Providers must pay bills and seniors must be protected – Catholic Health Australia fronts senate to ask the government to balance support at home reform

Catholic Health Australia has been hearing from its providers, Support at Home changes have impacted operational management. For many, confusion and uncertainty has destabilised the pursuit of high-quality care throughout the transition. As has been noted by leadership for some time, in order to provide the best quality to seniors across the country, high-performing providers have needed to navigate complex reform, at times opaque, and last-minute rule changes, all while ensuring that cash-flow management stays in the black, and all staff and suppliers are paid. Catholic Health Australia has today fronted the Senate with a message that is two-fold. To acknowledge exploitative practices by some providers in Australia and the need for systemic protections, and to call for a delay in price caps to ensure the financial viability of the members. Ozare’s acting CEO Joel Reading has spoken on behalf of providers who are in earnest to safeguard the best care and continue to pay their suppliers and personnel on time. The peak body see both as critical for the health of seniors, scheme and sector.

Loss of the CHSP

Already well established in the cross-hairs of the Senate is the discussion of lack of planning and economic modelling surrounding the need to transition away from the Commonwealth Home Support Programme packages to Support at Home.

The Inspector-General of Aged Care, Natalie Siegel-Brown, fronted the Senate two weeks ago to provide a scathing review of how the government has handled the need for, and transition away from CHSP.

Today has seen another voice of questioning, this time from CHA’s representative, Ozare’s acting CEO, Joel Reading, “the Commonwealth Home Support Programme is one of the most effective and best-value investments in Australia’s aged care system. It delivers light-touch, preventative support that helps older Australians remain independent, maintain wellbeing, and avoid premature entry into higher-cost care.”

He shares, “retaining this preventative focus is essential, because early intervention improves outcomes for older people and reduces pressure across the broader system.”

The fear of loss of agility, flexibility and relationship-built service collaboration between client and provider has many providers closely assessing the adjustment, “the transition to Support at Home presents a real opportunity to streamline access, improve equity, and simplify the system for older Australians and providers.”

“But achieving that outcome depends on preserving the best elements of CHSP – particularly its community-based, flexible, and relationship-centred approach – within the new framework.”

As Siegel-Brown’s comments have crystallised, so have providers, Reading advocates for humility to pivot, “we can also take constructive lessons from the current reform process, including the recent transition to the Support at Home program. Large-scale transitions require all rules and guidance to be provided well in advance so providers can plan workforce, systems, and service delivery safely – as require adequate transition funding.”

“With more than 830,000 clients and over 1,200 providers involved, this transition is more complex than previous reforms and must be carefully sequenced.”

Provider’s frustration has reached lofty levels. For high-performers wanting to see the best for the sector, they look to the government to hear what they are seeing played out in their operations, and from relationships with clients.

Reading notes, “CHSP works. The task before us is not to replace it, but to build on it – preserving its strengths while improving access, consistency, and sustainability across the system for older Australians.”

In leading to his main points before the Senate, Reading tackled another pain point, that of changes without clear structural evidence and substantive proof. Changes being beneficial for seniors, sector and providers is a non-negotiable trifecta.

“Reforms should avoid introducing disruptive structural changes during transition periods. For example, introducing price caps in an immature support at home market risks reducing services, narrowing choice, and destabilising providers, particularly in regional or thin markets.”

Deferring price caps

Through their member Ozcare, Catholic Health Australia is calling on Canberra to defer price caps for the Support at Home aged-care program. This is inclusive of delaying price ceilings for “nursing care, personal care, domestic assistance and meal support”.

While the peak body has publicly supported reforms on the transition to Support at Home, it warns, “rushing ahead with untested price caps could reduce service availability for older Australians.”

Alex Lynch, Director of Aged and Community Care at Catholic Health Australia, shares, “these caps are due within months but they haven’t even been finalised, let alone tested in operation.”

“If the prices are set incorrectly or introduced prematurely, they risk reducing choice for older people, undermining provider viability, constraining service availability and lengthening already strained waitlists – particularly in regional areas and for higher-complexity services”, he says.

“We are calling for a sensible 12-month deferral that would allow IHACPA to assess prices while the new system is in operation before imposing the caps.”

Protections for seniors

Catholic Health Australia has indicated it is not impervious to the significant anecdotal evidence that has been rising from many of Australia’s seniors. There has been a marked increase in prices in the market, that many have called exploitative, unnecessary and cruel.

In asking for a deferral of price caps for high-performing providers with ethical practices that CHA’s members seek to adhere to, CHA in tandem, is urging the Federal government to fortify consumer protections against poor-providers who have raised prices without just and reasonable cause.

CHA is strongly calling on the government to establish a “transparent set of actions the Department will take where pricing is deemed unreasonable or not based on actual costs.”

CHA has sought to be clear in its messaging, high-performing providers who balance excellence in care with robust operational management need time to get the scheme’s changes right. And at the same time, systemic protections must root out and protect seniors from poor-performers, with enforceable and assured consequences.

For their providers who have been juggling increased resource drain in attempting to navigate the complexity of the new Support at Home scheme, particularly small providers, CHA is advocating for the provision of “targeted transition support to providers of up to $500 per client.”

Lynch notes, “providers need this to cover the unavoidable costs of transition, including IT system changes, workforce training and supervision, and the new service agreement and consent processes.”

“This is a modest amount that would minimise the risk of service disruptions for older Australians during the transition period.”

As the complexity of changes continues, many provider leadership are in earnest to hit the balance between safeguarding the seniors in their care, and the in-flux costs and scheme mechanics resulting in challenging cash-flow stability and management.