To top it all off now this derogatory highly inflammatory article, accusing recipients of rorting the system and using HCPs to live the “high life”! This from the very people who are riding the lucrative aged care wave on the backs of their clients, without whom their businesses wouldn’t exist! Regardless, we ask you, who is ultimately responsible for these extra punitive measures and such a divisive unnecessary situation to happen? Who has written the guidelines in a fashion that’s so open to misinterpretation and that service providers are obliged to abide by???

This is explosive stuff that has to be highlighted by the media, not just these few feel good stories that promote and enhance public misperception! The new ACCPA CEO Tom Symondson in his statement as per the article in the Community Care Review newsletter (attached herewith), speaks of uniting stakeholders to find solutions that will address the needs of both Providers and aged care at home recipients, instead of pointing the finger of blame on either party.

This is precisely what independent advocate groups representing recipients of in-home aged care such as on this website, have been promoting for a very longtime, but all those voices have remained unheard and disregarded. Regardless of the political party of the elected government, aged care is a huge portfolio of enormous responsibility which if not effectively implemented will have dire consequences, now and in the future.

Why is the Aged Care portfolio being bunched up together with Sport and assigned to just one same minister? Aged Care needs to be a priority as promised by this new government, it needs to be headed by an experienced minister with real understanding of all aspects of aged care based on factual evidence instead of political scoring. In fact bunching up aged care and sport was the previous government’s initiative, with the Department of Health (now also of Aged Care) given the task to structure and implement the system that will become the basis for the new Aged Care Act.

This matter is much too important to rush through for this new Act, particularly without real input from the people it will affect most...the generation of older people now and into the future, which includes us, you, our children, your children, our grandchildren and all generations of Australians.

Throughout the preparations for reforms, millions of taxpayer funds have been spent in so many initiatives for so little return, as it is still ongoing without effective outcomes. All stakeholders are still in constant perceived “consultations” with older people whom it concerns but actual recipients are invariably in the minority for true direct representation, it is tokenistic!

We can list many examples of all these wasted attempts to fix this broken Aged Care system, however we prefer to follow a constructive approach instead of blaming and complaining, we want to focus on solutions to everyone’s satisfaction.

Therefore, we wish to try and forget (never forgive though) those incorrect ageist, inflammatory remarks against older Australians, made in this article by the person claiming to represent providers, and confirm our commitment for better in-home aged care, through cooperation as highlighted by Mr. Symondson in his statement and forge ahead with better understanding of perspectives, needs, priorities, rights, obligations, and aims, by uniting our efforts and present to the decision makers a proposal for an Aged Care system that may have the potential of becoming the exemplary prototype for best practices aged care systems on an international level.“

NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US”

Community Care Review Article
https://communitycarereview.com.au/2023/02/15/new-home-care-manual-provides-clearer-guidance/
"Some clients viewed their home care packages program as a “bank account”, said Ms Poulos, “to purchase goods and equipment rather than support for care.”

Statement from ACCPA Chief Executive Officer Tom Symondson:

A United Voice
Attention:- Anika Wells MP Minister for Aged Care | Minister for Sport

Anika Wells MP, Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport recently on her Facebook page, shared and endorsed an article (please see link to article below), which in parts is accusing Aged Care in-home recipients of rorting the system. The reply to this post in a comment that was subsequently deleted by the minister and the writer blocked from the page was:-

“Anika Wells MP have you read the whole article? The person claiming to represent providers is pointing the finger of blame at aged people in need of support to have their needs met, by accusing consumers/recipients of rorting the system. Seriously? Do you honestly believe that this article serves transparency?

You claim that the latest measures will provide transparency on how the system is implemented, Who exactly is supposed to be transparent? Who is taking advantage of the system? What exactly are you implying?

Are you aware that thus it provides license of exerting petty authority in denying an older person who's been duly assessed by official professional assessors to be in dire need of essential medication, of devices to help control their fluctuations of temperatures due to their health conditions, fixing a leaking toilet for essential human functions to happen, to provide functional refrigeration to store not only lifesaving medication but also the meals that are approved to be delivered frozen and are devoid of taste and often adequate nutrition as well, microwaves to heat those meals ( or do you suggest they get consumed frozen or just cold and thawed on the kitchen bench, with bacteria multiplying in them) functional washing machines to keep up with hygiene when bedding gets soiled multiple times a day, and when running out of sheets a dryer may provide a bit more time for the carer to make up the bed again or see to more urgent matters such as helping with showering, toileting and grooming, gosh the latter is now a no no as well, so hair remains scruffy, internet access subscriptions to be able to communicate not play silly games as some may assume, raised garden beds that were used as an example by MAC as something of value to include is now excluded, and you say there are no changes?