Older Australians receiving Support at Home services will face strict rules when it comes to cancelling appointments. Under the Aged Care Act, providers can charge consumers the full cost of a service if they cancel with less than two business days’ notice or fail to attend a scheduled appointment. The rules apply to all types of home care services, from nursing and personal care to transport and home modifications.
While the policy was designed to provide clarity and protect providers, it has sparked debate over whether the required 48 hours’ notice is realistic or fair for older people.
Supporters of the 48-hour rule argue it is necessary to maintain efficiency in a sector already under pressure. Providers schedule staff, transport, and resources in advance, and a last-minute cancellation can result in wasted time and costs. A two-day notice period gives providers enough time to adjust rosters, reallocate staff, or offer the appointment slot to another client.
From this perspective, the policy protects home care providers, who face high operational costs and a workforce stretched thin by staff shortages and increasing demand. Providers argue that without a clear notice requirement, services could be disrupted more frequently, creating instability for both staff and clients.
Some providers also note that home care workers often rely on predictable schedules to make a sustainable income. A sudden cancellation can result in lost wages if the provider cannot reassign the worker to another appointment. In this sense, the 48-hour rule is framed as fairness to staff as much as a financial safeguard for providers.
Critics, however, argue that two business days’ notice is often impractical for older Australians. Many clients experience unpredictable health events, hospital admissions, or sudden changes in informal support arrangements. Expecting them to provide notice within 48 hours assumes a level of control and foresight that is often impossible.
A sector expert recently noted that “it may be easier if cancelled services are not charged until at least 14 days have passed.” This approach would allow consumers to provide supporting evidence for cancellations without the immediate pressure of fees being applied. Without such flexibility, the risk is that older Australians may be unfairly penalised for circumstances beyond their control.
Even if a consumer has reasonable grounds for a late cancellation, the factsheet advises they must provide evidence such as hospital admission or medical documentation. For people recovering from illness or managing cognitive decline, obtaining and submitting proof within the required timeframe can be burdensome.
Some industry voices suggest that 48 hours may be unnecessarily long and that a 24-hour notice period could strike a better balance. A shorter window could still protect providers from last-minute cancellations while being more manageable for older Australians whose circumstances can change suddenly.
Reducing the notice requirement could also lessen the administrative burden of reversing charges or handling complaints. Currently, consumers who are charged despite legitimate reasons for absence must navigate a complicated process through the provider and potentially the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. While the Commission can investigate fairness, it cannot issue refunds, leaving older people to advocate for themselves under stressful circumstances.
Any discussion about notice periods cannot ignore the ongoing challenges in the home care workforce. The sector has experienced an exodus of workers in recent years due to low wages, high stress, and uncertainty in the aged care system. Providers report difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff, and service instability has become a growing concern.
Strict cancellation policies are one way to protect providers and staff, but they also highlight the tension between operational needs and consumer fairness.
If notice periods are shortened too much, providers may face increased cancellations that threaten income and workforce stability. Conversely, if notice periods are too rigid, older Australians bear the brunt financially, potentially deterring them from accessing care altogether.
The debate is further complicated by the reality that many home care clients rely on informal support networks or carers who themselves may have unpredictable schedules. Policies that fail to account for these realities risk punishing vulnerable individuals who are already navigating complex care needs.
There is no simple answer. Advocates suggest that the best approach may lie in flexibility. Policies could allow providers to charge for late cancellations only after a set period, giving time for documentation to be submitted and assessed. At the same time, notice periods should be communicated clearly, but with recognition of the realities of ageing, illness, and fluctuating health.
Better coordination with hospitals and medical practitioners could also help. For example, if emergency departments provided documentation for patients receiving Support at Home services, it would reduce the burden on older Australians and their families while still protecting providers from lost revenue.
Ultimately, the debate over 48-hour notice reflects a broader tension in aged care between efficiency, fairness, and compassion. Policies that prioritise administrative clarity may inadvertently penalise the people they are intended to serve. Conversely, more flexible approaches risk operational challenges in a sector already facing workforce instability and growing demand.
The introduction of strict no-show and cancellation rules for Support at Home services has sparked an important conversation about fairness, practicality, and the balance of responsibility between providers and consumers.
While the 48-hour notice period may help protect providers and staff, it also risks placing undue financial and administrative burdens on older Australians.
Finding the right balance will require ongoing dialogue between policymakers, providers, and advocates for older Australians. It may mean rethinking the notice period, improving communication with hospitals, or offering a more flexible approach that recognises the realities of ageing.
As the debate continues, one thing is clear: policies that affect people’s care should reflect compassion as well as clarity.
