In a poignant turn of events, Gregory Reeve, a former chief executive officer in the aged care sector with more than 40 years’ experience as a registered nurse, is now confronting the very system he once helped shape.
Recently diagnosed with a debilitating condition, Reeve has shared his frustrating experiences navigating Australia’s aged care services. His account shines a light on what he describes as “disgraceful” gaps between policy promises and practical delivery.
Reeve served as CEO of Heritage Care during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, a period marked by significant challenges and public scrutiny. He and the organisation were ultimately cleared of wrongdoing in court.
He has now chosen to speak publicly about his personal journey, which underscores persistent problems within the Commonwealth Home Support Programme (CHSP), the main entry-level support scheme for older Australians.
“The diagnosis was unexpected and exceedingly debilitating,” Reeve explained. “Now that I find myself in the very system I dedicated much of my career to, it is absolutely disgraceful what I am finding.”
At the centre of Reeve’s concerns is the CHSP, which provides basic assistance such as domestic help, personal care and transport to support older people to live independently at home.
Unlike Home Care Packages (HCPs), which deliver more comprehensive and coordinated support for people with complex needs, CHSP is not means-tested and focuses on task-specific services. HCPs are available across four levels and attract higher government subsidies.
However, as Reeve’s experience demonstrates, CHSP’s accessibility often comes with serious limitations.
Reeve underwent a My Aged Care assessment and received CHSP referral codes for approved services. Despite this, he has been unable to access the care he was assessed as needing.
“Providers associated with these codes are either not available in my area or are unable to deliver services that meet my assessed requirements,” he wrote in a formal complaint to My Aged Care. “As a result, the referral codes are effectively unusable and my care needs remain unmet.”
This situation has placed what Reeve describes as an “unreasonable and unsustainable burden” on his wife, with the responsibility for daily support largely defaulting to her.
Reeve argues this directly undermines the purpose of the programme, which is intended to provide timely assistance and reduce reliance on informal carers.
Industry perspectives support Reeve’s observations. Many providers view CHSP as financially unviable due to lower funding levels compared with Home Care Packages. This often results in limited service availability.
A national provider told Reeve that while his needs could be met under an entry-level Home Care Package, CHSP funding was insufficient to deliver the same support. High demand for CHSP, driven in part by the absence of means testing, further compounds the problem, with many approved referrals never translating into actual services.
“The service provider was categorical that if I had an entry-level package they could deliver my services, but not with CHSP,” Reeve said. He also criticised what he sees as My Aged Care’s default reliance on CHSP approvals, despite awareness that many people are unable to access meaningful support through the programme.
In response, Reeve has requested a review of his referral codes, the identification of alternative providers and the issue of new codes if required. He has also formally sought reconsideration for a Level 1 or Level 2 Home Care Package, which would offer more consistent and reliable assistance.
These challenges are not unique to Reeve. Department of Health and Aged Care reporting acknowledges that while CHSP plays an important role as an entry point to the system, its fragmented structure lacks the flexibility offered by Home Care Packages.
At the same time, residential aged care occupancy in Australia, now nearing 90–94%, exposes policy failures in delivering timely home support. Delays in CHSP services and Home Care Packages are forcing older Australians into care earlier than needed, eroding choice and independence.
With residential care far more expensive than home-based support, high occupancy is both a symptom of system strain and a signal that investment in ageing-in-place services is urgently required.
Further reform is planned, with CHSP scheduled to transition into the new Support at Home programme no earlier than July 2027. While this reform aims to create a more integrated and needs-based model, it offers little immediate relief for those currently struggling to access services.
Reeve’s professional background adds weight to his critique.
“I have spent my professional life caring for others within the health and aged care systems,” he said. “It is both disappointing and concerning that the mechanisms intended to deliver care are not functioning as designed.”
He describes his experience as a practical case study of systemic ineffectiveness, highlighting the disconnect between assessment outcomes and real-world service delivery.
As Australia continues to grapple with the pressures of an ageing population, stories like Reeve’s raise urgent questions about funding adequacy, provider incentives and whether government commitments align with lived experience.
Another great article from Jakob Neeland. Thank you, Mr Reeves, for sharing your experience with us. These failings should be addressed now, solved and not left for someone else to attend to.
Why is a rich CEO applying for subsidised CHSP?
There lies the problem.
Hi Fran,
Personalizing the issue misses the policy point. CHSP is intentionally non means tested, the question is how that model (commonwealth) affects demand, equity and access over time.
The discussion raised is about system, design and access, not individual circumstances.
Not intending any disrespect to Mre Reeve or his experience; but I think the issues outlined are systemic and do not reflect issues with the CHSP at all.
The CHSP is over-extended due to the debacle of SAH. CHSP providers have no availability because:
a) CHSP is propping up the SAH program beyond the scope of its intended capacity;
b) it’s more lucrative for Providers to take Package clients so we are hearing that CHSP services are being refused;
c) CHSP providers have not received an increase in funding to address increased demand despite mounting evidence of same, which has resulted in waitlists and referrals not being picked up by providers who have insufficient workforce to deliver CHSP services;
d) consumers are refusing their shiny new SAH Packages and reverting back to using CHSP because it’s more cost-effective and flexible (ie responsive to needs rather than services allocated through a prescriptive IAT)…
The entire sector is broken. CHSP is desperately trying to hold it together. To state that CHSP has “access limitations” and suggest that SAH is easier to access is a little difficult to digest…
No disrespect taken and I agree with your primary point “the entire system is broken”
Sadly Mr Reeve CHSP has need gutted by years of neglect.
Once the domain of local council and community heath HAC then CHSP provided a wide range support via local local networks of heath professionals, paid workers and volunteers.
in 1966 I used to deliver hot meals cooked to health requirements in the local council kitchen. No one day but five days a week with extra meals provided for the week end.
Currently under S@H frozen meals are delivered a $20 a flop with co- payments of $10 in the common.
This is current debacle is consequence years of neglect and wasted outsourced billions to shift services from state government to federal to the private market
Provider lobbyist argued first with the Howard Government then a succession of like minded that business could not compete hence began the destruction of small localised supply, held to account by the community that voted them into office. There is nowhere a local councillor can hide from a passionate rate payer.
The current model of privatised aged care hand outs has left the community with fragmented services managed by absentee landlords registered miles away from where services are needed. Worker tramp over each others territory wasting millions in service hours and government funding.
Yes it is a mess but I can assure you that the savour is not S@H where exorbitant prices means that even in the highest levels of support 13 hours a week of is barely possible with the funding available.
Added to this lack of possible care hours is denial of a wide range is stay at home support and of course unaffordable consumer co-payments with a range of 5% to 80% of inflated prices.
As a person who manages disability I can tell you straight out
The more you need the more you pay
The more you need the less you can do for your self
Right now the Aged Care Model has the affect of reducing support to those who most need it.
And you should know that after 40 years in the industry.
Hi Peter,
You speak from a position of great experience and respect your points completely.
How old is this article? referring to HCP not SAH? Regardless – With the recent changes the Aged Care system is BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN! We have many many people who we are unable to provide care for under both SAH and CHSP! CHSP because we are at our limit with the funding provided – SAH because people are having to WAIT for funding to be release and what’s the deal with releasing it PARTIALLY?
Reeve is spot on with his feedback about tge aged care sector.
I am a mental health practitioner and have many patients who are caring for family at home .
They are experiencing the same challenges as Reeve.
Wife/husband has dementia.
Report long wait times, no service providers
available, difficulty navigating the system and paperwork.
These people are already stressed and tge aged care sectors inadequacies only make their stress worse.
I agree and am sorry to hear of Reeves experiences. It is a common story
I have had the same experience. You get a list of numbers to call re Commonwealth Home Support Programme (CHSP) and it’s common to have them tell you no support is available. Meanwhile the elderly suffer as they do not get the help they need. It’s a mess. And complaints about the problem to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission are ignored with staff discouraging people from complaining which tramples on their legal rights. How can things improve if even the people strong enough to make a complaint are ignored and not taken seriously?
From where I stand, (I’m an 85yo retired aged care nurse, who may need help myself in the future) and from what I see, hear and read, the scheme is a total disaster. Top heavy, too much red tape, with list of conditions incomprehensible to an older person, and too many ‘hands out for the monies’ along the way before the client is considered for support. When it’s all boiled down, the client can often find it’s cheaper to engage someone privately. It does make one fearful for the future.
I worked as an aged care / disability manager. Like Gregory has stated his needs
also aren’t being met by the current system. Over many years I have seen systems fail those who are ageing and have a disability in combination.
I thought we had lost the one size fits all mentality. There is unfortunately an ageism problem in the wider community. While the aged care sector does its best to address the needs of those who live daily with significant disability it has to work within current Government policy.
The way I see it is there has to be more access to individualised approaches, not just lip service for everyone who needs home care.
Unfortunately this is one of many articles I see in which the blame is sheeted home to the wrong place. CHSP services are not at fault. The lack of CHSP services should be blamed directly on the Commonwealth public service and both the current and previous governments. The Commonwealth wanted to take 100% responsibility for aged care including CHSP. But from the moment it inherited what was previously HACC, it changed the name and then did nothing else but put it in a holding pattern. CHSP has suffered from a decade of neglect with no community needs assessment, no planning, no funding growth and not even a national minimum data set that includes information on the waiting list. CHSP is a massive failure of governance, not a failure of service providers
Sadly I think that the mechanisms intended to deliver care are functioning as designed, and that it is evidence of the government’s intention to limit services where possible and depend on fewer people using services that mandate a co-contribution, even if that person has already been assessed as eligible for the aged pension. There is clearly a misalignment between stated aims which are values based and availability of services which are political and economic.
Blaming the CHSP for Mr Reeve’s experience is like blaming the nurse for the lack of hospital beds. As noted by the Inspector General of Aged Care, there are 840,000 senior Australians on a CHSP package, over half the nation’s current aged care cohort, BUT the program has only been receiving 8 per cent of Canberra’s budget for aged care. So when we talk about CHSP, let’s be honest about where responsibility lies. Community organisations are not the architects of this system. Governments are.
CHSP is not failing because of the people delivering services. It is failing because it has been neglected, under-planned, and under-governed for years.
Removing it in favour of a more complex, assessment-heavy, co-contribution model would disproportionately harm those who are economically disadvantaged, especially older women living alone, on low incomes, or carrying cumulative disadvantage. The answer is to properly fund and reform CHSP alongside Support at Home — not abolish the preventative foundation of the system.
While CHSP is erratic it does deliver trustable small services. The way the HCP is structured if either of us were ever to get a package (very much in doubt from the system now in place) we could not afford it anyway as the rates are literally a couple of hundred dollars an hour fir the simplest services
We have concluded that we are simply (at 84) just disregarded by the government dead set of sucking us dry and making life’s complicated as they possibly can when we are least able to address these fresh barriers and complexities/if we were ever to get any nominal “support”. We look at the future with real and rising fear
Exactly as the system is designed