data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1275a/1275a9ad38a9a7cc9a64ab12f7843baad7de5a77" alt=""
If the government’s plan to outsource aged care assessment hits the fence, it can blame Aged Care Minister Richard Colbeck.
Colbeck has managed the unlikely feat of drawing a direct rebuke from a royal commission and highlighting widespread opposition to a strategy that has mostly been kept out of public view.
The government has long planned to complete the outsourcing of aged care assessment that it began in 2014, when it put out to tender Regional Assessment Services (RAS), which provide assessments for people wanting to access home care packages.
The next step was the outsourcing of Aged Care Assessment Teams (ACAT), which provide the much more complex assessments required to determine the level of care needed by older people either at home or in residential care facilities. ACATs work closely with, and usually operate from, hospitals, meaning any overhaul of ACAT arrangements would involve a potential stoush with the states.
The government’s plans are often referred to as privatisation, but this is only partly correct: both for-profit and non-profit providers won RAS tenders and would likely win ACAT tenders.
The RAS tender process was driven by Scott Morrison during his time as social services minister but, as critics have noted, it seems to have been put on hold while Malcolm Turnbull was prime minister before coming back to life after Morrison replaced Turnbull.
The Department of Health conducted an industry consultation over the holidays in the summer of 2019, presumably to keep the issue out of the public gaze.
But as the Department of Health’s notes from the consultation show, that didn’t prevent many in the industry from pointing out the obvious problems with outsourcing to for-profit providers, as would inevitably be the case.
Dumping existing ACAT teams would see the loss of experienced clinicians, especially geriatricians, and their replacement with lower-cost assessors with vocational education certificates. Meanwhile, the detachment of assessment from hospital settings would further fragment a system that, despite the best efforts of successive governments, remains too difficult to navigate.
Others fear aged care service providers would take advantage of the outsourcing process to move into assessment, creating a conflict of interest. “Some stakeholders believe a competitive model is unsuitable for assessment functions that focus on quality, consistency and equity of access,” the Department of Health admitted.
There’s a good case for a more integrated assessment process that brings together home care and residential care, and the stages in between, in a single coherent process, undertaken by a single, competent and properly accredited workforce.
But those benefits from “integration” have been overwhelmed by concerns, driven by the RAS experience, of for-profit poor quality assessment.
The states are also unimpressed with the ACAT outsourcing proposal. The Commonwealth health department — not the minister — quietly announced it would be proceeding with the outsourcing of ACAT teams in December — again under the cover of looming holidays.
NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard then gave both Health Minister Greg Hunt and Colbeck a serve, saying he hadn’t been consulted, that NSW had “major concerns” about what he termed an “effective privatisation” and that there was no logic to doing it while an aged care royal commission was underway.
The royal commission, of course, had issued an interim report in November on the sickening state of the aged care sector in Australia, shaming the government into announcing a quick expansion in home care packages.
Hazzard’s intervention, which stirred up media interest in the outsourcing, prompted Colbeck to fire back, except the Tasmanian senator took unerring aim at his own foot.
Colbeck declared assessment was “certainly not going to continue the way it is now” and that the royal commission backed the outsourcing. The royal commissioners were, shall we say, underwhelmed at being verballed. Yesterday commission chair Tony Pagone issued a statement rebuking Colbeck.
Public concern has been expressed about statements made by the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians that we had decided to support the privatisation of the Aged Care Assessment Teams in our Interim Report. I take this opportunity to make clear that the Interim Report did not endorse the Government’s stated position but noted that we would monitor with interest the implementation which the Government had announced.
With both Hazzard and the royal commission itself referring to the “privatisation” of ACATs, the government is rapidly losing control of how the outsourcing process is seen. Nuances around putting to tender versus privatisation aren’t likely to survive long when it comes to dealing with vulnerable Australians, and Labor has form in exploiting fears about health privatisation.
Unlike Mediscare, however, there is real substance to fears low-cost for-profit providers will replace experienced clinicians and lose sight of the interests of the clients they are ostensibly serving.
Who do you want assessing the needs of your elderly mum — a medical professional with years of geriatric experience or a $200-per-assessment contractor for a multinational “provider of public services”?
As others have pointed out, however, the brawl over assessment is only the sideshow. The real problem is the urgent need for more funding for more, higher-quality aged care services, both at home — in addition to the $537 million the government announced in November — and in residential care.
An assessment process — good, bad or indifferent — is ultimately only as good as the services it can lead to. And on that challenge, the government is stuck in a holding pattern awaiting the royal commission’s final report.
Perhaps it should stop distracting them by verballing them.
Is the government creating another aged care crisis? Let us know your thoughts by writing to boss@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication.
This whole process of cost shifting and reducing costs for a very vulnerable group of people is disgusting. Aged care assessment teams should be highly skilled and independent. Given that we are in the middle of a Royal Commission I’m glad that the commissioner has made a statement. This should be grabbed by the media but I fear that with everything that’s happening in Australia at the moment I fear it won’t. The Royal Family will get more airtime than this.
Strange how “I pay my taxes and should be getting franking credits” rates as a higher priority than “I paid my taxes all my life and should be getting good aged care”.
Uhmm, shouldn’t that read “I am getting my franking credits, and I pay no tax”.
There was plenty of substance to what you derisively call “Mediscare”. The Coalition had already begun farming out parts of Medicare’s record-keeping services to the private sector (Telstra was contracted to maintain records for cancer sufferers, in case you forgot) & Turnbull paid over $5m to the Productivity Commission to investigate the possibility of fully privatising Medicare. Not to mention the long-held pro-private/anti-public views of the Coalition for the last 40+ years. So spare us your fairly weak attempts to demonise Labor’s 2016 campaign.
More than spot on. I deal with Medicare, usually on line daily.
I received a series of rejection of payments all with the same code that functionally meant nothing.
I phoned Medicare practitioners hotline and waited on a phoneloop for 22 minutes and 40 seconds.
The phone was picked up and I asked to speak to someone who could explain the rejection of bulk billed claims for various patients. The person I spoke to said that she could help me.
I then proceeded to explain the various claim numbers and asked for an explanation as to why there was a rejection and an explanation regarding the rejection code.
No explanation could be given and so I again asked for someone expert in this field so that we didn’t waste time.
I then received, from the same operator, a read out spiel regarding my responsibilities under the Medicare act including a threat of legal action if I made a false or misleading claim for services rendered.
I then offered a description of the procedures performed on various patients and asked if there had been some change to the medicare schedule that I had not been informed of.
The operator then informed me that my call had taken 12 minutes and that she had no medical knowledge and therefore could not make any suggestion as to what item number I should claim.
I asked her what she was doing working on the medical practitioners Medicare hotline if she had no medical knowledge and she informed me that it was not part of the job description or interview process.
Welcome to the start of Mediscare! I think it has already gone past a joke, as the call center has been outsourced or privatized. I am unsure about the payment sections however, I suspect that that has not been announced.
BTW, after my phone call I re-submitted the unpaid claims and received 2 out of 3 paid.
I am still chasing the rest.
How do you think an older or less educated person would go with questioning the Medicare payment decision?
One can only wonder as to whom the clowns are in government or its administration! From 1st January, Barwon Health decreed that all patients, visiting the Dr., would pay the doctors fee. About $60 – $70. The doctor would then immediately make a claim on your behalf to Medicare for the rebate. So I am out of pocket only for the time between payment & reimbursement.
The question is “…what happens to someone who does not have the $60 – 70?”
The health Practitioners in the country can and do charge what they like.
Unfortunately there is none so poor as the rural poor.
And the poor die more rapidly of treatable ailments because they can’t afford to travel for treatment.
So much for a fair go in this country.
Probably it doesn’t help to point out that the local public hospital should have some outpatients services.
Here we go again. Handing assessment for government funded services to “for profit” businesses, what could possibly go wrong? FFS
What is it with Bernard Keane and “mediscare”, he can’t write about health or health related policy without mentioning it – however the LNP outright lies (estate tax, taxing your home and extra taxes for pensioners for a start) about Labor’s tax polices at the last election, well that’s just politics and Labor fault for having polices.
I agree. There was actually justification for Labor’s Mediscare campaign as I remember. The LNP was trying to introduce upfront charges for everyone (perhaps not pensioners? Can’t remember) for GP services. This struck me at the time as being a first step to user pays for GP services. If they had got away with it, they would have ramped it up.
I also think outsourcing ACAT assessments in a competitive tender is a really bad idea.
Wasn’t there a vote in the Young Liberals or a Liberal Party National Conference to privatise Medicare?