Melissa Madsen’s Posthaven

Melissa Madsen writes: Re. "Aged care: treating the cause and consequences of bad price signals" (yesterday, item 1). There might not be a magic pudding for aged care funding, but the Commonwealth government could make the pudding go a lot further by addressing significant inefficiencies in the aged care and disability sectors.

I am an adult wheelchair user who receives state government-funded support services and equipment. My father spent several months in 2010 and 2011 trying to negotiate high-level in-home aged care support for my mother.

You cannot escape the conclusion that decades of under-investment and perverse incentives have left the aged care and disability sectors fundamentally broken. Both appear to operate with administrative systems that are barely functional at best, non-existent IT systems, with a very high reliance on manual processing, high overheads and limited accountability for where the money goes as a result.

For example, the state government does not know how many wheelchairs I have (despite their rules that I can keep only one) and sends me surveys periodically so I can tell them. Standard cushions designed to prevent pressure sores can be bought online and delivered from the US at roughly half what it costs to buy locally, yet government agencies buy locally. What price signal does this send to local suppliers?

The scarcity of resources and the inability of consumers to choose service providers mean that any service at any cost has been good enough. But with increased funding there must also be greater accountability for how our aged care and disability funds are spent.