There may have only been a few headlines in the major papers from the Royal Commission’s hearings into home care this week, but the findings were no less significant.
Home care has long been touted as the future of the sector.
But if there was one theme this week, it was a lack of governance and leadership from the top down.
The Federal Government’s Department of Health was in the Commissioner’s crosshairs when it was revealed just 300 of the new 50,000 Home Care Packages released by the Morrison Government in the last three years were actually “new”, compared to forward estimates in the Budget.
This alone suggests a lack of future planning, in a sector that’s desperately crying out for it with over 100,000 older people currently waiting for their approved package.
The aged care watchdog was also criticised, portrayed as understaffed and ultimately unable to provide the monitoring needed to ensure quality and trust in home care.
The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (ACQSC) conceded it had fallen short of timelines and budget allocations in inspecting home care settings, and said that the understaffing had been caused by a “high level of attrition” among “quality assessors”.
Lack of data has been one of the key themes throughout the Royal Commission, and it was again raised this week when it was revealed that the Department of Health lacked oversight on what home care recipients were actually spending their packages on.
There were also concerns that the Government is not prepared to ask consumers to pay more for home care services – despite this being key to funding improved services.
Most importantly, the need to balance of ‘care’ with quality of life was highlighted, bringing to mind Commissioner Lynelle Briggs’ previously made point that aged care is not only about the final days and months of someone’s life, but the last 10 to 15 years.
Senior Counsel Assisting Peter Gray QC closed the hearing by talking about the potential for Australia to transition to a new home care system, but stressing the systemic challenges that lay ahead.
“It is a matter of the utmost importance when one considers the magnitude of the reform task that lies ahead,” he said.
The key takeaway?
Australia can transition to a new home care system that is fairer and provides both care and wellbeing – but not without leadership, funding and accountability from those in charge.
Discussion1 Comment
HI
My parents have been in residential home for several years now, but my father was a recipient of a home care package for a few years as he had dementia, and mum was his primary carer.
Dad was (and to some extent still is) physically well, and at 95 still walks around 8000 steps a day. This meant that he didnt actually need any assistance in the home and his package was just for socialization, and to give mum a break.
When he was on the Level1/2 package and receiving around $2200 per month (This was before the funding became client focussed) I was appalled at the amount that the NFP aged care provider received of that amount, to deliver 1.5 hours per week (and for that my father paid out of pocket $150 per month).
Once mum was diagnosed with Alzheimers, dad was elevated to a Level 4 package and received 10 minutes for medication to be delivered daily (drops for glaucoma) and once a week antibiotics. The package was then more than $4000 and the amount to the provider also doubled.
The home care system will never be able to be delivered as it should be, and to more people, whilst so much of the money is used for organisations and not the client..