“Devastating…and sometimes fatal” – Greens-chaired report blasts most of Labor’s Support at Home handling

Released last week, the report into the Support at Home scheme and its rollout has loudly and comprehensively vocalised severe concern and frustration while putting forward recommendations for change. From indicating it is the committee’s view that at a macro level the government is not fulfilling its systemic obligations, “the Australian Government must enact urgent changes to the new aged care system in order to implement the recommendations of the Aged Care Royal Commission”, the report details, in strong language, problems seen in the number of packages, rollout and core pricing model of the Support at Home scheme. The inquiry is a key sign that tensions in government, and for seniors and their loved-ones, have gone beyond strained as they see a system rolled out with potentially disastrous wide-spread results.

“It is unacceptable that people are dying while waiting for assistance”

Chair Senator Penny Allman-Payne, in her concluding remarks highlights the overarching sentiment of the report, “It is unacceptable that people are dying while waiting for assistance. Older people and their families deserve better.”

She states that of particular concern is the delay in release of packages, “This inquiry has been vitally important in uncovering the true scale of delays faced by older Australians in receiving appropriate at home care services.”

“These delays are not only significant in terms of their length, but the devastating, irreversible and sometimes fatal impact they have on the health and wellbeing of older Australians.”

In a clear marker of broadening the impact of delays to demographics outside of seniors, the senator also stated, “Delays also have devastating, intergenerational consequences for family and friends undertaking caring responsibilities which are taxing both physically, mentally and financially.”

No reason for July 1 delay of packages

The committee has overtly chastised the decision to delay the release of 20,000 packages last July. “It was clear from evidence received in both written submissions and at the committee’s hearing on 29 August 2025 that these packages should not have been deferred from their originally planned release date of 1 July 2025.”

Articulating conversations with aged care sector providers, Allman-Payne directly refers to the sector’s readiness to service the packages, “Service providers made it clear that they have the capacity to service additional packages, and it is more than evident that the community requires additional packages.” 

“The only barrier that existed was the government’s refusal to release them.”

Disingenuous approach

In a concerning revelation about government messaging, Allman-Payne notes that, “The committee is concerned that the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (the department) gave evidence that ‘packages continued to be released’ between 1 July 2025 and 1 November 2025 when these are in fact, packages being reassigned as older Australians exit the home care program either through death or entering residential aged care.”

“This disingenuous approach to addressing the crisis that is the current waiting list significantly reduces public trust in government.”

These comments come amid growing frustration at the lack of transparency seen with government messaging and release of data relating to the scheme. 

Waiting lists

The report has also highlighted the numbers waiting for assessment, “the committee is also of the view that 20,000 new HCPs is inadequate in meaningfully reducing the vast waiting list of over 200,000 older Australians currently waiting for either an assessment of their needs, or an HCP.”

The committee has strongly recommended, “the Australian Government release all 83,000 packages promised prior to the 2025 federal election, before 30 June 2026.” 

However, the report indicates remaining concern surrounding this number and its realistic impact, “even the full release of 83,000 promised packages is unlikely to be sufficient.”

Rationing of care

The report has taken strong issue with what is seen as a “rationing of care” model for the Support at Home packages, “rationing care through packages is fundamentally at odds with a rights-based aged care system as recommended by the Royal Commission.”

Drawing back to the findings of the Commission, Allman-Payne notes, “It explicitly warned against ‘rationing’ care, where only a limited pool of government money is set aside for aged care and once spent, people either miss out or have to wait to get access to care.”

Multiple CEOs and sector leadership have been campaigning for a demand-driven system. The report articulates, from submissions of providers and advocates, and elevating the Commission’s own sentiment, to call for, “a demand-driven system underpinned by a universal entitlement to provide guaranteed access to aged care based on assessed need.”

In strong language, Allman-Payne articulates, “The calculated denial of service through waiting lists, and the rationing of care through the periodic release of packages, leads to significant and life altering consequences for older Australians.”

In a sentiment that has been echoed by lived experience and grief of countless loved ones and advocates, “these consequences can be fatal.”

Confusion

In a move that brings to the fore damaging consequences of the delay and confusion surrounding the Support at Home scheme, the report states, “due to the extensive waiting times for HCPs and residential aged care places, the CHSP is unfortunately being utilised as a default level one care package.”

“This is leading to adverse outcomes including for the care recipients, state and territory health care systems, and care providers.”

The advserse impacts of the slowed delay of packages has had significant impacts on providers, with limited acknowledgement for government. The Senator elevates the situations of many home care providers and their front-line staff in this consequence, “Aged care workers delivering CHSP services should not be forced to deliver out-of-scope care.”

“Service delivery providers should not be forced to close their books and decline new care recipients because their funding has been exhausted providing alternative care for older Australians who should be served by other funding arrangements.”

In an embarrassing highlight to government messaging clarity, the committee acknowledges that the CHSP will move to the SAH Program no earlier than 1 July 2027, operating as a grant funded program between 2025 and 2027, however, “The committee is however concerned that little detail has been provided regarding this transition to the SAH.”

SAS

The committee has additionally elevated concerns about how the single assessment system will operate.

In a move to streamline processes, the process is set to be conducted over the phone, however Allman-Payne notes, “It is unacceptable that assessments are increasingly being conducted by telephone when it is clear that such assessments are distressing and confusing to vulnerable older Australians, and appear more likely to miss important clinical information which can only be obtained through an in-person assessment.”

It is quality, not just a tick-box of servicing that industry leaders, and aged care advocates have been consistently calling for. The once-in-a-lifetime reform should not be done poorly but with substance and sustainability to support at the best quality possible. Not getting assessments right could be devastating to the care seniors could receive. 

Co-payments

In one of the strongest areas of concern, the report significantly voices severe reservations with the co-payment model of SaH. For all those approved for a package on or after 13 September 2024, including full peniors, being financially liable for the cost of some of their care, the report draws grave potential predictions.

“Pensioners, part-pensioners and self-funded retirees will pay between 5 and 50 per cent of the service provider’s fee for ‘independence’ tasks, like personal care.”

“It is important to emphasise that this category includes tasks such as showering and assistance with medication.”

The report highlights that the department figures how service costs for ‘personal’ care places having shower to be at $100 per hour, meaning, “some care recipients will be forced to pay $50 for a shower.”

The report overtly states what many advocates and loved ones have been predicting, “The committee is gravely concerned that vulnerable older people will forgo necessary care because they cannot afford to make these co-payments or are uncertain about what the cost may be.”

A tax on frailty

Central to the concerns surrounding the SaH pricing model is the health and financial implications inherent within the structure.

Particularly for full-pensioners, who are on a set income weekly, there is no way to source increased funds to pay for increased care if health and mobility start to deteriorate at home.

“A co-payment model based on the premise that the more assistance you require, the more you pay fails to recognise that many older people have no way to mitigate such increases in costs, except to decline necessary care.”

The report shares the serious concerns everyday Australians have been desperate to have acknowledged and adjusted, sharing, “As submitters described it, the model creates a tax on frailty.”

Disconnect of scheme and sector

In a frustrating move for both seniors, loved-ones and the sector, the report notes, “The committee welcomes the clear evidence from aged care providers that they are willing and ready to provide home care services.”

Many providers are in a position to provide dignity and life-supporting services in the immediate, “however, the committee also notes that providers have been unable to provide this care to older people due to delayed release of new HCPs.”

“The committee finds this misalignment deeply concerning.”

In a bold rebuke, the report states, “[This] reemphasises to the committee that the only barrier to the release of new HCPs was the government’s refusal to act, as providers have maintained their readiness to care for older Australians.”

Dissent

In her dissenting remarks, Senator Dorina Cox highlights an important reality that all these issues must acknowledge.

Quoting the Inspector-General of aged care, she shares the General’s comment on particular challenges and budgeting, “My Office understands the reality the government is up against: an increasing ageing population magnifying the demand for aged care, with a decreasing working-age population to fund it. There is not a limitless pool of money.”

It is critical that in the months ahead, as government and other members of parliament debate and navigate the way forward, that scheme structure and pricing models seek to uphold the needs and financial ability of vulnerable senior Australians, and their loved ones, as well as creating a system that is sustainable for the decades ahead.