“Home care has been controlled by the operators but we are moving control to consumers.”
This was basis of a speech made by Senator Mitch Fifield, the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Minister responsible for Ageing and Disability, made last week in Perth.
He was referring to the system where home care packages of say between $2000 and $50,000 a year are funded by the government or ageing people in their home. These packages of money are provided to ‘home care operators.’
It was a gentle speech but stripping away the niceties, it was a strong message to the audience, the church and charity based providers of home care services – think the Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Salvation Army, RSL, Freemasons and others.
System of money giving has to change
The system has to adapt to fit in with the customer, not the customer has to fit in with the system.
This thinking was first introduced by the Labor government and is now being driven home by the Coalition government.
Why are they doing it? Fifield gave two reasons, and they are important:
- Give consumers more’s choice (of services and service providers)
- Move people who have wealth, to start paying some of the cost
The current system has become rigid and expensive. Most home care operators consume 30 – 40 per cent of the government money in Administration costs.
Fifield said he wanted to drive down regulation to create competition which will then drive change.
We will all have to pay
The world of home care as he sees it will have four components:
- Consumer choice will be at the centre
- There will be financial support for informal carers (e.g. spouses and family)
- There will be competition by providers to win home care customers
- The cost to government and the community must be sustainable (given the ageing baby boomers)
What does this mean for we ageing consumers?
First up, we won’t have to search for a service provider to provide help at home – they will be searching for us. We will have choice rather than being told.
Secondly, we will have real control, perhaps for the first time. The best example is the days are numbered when we are told that our favourite carer cannot always be available. We will no longer have to accept this. If we don’t like this answer we can demand that carer be available or we take our business elsewhere.
Third, if we have some wealth behind us, we may have to start putting some cash in to pay for home care.
But fourth, this home care should get cheaper because of less regulations and competition.
And fifth, this should all result in more respect and dignity. The customer – who now holds the cash – should be king (or Queen).
When is this all going to happen? Soon – see our story on the Consumer Directed Care rollout.
Discussion1 Comment
This consumer directed care seems all very fine however in order to access any care NOW the consumer must be referred to my Aged Care, who are responsible for referrals. One family of a 98 year old consumer living alone has been informed it will be at least 3 months before she can be assessed! Meanwhile she is left at risk without extra services being allocated. Previously this consumer who has been receiving basic services would have been assessed for her extra care needs by the community service provider and support services would be in attendance until she received an assessment from ACAT. This consumer was told she had to go to her GP for a referral to My Aged Care in order for My Aged Care to refer her for an assessment from ACAT. It seems to me they have thrown the baby out with the bath water. Who is monitoring My Aged Care? I have been informed the actual referral information from the GPs is not able to be accessed by the community nurse and consumers who would prefer to maintain their service provider when discharged from hospital, are being referred to a different service provider by My Aged Care, which is causing confusion for the consumer. This does not equate to consumer directed care.