covering a defined geographic region or a specific referring-partner network — for example, one state palliative-care network, one PHN region, or a defined ACCHO commissioning stream. The tier for a first commissioning conversation with an authority that wants to see the model at defined scale before scaling further.
- Capped case volume (~55–135 cases)
- Quarterly outcome data report to commissioner
- Audited annual outcomes report
- Transferable evaluation methodology
Multi-jurisdiction or federal programme commissioning covering a defined cohort — for example, all terminal-illness referrals from PHN palliative-care commissioning networks, or a defined stream of a DSS Financial Wellbeing and Capability grant. The tier that produces cross-jurisdictional evidence and positions LWD as a candidate for the National Palliative Care Strategy conversation.
- Scaled case volume (~275–545 cases)
- Cross-jurisdictional outcomes comparison
- Published evaluation report
- Named commissioner on all evaluation outputs
- Board-observer invitation (annual)
Federal-level integration contract embedding LWD into a defined stream of the National Palliative Care Strategy or equivalent. Deliverable: national referral pathway, published cost-per-outcome benchmark, independent evaluation partnership formalised, and a policy submission for the next Strategy refresh cycle.
- National referral pathway (~545+ cases per year)
- Cost-per-outcome benchmark published
- Independent evaluation partnership formalised
- Policy submission for Strategy refresh
- Founding commissioning partner (permanent)
These figures exist to give an early conversation a shape. Any live proposal must be sized against the specific commissioning envelope in the room, and approved by the Board before submission. Do not commit to these figures in an email or verbal proposal without prior Board approval.
03Talking points for the commissioning conversation
Commissioning conversations run 45–90 minutes with a commissioning officer or Assistant Director. They will ask three questions in some form. Rehearse the answers below verbatim, then improvise the connecting tissue. Register: technical, cost-economics-first, no sales language.
Q1 · What are the unit economics?
"$1,840 direct cost per closed case at an 87 cents direct-service ratio. Cycle time is 23 days from referral to closure. Y1 outputs per case: $58,700 average debt extinguished, $11,000 average inter-generational liability prevented, 52-point drop in K10 psychological distress. These are pilot figures on a 31-case audited cohort; a funded evaluation-grade study replaces the sample size with N=~150 within Y2 of the model economics."
Q2 · How does this fit an existing commissioning envelope?
"LWD is ACNC-registered, PBI-endorsed, DGR Item 1, ACL 387398-backed. That structure fits PHN palliative-care commissioning, state palliative-care commissioning, DSS Financial Wellbeing and Capability grants, and the National Palliative Care Strategy without adaptation. We don't need a bespoke vehicle — we sit inside the frameworks the state already uses. The only question is which envelope this conversation belongs in."
Q3 · What are the downstream cost displacements?
"$1,840 per case sits well below every downstream state cost the service prevents. One preventable hospital re-admission via financial-distress presentation costs approximately $5,600. One week of delayed discharge because a household cannot resolve creditor pressure costs approximately $9,100. One family-court estate dispute averages $18,400 in Legal Aid and court-administration cost. We can produce a per-jurisdiction cost-displacement model on request."
On the two-entity structure
"Life Without Debt Ltd is the charity — ACNC, PBI, DGR Item 1. Credit Mediation Services Pty Ltd holds the credit licence — ACL 387398. LWD funds CMS on a cost-recovery basis to conduct the advocacy. This split exists because a charity cannot hold a credit licence directly under Australian law. Full related-party disclosure sits in the Register of Interests. From a commissioning-authority perspective, the two entities are audited separately and reported transparently."
On safeguarding and complaints
"LWD operates under a documented safeguarding framework covering intake, capacity assessment, informed consent, and vulnerability screening. Complaints are managed via a Board-approved policy referencing the AFCA process for credit-related complaints against the licensed advocate. All beneficiary interactions are logged in the case-management platform, with independent audit access under the commissioning agreement."
On what LWD is not asking for
"We are not asking the state to replace what philanthropic capital funds. Foundations are funding the Y1–Y2 evidence base. We are asking the state to fund the scaling of an evaluated service, at a defined per-case cost that sits below every downstream expenditure it displaces. If the state decides not to commission, we continue at philanthropy-funded scale. If it does, we scale to a national service. Both futures are defensible; we prefer the one that reaches more households."
Phrase discipline for the commissioning conversation
Commissioning officers are trained to notice imprecise language. The following distinctions matter — some are RG 96 obligations, some are just good discipline.
Say
- "debt-hardship negotiation" or "licensed advocacy"
- "the household we help" or "the beneficiary cohort"
- "may result in reduced or waived debt in some cases"
- "cost-displacement model" or "downstream expenditure avoided"
- "cohort-specific service" (not "specialist" or "premium")
- "we engage creditors under statutory hardship provisions"
Don't say
- "debt relief" · "debt forgiveness" · "debt elimination"
- "our clients" · "the client we served" (only the ACL-holder has clients)
- "replace government hardship services" (we don't)
- "we're cheaper than financial counselling" (different service, different accreditation)
- "we can scale to any volume" (be honest about capacity)
- "our cost savings to government" (say "cost displacement"; the state has not spent, so it is not saving)
04FAQ and objection handling
Eight questions commissioning officers ask most often. Answers here are written to be read verbatim if needed; in practice, adapt tone and length to the officer's register.
05Email nurture — six-touch proposal-cycle sequence
Commissioning decision cycles run 9–24 months per Position Brief §07. The proposal cycle typically includes an expression-of-interest phase, a scoping-document phase, a formal proposal phase, and a decision phase — each separated by several months. This nurture sequence is designed for the 6–12 months between formal touchpoints, running in parallel to the procurement process. Send cadence: one every 4–6 weeks, personal from Carla, no bulk-list formatting.
Day 0
Week 4
Week 8
Week 14
Week 22
Month 8
If the commissioning officer replies to any touch with a substantive question, the sequence pauses. Reply to the question, wait for their next signal, then resume the cadence from the point they interrupted it. Commissioning conversations are institutional relationships, not campaigns. A sequence that keeps firing while a live conversation exists reads as automated to the officer's team and damages the relationship.
06Proposal deck — 10-slide skeleton
For the formal proposal meeting after the scoping phase has qualified interest. Ten slides, 30 minutes of talking, 30 minutes of Q&A with the commissioning team. The deck is a spine — the technical Q&A is the deliverable.
07Stewardship playbook — post-award reporting cadence
Commissioning authorities do not renew agreements because the mission is good. They renew because the reporting cycle was clean, the outcomes tracked, and the compliance provisions were honoured. The following cadence is a floor, not a ceiling.
| Cadence | Deliverable | Owner | Format |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 14 post-award | Award-acknowledgement letter from Board Chair, personally signed. Confirms scope, term, and reporting cycle in writing. | Board Chair | 1 page |
| Day 30 | Deployment plan — what the commissioning envelope funds, over what timeline, with case-volume targets and quarterly reporting milestones | Carla + Laurence | 3–5 pages |
| Monthly | Operational status report — case intake vs plan, cycle-time indicator, any escalation events (advocate-side or beneficiary-side) | Case-officer team lead | 1 page |
| Quarterly | Outcome data report — cases closed, debt resolved, cycle time, K10 movement, cost per case, cross-referenced against the commissioning authority's own KPI schedule | Carla + evaluator | 4–6 pages |
| Six months | Mid-term commissioning review — half-day, includes site visit, case-officer observation (with beneficiary consent), and briefing to the officer's team | Carla + Chair + Laurence | In-person |
| Annual | Full annual outcomes report — externally audited, published methodology, submitted to commissioning authority and lodged with ACNC. Available in the format the commissioning authority requires for its own annual report. | Board + evaluator + external auditor | Full report |
| Renewal window | Renewal conversation opens 6 months before term-end. The six-touch proposal-cycle nurture sequence restarts. | Carla | — |
| Any moment | If a material issue arises (adverse outcome, licensed-advocate departure, structural change), the commissioning authority is notified within three business days — before it becomes public | Chair or Carla | — |
The commissioning authority sees the outcome data on the same day the Board does. That inversion — commissioner as first audience — signals what commissioning capital is buying, which is not gratitude but accountability. A commissioning authority that funds LWD should feel like the fifth Board member by the second reporting cycle.
08Priority prospect map + activation trigger + threading
Where the first Room D conversations are most likely to open, and when this kit moves from build-ahead-of-trigger to live use.
Priority prospect map
Ranked by natural fit with LWD's cohort, scope, and existing licensing. Not a target list — a receptivity map. Every Room D conversation should open through a warm introduction from a Room A foundation partner, a Room F clinical partner, or a named Board member.
| Prospect class | Commissioning framework | Natural fit rationale |
|---|---|---|
| PHN palliative-care commissioning teams | Primary Health Network commissioning under the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care | Direct alignment with Room F referral pathway. PHNs commission community palliative-care services and are the natural procurement route for a referral-integrated debt-advocacy service. |
| State palliative-care commissioning bodies | State Health departments; state-level palliative-care strategies | Existing state-level palliative-care commissioning strategies (NSW, VIC, QLD in particular) explicitly name financial distress at end of life as a service-gap priority. |
| Federal Department of Social Services grants | Financial Wellbeing and Capability programme; National Debt Helpline integration | DSS grants explicitly cover consumer-debt advocacy and hardship services. LWD's PBI/DGR status and ACL licensing fit the existing eligibility criteria without adaptation. |
| National Palliative Care Strategy stream | National Palliative Care Strategy 2018 (under review); state-level implementation frameworks | The National Palliative Care Strategy names financial hardship as a psychosocial priority. LWD is one of very few services structured specifically to address it. |
| Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation networks | NACCHO-led commissioning; state ACCHO peak bodies | Terminal-illness household debt affects First Nations households disproportionately due to intergenerational-liability inheritance patterns. LWD's non-screening scope (no income, culture, or religion filter) is a structural fit. |
Every Room D conversation should open through a warm introduction — a Room A foundation partner, a Room F clinical partner, or a named Board member's institutional network. Cold approaches to commissioning authorities have very low conversion and can damage the wider brand. Escalate any cold-approach opportunity to Carla for review before responding.
Activation trigger — when this kit moves from build-ahead to live use
This kit was authored ahead of trigger under standing delegated authority (Session 8I). It moves from "on the shelf" to "in use" when one of four conditions is met.
- Named commissioning conversation. A named state or federal commissioning authority requests a formal expression of interest, a scoping document, or a proposal.
- PHN request-for-tender opens. A PHN opens a palliative-care-integrated commissioning tender in which LWD's cohort and scope is a genuine fit. Threshold judgement: Carla in consultation with Laurence.
- DSS grant round opens. A Financial Wellbeing and Capability, Palliative-Care, or comparable federal grant round opens with LWD-eligible criteria. Threshold: Board approval to bid.
- Y2 revenue plan requires Room D activation. If Y1 revenue against target lands below the operational threshold that requires Y2 to activate Room D, the CMO is authorised to accelerate the live commissioning conversation as a strategic activation.
Threading — where this kit sits in the system
/room-d — currently redirects to /rooms hub pre-activation; a dedicated Room D public page authored at trigger time Position Brief §07
Room D anchor · payload weighting · activation sequence Theory of Change
Root cause · causal chain · STD framework · Y1 measurement Room A kit
Foundations — co-funding partner in the Y1/Y2 evidence build Room F kit
Health-Sector Referrals — upstream pathway that feeds Room D outcomes Register of Interests
LWD ↔ CMS related-party disclosure Compliance Plan
Safeguarding · complaints · audit provisions All marketing kits
Return to the kit index
Tell me. It comes out. Every sentence in this kit is meant to trace to a source you can hand a commissioning officer. If one doesn't, that's a bug, not a feature. Special caution for cost-displacement claims: every displacement figure must trace to a public AIHW / Legal Aid / DSS dataset before the kit is used in a live conversation.