Before your start, please advise your consent to publish response
1. We would like your permission to publish your online survey responses to the discussion paper. Please indicate your publishing preference:
Please select one item
(Required)
Publish response (include both my name and organisation's name)
Publish response, but keep my name private (include my organisation's name)
Ticked
Publish response anonymously (remove both my name and organisation's name)
Do not publish response
Before you start, please tell us about yourself
5. What stakeholder category do you most identify with?
Please select all that apply
(Required)
Consumer
Carer or other consumer representative
Consumer advocacy organisation
Consumer peak body
Carer peak body
Approved provider of residential aged care
Approved provider of flexible aged care
Approved provider of home care
Aged care provider peak body
Provider of private aged care or seniors accommodation
Aged Care Assessment Team/Service
Aged care worker
Health professional
Workforce association or union
Primary Health Network
State and territory government
Local council
Commonwealth agency
Lender or investor/financier
Ticked
Other
If you answered ‘Other’, please specify:
Been active in aged care for 20 years: in senior management, as a management consultant, a quality assessor (for accreditation), been a sitting member of the ACAR NSW committee.
6. Where does your organisation operate (if applicable)? Otherwise, where do you live?
Please select all that apply
(Required)
Ticked
New South Wales
Australian Capital Territory
Victoria
Queensland
South Australia
Western Australia
Northern Territory
Tasmania
All states and territories in Australia
Please select all that apply
(Required)
In a remote area
In a rural area
Ticked
In a regional area
In a metropolitan area or major city
General views
43. Do you have any other overall comments you wish to provide?
General comments
Model 1
By reducing locational controls, this will definitely limit service availability in regional/remote/rural locations.
The current system is limited by the restriction of new places made available each year.
The current system will work provided the number of places available are matched to consumer needs (not limited by availability of federal funds); and benchmarks and locational needs are determined in a more sophisticated manner and are matched to reality. Using the ABS projections of census data is not sufficient. There should be an annual survey of consumers and providers using relevant indicators to determine unmet needs, met needs (and therefore the shortfalls), and the fees charged to consumers (ie waitlist, entry and ongoing fees).
Model 2
I agree with the underlying principles that this model claims to address. However, I don’t believe it will work:
The consumer
There are still a number of ‘hurdles’
1. Still a gateway to admission to residential aged care remains (ACAT) – I agree with this being there
2. New delay added with a queue
3. Still required to submit complex financial information to Centrelink
4. Still required to find a provider that suits, can meet identified care needs, and has a vacancy
5. Still required that the consumer needs to ‘sell’ themselves to the provider to avoid being rejected
Are there increased benefits? No. And there is an additional delay added by a ‘queue’
Will this increase diversity of service provision? Possibly, depends on the providers who are willing to remain in the industry.
The provider
With the proposed changes, the incentives for a provider to remain in the business are radically reduced.
This model is not suitable for running a business which has fixed expenses, capped income, is highly regulated and subjected to multiple inspections.
Model 3
The government
The main interest of government is to retain control on costs; and, to see that services are available for consumers including special needs groups, regional/remote/rural locations. To achieve this, they should stop trying to control the providers and grossly limit their ability to run a viable business. They should run the system themselves and become the 'provider' using a buy back scheme. Instead of creating more hurdles for the consumers and crippling the current providers, they should do it themselves. Model 3 should have high level of accountability to consumers and voters on funds and quality standards; transparency of all processes; provide detailed annual reports on met/unmet needs for services and methods and outcomes for access to services; and provide diverse models of care that meet consumer demands.
Overall, I prefer Model 1 with major improvements noted above.
By reducing locational controls, this will definitely limit service availability in regional/remote/rural locations.
The current system is limited by the restriction of new places made available each year.
The current system will work provided the number of places available are matched to consumer needs (not limited by availability of federal funds); and benchmarks and locational needs are determined in a more sophisticated manner and are matched to reality. Using the ABS projections of census data is not sufficient. There should be an annual survey of consumers and providers using relevant indicators to determine unmet needs, met needs (and therefore the shortfalls), and the fees charged to consumers (ie waitlist, entry and ongoing fees).
Model 2
I agree with the underlying principles that this model claims to address. However, I don’t believe it will work:
The consumer
There are still a number of ‘hurdles’
1. Still a gateway to admission to residential aged care remains (ACAT) – I agree with this being there
2. New delay added with a queue
3. Still required to submit complex financial information to Centrelink
4. Still required to find a provider that suits, can meet identified care needs, and has a vacancy
5. Still required that the consumer needs to ‘sell’ themselves to the provider to avoid being rejected
Are there increased benefits? No. And there is an additional delay added by a ‘queue’
Will this increase diversity of service provision? Possibly, depends on the providers who are willing to remain in the industry.
The provider
With the proposed changes, the incentives for a provider to remain in the business are radically reduced.
This model is not suitable for running a business which has fixed expenses, capped income, is highly regulated and subjected to multiple inspections.
Model 3
The government
The main interest of government is to retain control on costs; and, to see that services are available for consumers including special needs groups, regional/remote/rural locations. To achieve this, they should stop trying to control the providers and grossly limit their ability to run a viable business. They should run the system themselves and become the 'provider' using a buy back scheme. Instead of creating more hurdles for the consumers and crippling the current providers, they should do it themselves. Model 3 should have high level of accountability to consumers and voters on funds and quality standards; transparency of all processes; provide detailed annual reports on met/unmet needs for services and methods and outcomes for access to services; and provide diverse models of care that meet consumer demands.
Overall, I prefer Model 1 with major improvements noted above.