Key Insights from 100 submissions: Senate Inquiry into CHSP transition to Support at Home

By Lilly Sorensen, Sector Support Administrator

100 submissions have been published as part of the Senate review of The Transition of the Commonwealth Home Support Program to the Support at Home Program. Submissions represent not just the aged care sector (individuals, providers and peaks), but a broader set of health services, community groups, ‘aging’, ‘seniors’ groups, which is a reflection of the broad-reaching impacts of CHSP in the community. 

Strengths and effectiveness of CHSP 

CHSP’s Preventative role  

Submissions emphasised CHSP’s preventative health and wellbeing benefits gained from preventative, enablement supports such as transport, meal delivery and social support. Many submissions pointed to strong evidence of CHSP services’ protective factors such as preventing premature decline, improvement in functionality, the cognitive-protective factors of social engagement and overall health and wellbeing.  

Sustainability and efficiency of CHSP funding model  

Many submissions emphasised that CHSP is not broken, it is a highly efficient model, has consistently performed well, and should be retained, modernised and strengthened, rather than abolished.  

Submissions recommend keeping or expanding block funding, which is essential for viability, especially in thin markets, regional providers or Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations.  

Submissions had concerns for the viability of services, in particular those requiring capital-intensive investment such as transport, meals and social support. 

Consumer accessibility and affordability  

From the older person perspective, submissions showed how CHSP offers quick, low-barrier access to vital services when only a few non-clinical services are needed, to continue living safely and independently at home. Older people repeatedly expressed their wish to receive help without feeling over-managed. They value CHSP because it does not make them feel like a ‘care recipient’, and it feels community-based rather than institutional.  

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander older people 

CHSP is critical for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander older people, and there is a risk of losing culturally safe services during the transition. CHSP enables Elders to receive care on Country and remain connected to culture, kinship, family, and community.  

CHSP and Social Connection and Community Capital  

Group-based social support, community transport, and meals are seen as foundational for healthy ageing, promoting social connection and preventing isolation. There is strong advocacy for retaining community-based delivery for these essential services, with warnings that individualised funding could erode social capital and community infrastructure. 

Sector Support and Development (SSD)  

SSD is seen as a critical risk mitigation infrastructure that is currently under-resourced, and effective SSD is a prerequisite for a safe transition of CHSP.  Submissions said SSD is essential to help providers interpret and implement new regulatory requirements; support workforce adaptation and retention; build capacity in governance, ICT and reporting; assist smaller community-based providers to remain viable.  

Concerns about transitioning to Support at Home  

Concerns about Timeline and readiness  

The proposed transition date (“no earlier than July 2027”) is considered by many as unrealistic and risky. The sector is already feeling the effects of recent reforms, such as the new Aged Care Act and changes to Home Care Packages. Major concerns include assessment and service waitlists, ongoing workforce shortages, and IT system readiness. Many are urging a staged, regionally flexible, or delayed transition, with some suggesting an extension of CHSP to 2030 or beyond. 

Affordability Barriers  

Higher and mandatory client contributions under Support at Home are seen as a barrier, especially for low-income, pensioner, CALD, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander older people. Many submissions report that clients are already declining or cutting back services due to cost or confusion about the new contribution structure. Hardship provisions are considered too complex and underused. 

Restrictive End-of-Life Pathway limits and Home Modification caps 

Support at Home’s End-of-Life Pathway time limits are viewed as clinically inappropriate, and requires more flexibility. Similarly, many recommend removing or indexing the Support at Home $15,000 Home Modification cap, or allowing needs-based flexibility, to avoid unsafe housing and prevent premature entry to higher levels of care. 

Cultural Safety  

Cultural safety must be strengthened, not weakened, and there were concerns around the loss of trusted community‑controlled providers, more complex access pathways, market‑based reforms worsening access in thin markets and inadequate cultural safety in new systems.  

Higher cost to deliver the same service under Support at Home 

Submissions warn that a system shift from community CHSP to a more prescriptive retail model of Support at Home would result in unnecessary costs, undermining the objectives of the reforms. Additional compliance and reporting that would be required under Support at Home would not be risk proportionate and would result in less time available for client-facing work and more time on admin demands. Community-based providers, often with a large volunteer workforce, would be most impacted.  

Concerns from community 

Older people are not rejecting reform, but they are deeply worried about losing affordable, familiar, low‑level help that lets them live independently and with dignity. Their strongest message is: ‘Don’t make it harder, more expensive, or more confusing just as we start to need help.’ 

Recommendations for Reform 

• Retain and strengthen CHSP as a distinct, block-funded, entry-level program. 

• Delay or stage the transition until Support at Home is proven stable, accessible, and equitable. 

• Ensure funding models reflect real costs, especially in thin markets and infrastructure-heavy services. 

• Protect access for vulnerable groups and support provider viability. 

• Embed flexibility, local planning, and community input in reform design. 

The message from the sector is clear: CHSP is a highly valued, cost-effective, and essential part of Australia’s aged care system. There is strong concern that a rushed or poorly designed transition to Support at Home could undermine access, equity, and service continuity—especially for the most vulnerable. The sector is calling for careful, evidence-based reform that is well communicated, preserves the strengths of CHSP, addresses current weaknesses, and ensures that older Australians can age safely, independently, and with dignity in their communities. 

Submissions can be viewed here 

The final report is due 15 April 2026.