This is personal and hard to share.
On Monday this week I sat down at the kitchen table of my 91-year-old mother with a young woman from My Aged Care.
She arrived on time, wearing a name tag and clearly across her brief as I tried to help mum keep living in her own home. Like many women her age, she has been widowed for nine years.
Living on the full-age pension, she owns her own unit in suburban Adelaide and is no longer able to drive herself after failing a medical eye test. My mother – pension aside – has never relied on state or federal government support for anything.
We hoped that might change after our lengthy and probing question and answer session with the My Aged Care woman.
It seems we were kidding ourselves, just like hundreds of thousands of other elderly Australians – good, honest, taxpaying, salt of the earth Aussies. Because you see, the federal government is waging war on older Australians in something dressed up as intergenerational fairness.
What a joke.
Tell me what’s fair about sitting down for two hours, honestly answering everything from questions around your mental health (it’s outstanding for her age) physical capacity, diet, use of prescription drugs and the numbers of friends you have or clubs you attend, as well as how much you drink, only to be told this:
My mother asks how long it might be before the at home care package will be available for her to access given she is turning 92 in November.
Our polite public servant – I’m guessing that was what she was – replies: “I can’t tell you how long it will be”.
Then the most extraordinary admission was offered up by our assessment inquisitor when we asked what would happen next.
She explained that the answers to the suite of questions she had asked would be fed into a computer using AI. Then an algorithm would spit out which of the eight levels of support – eight being highest level down to one the lowest – we would receive.
But the real kick in the guts was the revelation that if the assessor believed the computer-generated outcome was unfair to the elderly person, the department had told interviewers they were unable to protest the level offered.
In simple terms, the computer decision rules and face-to-face interviews by a human are simply to gather answers. They are not allowed, in any form, to appeal the decision of the algorithm.
That’s what it has come down to since this whole system changed back on November 1 last year – Australia’s elderly reduced to a number in a computer spat out by AI which will decide whether you qualify for nursing care in your fading years. And, even if you can get a package, whether you qualify to have help showering, shopping, cleaning up the garden or having your hair done.
All because a 91-year-old who paid tax all her life wanted to save the taxpayer money by staying in their own home and retaining some independence and dignity in their 90s. How pathetic is that?
And it’s only the beginning of the mess that this government has inflicted on the elderly.
After being submitted to that series of gentle but probing questions, we were told we would find out later that day what level of package she had been assessed at. However, a simple Google search of home care packages and wait times brought more bad news.
The average wait time for a home care package since the new Aged Care Act came into force last November is 354 days in Victoria and, according to the official figures I could find for South Australia where my mother lives, it’s a mind blowing 374 days. Only the ACT has a longer waiting time than SA at 386 days.
Then, if possible, things get even worse.
According to Herald Sun figures published last week there were 48,000 elderly Australians on the waiting list for in-home care packages, and if you were applying for an aged care bed the wait time extends out to 396 days.
This is a badly butchered system heading for NDIS territory — and the 39-year-old minister in charge, Sam Rae, seems clueless on how to fix it.
Last week’s hotly-debated federal budget appeared to show no extra Support at Home packages would be available on top of those already allocated. The government has funded 5000 new aged care beds a year and that’s half the demand.
The first quarterly report since last year’s November 1 changes doesn’t even include how many people were waiting for an actual assessment and how many were waiting for a package, with one estimate putting a figure of 230,000 against the two lists.
Baby Boomers like myself are increasingly having to make decisions on behalf of our elderly parents born pre-war, and not comfortable with or used to relying on government welfare outside of the aged pension. A proud generation, they want to retain their private independence and stay out of assisted aged care for as long as they can.
When medical issues start to intervene to make that increasingly difficult, the idea of some at home care from the state or federal governments makes sense. Predictably though, when politicians decide to allow privately-owned aged care providers into the tent things go badly wrong.
A pot of taxpayers’ money is always too much of a temptation for a few shonky operators and that’s when you get examples like charging $180 an hour for assistance in taking a shower or $200 an hour to clip a few trees in the backyard — even charging $120 for a seven pack of smoothies that retail for $20.
Those fees flow from government-funded packages and into the pockets of crooks. Minister Rae, while promising a crackdown on inflated home care assistance, uttered this nonsensical explanation around price caps – he pointed to global volatility and cost pressures hitting the sector, risking an “unstable baseline against which to set price caps”.
If anyone can explain what that means you are smarter than me.
In the end, after the interview, my mum was offered a level three package (on the scale of eight) and no indication of when it might arrive. My normally optimistic mother, as blunt as usual, quipped ‘I’ll probably be dead before that arrives’. Let’s hope not.
Likes
• Billionaire Lindsay Fox telling Canberra he doesn’t need their $250 Working Australians Tax Offset and will donate the money to charity.
• Bureau of Meteorology chief customer officer Peter Stone quitting over the $96m website revamp.
• Herald Sun naming anti-Anzac spray paint accused Charlie Tidmarsh and Edith Pope as they tried to hide their identities.
Dislikes
• The 3AW Monday night 7pm news bulletin leads sport news with a report on NSW rugby league player James Tedesco – Sydney generated I suspect.
• Premier Jacinta Allan’s $128 million spend on social media — and denying her team was behind a sudden boost in followers.
• Posthumus VC recipient Cameron Baird’s parents stripped of a miserly annual $3000 government grant for travel to spread his story.
Steve PriceSaturday Herald Sun columnist