Confusion over home care fees unfairly tarnishes providers
Leading Age Services Australia, the voice of aged care, rejects allegations that home care providers are over-charging consumers and says that while age services needs greater flexibility and less regulation to meet growing demand, government policies are doing the opposite.
LASA chief executive officer Patrick Reid
“Some media reports last week painted an unfair and misleading picture that home care providers are charging what they want, which is simply untrue,” LASA chief executive officer (CEO), Patrick Reid says.
“Confusion over provider payments has become more evident in the last month because under the changes to consumer directed care on 1 July 2015, providers must demonstrate to clients how their care package is being spent.”
Changes to legislation in 2014 saw the introduction of new fee arrangements for all home care packages that were introduced from 1 July 2014. These changes stipulate how providers can charge clients including the basic daily care fee in a person’s care package, which is capped at 17.5 per cent.
While the basic daily care fee has always existed, not all providers charged this fee. The recent move to consumer directed care in July 2015 and the need for greater financial accountability has forced many to begin charging it to stay afloat in an increasingly competitive market. Care recipients are able to apply for financial hardship consideration for this charge.
In the past, surplus funds from one package could be redirected into another package for the benefit of the greater good; the more care a person can receive in the community means reduced burden on our overstretched public health services.
“Where the policy previously attempted to ensure everyone received the care they required, and funding available for care packages was more fluid, the opposite is now occurring,” according to Mr Reid.
“This situation has been enabled by a lack of strategic planning and communication by government to consumers. At a time when age services needs greater flexibility and less regulation in order to meet growing demand, government policies are doing the opposite.”
“The government and the department need to realise that there are not enough level 3 and level 4 packages available to meet people’s needs, and action must be taken immediately as many people cannot afford the care they need,” Mr Reid says.
