Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 35:50 to 50:15
The department explains the rationale behind interim 60% funding packages and addresses budget allocations for the Support at Home program.
Topics: Government spending, Health
Speakers: Hon Anne Ruston, Greg Pugh, Sonja Stewart, Dorinda Cox, Jasmine Snow
Cheers. Um so just can I just check under the previous home care scheme um if you were not able to get a package of the level that you were assessed you would sometimes be provided with a package of a lower level. Now you are offered a package of a particular level and you are given that package at that level but with a minimum >> that's right >> service offer. >> What was the basis for changing the way that you're approaching this? Is it is that like why did you choose to change how you've been accounting for the fact that people are being approved and not getting the level of care that they've been approved for.
>> Uh we thought it was uh important to highlight through the assessment process recognize the level of need and the associated funding. So that's why we've moved to that in in theory simpler system. So I understand that the package that I require is x number of dollars and there is that minimum service offer in times of high demand.
>> So what was the why what was the basis for the 60% offer? You said high demand. The sector's telling us that um in many instances they are able to offer the services at a high level and in fact they spend most of their time trying to work out what services they're going to have to cut um in order to to meet the 60% interim package. um requirement. You you keep on talking about high demand. Do you have the funding to provide the 83,000 packages that were promised in total? If
>> there is the funding um there is the funding for those packages. I think it's important.
>> Sorry, I didn't hear you.
>> Sorry. There is Yeah, there is the funding for that. Um I think it's important to note that with the uh interim packages that on average uh uh the participant is on it for um 10 week period of time. Uh so some will be um quicker than that, some will be slightly later than that. Uh but there is funding uh to meet that commitment. Um that 2 years after the supported home program um began which is the 1st of November uh 2027 that the average wait time will be
understand, do you have budgeted for 25 26 sufficient funding to meet all 83,000 packages that were promised at 100%. >> Why aren't you releasing them at 100%.
>> Because uh Senator, so we've provided evidence to this committee previously. the move to interim funding uh was a way to make sure that people can get access to that funding as their earliest opportunity. Uh and we went through a process of saying well how long do people on average take to wait before they actually go and take up their services. Uh and then it allows us to get those people who you mentioned at the start who we've been through uh and given the numbers around how many people are on the national uh priority system for support at home. Get those people into uh a package of some description earlier and then being able to manage that demand. So uh the interim funding approach uh as we've provided evidence in previous estimates hearings, it's not a new thing. It's been in the spot home program manual since about this time last year. Uh and then it is a way of managing the demand, making sure that we get um the those commitments around the additional 63,000 in the first eight months of the program uh into the into the scheme. Uh and making sure we get people access to a level of support earlier than they otherwise would have if they were waiting for their full service offer. So it's a way of managing all of those competing components.
So, is it new that you're offering just about everybody only a 60% package?
>> I mean, it's
>> or has that been happening forever, too?
>> It's new in the sense that the support at home program's only been going for um for 3 months.
>> Don't be tricky, Mr. Pew.
>> I'm not um interim funding was a part of the home care packages program. Uh
>> and and is it the same level? Because I mean I think you gave me evidence last time that 93% of packages that have been released have been new packages that have been released have been released at 60%. So that means only 7% of packages have been released at their full level and I'm assuming they're the urgent ones that you're releasing.
>> They're all the urgent ones. That's
right. And uh so in the past um under the home care system were you releasing packages at on average 93% of them at a substantially lower level than they were approved?
>> I'd have to go back and and double check the exact breakdown. [clears throat] I think the use of interim under home care packages was a slightly different construct in that you would get a lower level support while you're waiting for a level at your assessment.
>> How many did you say?
I didn't get a give a number. I got to go back and double check. But I was just saying it's a different construct. Under home care, you got a lower level of of a HCP. Uh whereas under support at home, it's a percentage basis.
>> So if you've got the full funding for the 83,000 packages, um you're releasing 93% of them um at 60%. Um so what's the average time? I think Miss Stewart you said 10 weeks. So is it sort of like basically you get your interim package uh and 10 weeks later you get your full package. Is it automatic or are some people waiting longer than 10 weeks for their full package?
Senator, we've given evidence as well uh to this committee that the the 10 weeks is an average. Uh there are there is a range that forms an average. So we do have a of a range between you know some people get it within 3 weeks, some people get it uh up to uh 17 weeks later. uh but on average people are getting their minimum service offer notification and then 10 weeks later getting their full service offer.
>> So on the basis of the advice that you've just given us, you have got 93% of people who are getting receiving new home care packages um are in effect um close to 20% um receiving 20 for 20% of the time only 60% of that package. So what is the savings to government of this? If you've fully allocated on the the 83 at 100%, you're only releasing them at 60% for 20% of the time. What is the savings to government?
>> There are no savings to government. There are no savings to government as Mr. Pew has described that the way that the system works. So, um, there is funding available to meet the commitment by the 1st of November 2027, and that's what we're working to, the average weight time, and we're fully funded to to do that.
>> No, that's not what I'm talking about, Miss Stuart.
>> We um, >> apologies. I thought you asked me about what is the savings and um, my response was that there are no savings from this.
>> Okay, so let's be very clear here. There was an announcement in November 2024 that there were going to be 83,000 new home care packages released in 2526. Um, and I get you the exact um information in relation to that. Um, it was in here we go. Um so in Mayifo 202425 following the announcement of the 83,000 packages by the minister um it says that the government is investing blah blah blah support at home um support at home will support 300,000 more older Australians over the next 10 years including more than 83,000 participants in 202526. So you've you've clearly said in 2425 that and I'm assuming even though that the budget breakdown is very difficult to understand where the money is, you've clearly made a commitment that from the 1st of July 2025 83,000 people will receive there will be 83,000 new home care packages in 2526. Is that correct?
>> So Senator, yes. And then there was the deferral.
>> No period. Let's not go there. Let's not go there. We're just trying to get the facts of the matter on the table here. In Mayo 2425, there was a commitment by the government in that budget paper for 83,000 new participants in 2526. At that time, there was an expectation as stated in this and as stated in the age care act that this would come into effect on the 1st of July 2025. Am I correct?
>> Yes.
>> Right. Thank you. So can you confirm to me that contained in the funding in my EO2425 that there was funding was allocated for those 83,000 packages.
>> So the funding was allocated uh for the forward estimates period of 4.3 billion for the support at home program. funding the 83,000 places was a part of that, but there's no definitive figure that's attached to the 83,000 places because of the way that the appropriation works. So, um we've got the commitments to release those 83,000 within the first uh within the 2526 financial year. As you know, 20,000 of those were brought forward into the deferral period. 20,000 of those were released during the November and December 2025 period and we will be releasing and have been releasing an additional 43,000 of those through the rest of this financial year.
>> Okay. So, can you explain that appropriation then?
>> I I can um I can start to do that want to shift the call once you finish
with that. uh is >> look this is seminal to what I'm trying to understand so it may take a while I mean um you know Mr. Mr. P or Miss Stewart might just give me the answer like that.
>> this is this is possible. Senator Ruston, um I'm just conscious that there are uh others who have uh joined us to ask some questions. So I'm happy to let Miss Stewart answer this question and then maybe uh if we come back to you once we've uh we've got >> Yeah. Senator McKenzie's uh questions. Um she's um >> Thank you. >> if if I just get that question answered and then I'll come to you. S I know you're always keen and eager for the jump. Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Stewart. You have the
>> Okay. Thanks. Um, so I think it's important to start this question at where we need to be ending, which is by 2020, by 2035, the supported home program is going to help around 1.4 million people stay in their homes as they age. And we're funded to reduce weight times by that average of three months by the 1st of November 2027, which is the two-year anniversary of when the support at home program started with an um to support an extra 300,000 people by 2035. So um this program is going to grow over time and uh grow with that projected demand in in home age care services in the community. And these projections are based on historical um demand for the program um as well as population growth. Additional packages to meet further demand will be monitored over time and any further funding would be a consideration for government. And over 2024 to 2044, the average year-on-year increase in home care demand is expected to be around 34,500 people per year, which will result in approximately 1.82 million people seeking home care by 24 20 24 sorry 2044 this represents an annual growth rate of 2.4% and that's how we derive um that expenditure of that $4.3 billion.
>> Can I just follow and that was terribly useful information but it doesn't actually answer anything about the question I was asking. So I'm keen to understand in in your myo you talk about these 83,000 packages that have been funded for 2526. You also refer in the same one that you actually have allocated 7,615 home care packages in 2425 which is in that they're the myo additional packages that you're doing and you actually have a number here that says $11 million and $700,000 for those packages. So you quite clearly have allocated an amount of money for the packages that you are releasing in 2425 and there was also in the 2425 budget there was funding allocated for 24,100 packages. So [snorts] when you are releasing packages that you are announcing in budget processes you are actually announcing the funding of the year for those packages. I'm keen to understand why we have got 83,000 packages that were due to be starting to be released on the 1st of July 2025. And you can't tell me apart from some sort of amorphous mass of money somewhere into the 2044 where the money is for those 83,000 packages. I want to know where the money for the 83,000 packages is contained in your budget papers. That's all I want. Thank you, chair.
>> Thank you.
>> You can come back to me.
>> Was was I'm just clarifying. Was that [clears throat] a question that you're posing to officials now to answer or
>> No, I I I that's all I want the answer to is I want to know where the money is for the 83,000 packages.
>> Otherwise, we're we're uh we're going to move on and I will allocate the call to