CHSP Alliance emerges as sector heavyweights challenge direction of aged care reform

A powerful coalition of aged care leaders, providers, unions and advocates has formally stepped into the reform debate, warning that one of the government’s central policy decisions risks undermining the very foundations of community-based care.

Launched this week, the newly formed CHSP Alliance brings together 40 organisations and individuals spanning consumer advocacy, research, service delivery and workforce representation. Its message is clear and unusually unified: the Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP) should not be absorbed into the new Support at Home (SAH) system, but strengthened and repositioned as the primary tier of aged care.

The scale and calibre of the Alliance signals something more than routine sector feedback. It reflects a growing concern that, despite the ambition of recent reforms, key elements of system design may be moving in the wrong direction.

A question of system design, not just implementation

At the centre of the debate is a fundamental difference in philosophy.

The government’s reform agenda has leaned heavily towards individualised, consumer-directed funding models, positioning Support at Home as the central mechanism for delivering care in the community. CHSP, by contrast, has historically operated as a grant-funded, community-based program focused on prevention, early intervention and low-level support.

For the Alliance, these are not interchangeable models.

Co-convenor Paul Sadler, also Chair of Meals on Wheels Australia, argues that folding CHSP into SAH overlooks these structural differences and introduces unnecessary risk for the more than 800,000 older Australians currently relying on CHSP services.

“Folding CHSP into SAH is poor policy,” he said, pointing to instability in the emerging model and the potential disruption to established community-based supports.

The concern is not simply about transition risk. It is about whether the system is being designed to reflect how people actually use aged care.

The case for a three-tier system

The Alliance is proposing a clearer, more deliberate structure, one that mirrors the Australian health system.

In this model, CHSP would operate as the primary tier, providing accessible, low-cost, preventative support through services such as Meals on Wheels, community transport and social connection programs. Support at Home would function as the secondary tier, delivering more complex, individualised care. Residential aged care would remain the tertiary tier.

Professor Kathy Eagar, co-convenor of the Alliance, describes this as a way to simplify access and restore clarity for consumers navigating an increasingly complex system.

“CHSP should be local, affordable and with no long waits,” she said, positioning it as the equivalent of primary care in the health system.

For providers and policymakers, the appeal of this model lies in its alignment with both demand and cost.

Most older Australians require relatively low levels of support, often less than six hours per week. CHSP has historically met this need through community-based delivery, supported by not-for-profit providers and a substantial volunteer workforce.

The Alliance argues that replacing this model with a more complex, individualised funding approach risks increasing costs while reducing accessibility.

Prevention versus complexity

Underlying the Alliance’s position is a broader concern about the direction of reform.

CHSP has long been recognised for its preventative role, supporting older people to remain independent and delaying or avoiding the need for more intensive and expensive care. It also performs strongly in regional and remote areas and among culturally diverse communities, where local, community-embedded services are critical.

By contrast, there are early signs that the shift towards more structured, package-based care is introducing complexity into the system. Navigation challenges through My Aged Care, longer assessment wait times and higher service costs have all been raised as emerging issues by providers and advocates.

For Sadler, the policy implications are straightforward.

“Primary aged care focusing on prevention and a wellness approach is good for the older person and also good for the taxpayer,” he said.

The risk, as the Alliance sees it, is that a system designed primarily around individual budgets may struggle to replicate the scale, flexibility and community leverage that CHSP currently provides.

A critical moment ahead of the federal budget

The timing of the Alliance’s formation is not accidental.

With the May 2026 federal budget approaching, the group is calling for three immediate actions: a reversal of the decision to merge CHSP into Support at Home, a formal co-design process to redevelop CHSP as the primary tier of the system, and increased investment in CHSP services, particularly in areas experiencing high demand.

The Alliance has also outlined a broader reform agenda, including stronger integration with primary health care, the introduction of GP-led social prescribing into CHSP, and a revised funding model that better reflects the fixed and variable costs of delivering community-based services.

Importantly, the group is not advocating for the status quo. Its position is that CHSP requires modernisation, but that this should build on its strengths rather than replace its underlying model.

Reform at a crossroads

The emergence of the CHSP Alliance highlights a deeper tension within aged care reform.

On one hand, there is a drive towards standardisation, individualisation and system simplification through unified funding models. On the other, there is a growing recognition that community-based care does not always fit neatly within those structures.

What is at stake is not just program design, but the balance between efficiency and accessibility, between clinical models of care and community-based support, and ultimately, between policy intent and lived experience.

For government, the challenge will be determining whether the current reform trajectory can accommodate these concerns, or whether a course correction is required.

For the sector, the message from this coalition is clear. The question is no longer whether reform is needed, but whether the system being built reflects what actually works for older Australians.

With budget decisions imminent, that question is moving quickly from theoretical to consequential.