CHSP isn’t broken. So why are we trying to replace it?

A coalition spanning providers, unions, consumer advocates and peak bodies has drawn a clear line in the sand: leave the Commonwealth Home Support Programme alone, and fix what is actually broken.

The newly formed CHSP Alliance, backed by organisations including Dementia Australia and Meals on Wheels Australia, is pushing back on plans to absorb CHSP into Support at Home.

Their argument is not nostalgic. It is structural. CHSP works because it was built differently.

The uncomfortable question behind reform

For four decades, CHSP has quietly done what most reforms promise but rarely deliver. It keeps people out of higher-cost care by intervening early, locally, and at scale.

More than 800,000 older Australians rely on it each year. It is delivered through over 1,200 providers and thousands of outlets. The services are simple on paper but foundational in practice: meals, transport, home modifications, social connection, basic health supports.

Taken together, they are the difference between staying at home and entering the formal care system earlier than necessary.

And they are delivered efficiently. According to the Alliance, an hour of Support at Home costs 30 to 50 per cent more than an equivalent CHSP service.

“It simply makes no sense to destroy an efficient program in favour of an inefficient one,” said Professor Kathy Eagar, Co-Convenor of the Alliance.

That comparison lands awkwardly in the middle of a reform agenda already struggling with funding constraints.

This isn’t just about cost

It is tempting to reduce this debate to economics. That misses the point.

CHSP is not just cheaper. It operates on a different logic.

It is grant-funded, community-based, and heavily supported by volunteers. It is designed to meet people where they are, not after they have navigated an assessment system or committed to a package.

That design allows it to reach cohorts the market struggles with. Regional communities. First Nations populations. Older people who are isolated, culturally diverse, or simply less likely to engage with formal systems.

The Alliance argues these are exactly the groups most at risk in a fully individualised, fee-for-service model, where access depends on navigating assessments, co-contributions, and provider availability.

It also explains why complaint rates are consistently lower.

Strip that out and replace it with a fully individualised, fee-driven model, and the system does not just change. It shifts who gets access, when, and how easily.

A system problem, not a program problem

What the Alliance is really proposing is not preservation. It is rebalancing.

Their model mirrors healthcare. A clear three-tier system where CHSP becomes the primary entry point, Support at Home the secondary layer, and residential care the tertiary level.

Low-intensity support sits at the front door. Specialist and complex care sit behind it.

“We believe CHSP is the perfect platform on which to build the new primary aged care tier,” said Paul Sadler, Co-Convenor of the Alliance and Chair of Meals on Wheels Australia.

That sounds obvious. It is also not how the system is currently structured.

Instead, reform has been heading toward consolidation, folding programs together in the name of simplicity. The risk is that in trying to integrate, the system removes its most effective preventative layer.

Integration and amalgamation are not the same thing. The sector knows that. The policy settings have not caught up.

The real tension leaders are managing

Behind this sits a tension leaders are already dealing with on the ground.

Demand is rising fast. The population aged over 80 is expected to grow by 60 per cent over the next decade.

At the same time, access remains constrained, assessment pathways are slow, and funding is under pressure.

In that environment, removing a high-volume, low-cost preventative program is not a neutral decision. It shifts pressure somewhere else. Usually into hospitals, residential care, or families.

“Most of these services will not be able to keep their doors open if CHSP closes,” Sadler warned, pointing to the reliance on community providers delivering meals, transport, and social support.

The sector has seen this pattern before.

What happens next matters more than the reform itself

The Alliance has put forward detailed proposals, including legislative changes to formally recognise “primary aged care services”, lighter regulatory pathways for community providers, and clearer referral links between tiers.

None of it is particularly radical. Most of it is already visible in how CHSP operates today.

What is unusual is the level of consensus behind it.

This is not a single provider protecting its position. It is a cross-sector signal that something fundamental is being misread in the reform process.

For those wanting to interrogate the detail, all four position statements are available via Meals on Wheels Australia at mealsonwheels.org.au/learn-more/resources/.

The decision in front of government

With the federal budget approaching, the ask is simple: stop the integration, co-design the future, and invest in the part of the system that is already working.

The harder question is whether policymakers are willing to accept that not everything needs to be rebuilt.

Sometimes the more disciplined move is to recognise where the system is already doing its job, and design everything else around it.

Because once preventative infrastructure is removed, rebuilding it is rarely straightforward.

And the costs tend to show up somewhere far less manageable.