Community transport an underfunded ‘lifeline’
Continuing with a unit pricing model for community transport services is unsustainable, ACTA CEO Murray Coates tells Community Care Review.
Peak body for community transport, the Australian Community Transport Association, and the University of South Australia have been collaborating on the National Variable Pricing Matrix pilot.
UniSA collected data, conducted evaluations and reported on the results to:
- develop and test a more accurate way of calculating transport costs
- develop and test alternative policy arrangements
- incorporate social engagement and client choice.
There were 31 community transport providers involved in the pilot, all of whom deliver services to older Australians via the Commonwealth Home Support Program.
Community transport providers do more than just transport people from one place to another, said ACTA chief executive officer Murray Coates. They are a crucial social support system for older people and people with disability – particularly if they are living in a regional or rural area – and as such, they are uniquely placed to engage in early intervention, he said.
“Community transport places an emphasis on building a strong rapport between clients and providers based on mutual respect and trust,” said Mr Coates.
Community transport staff are trained in safe driving practices and first aid, which allows them to better recognise signs of poor mental or physical health. This in turn alleviates some of the pressures on primary health networks and on families.
Despite its crucial role in providing independence and fostering social inclusion, initial findings of the NVPM pilot show community transport is significantly underfunded, and that community transport providers often rely on cross-subsidising and fundraising to maintain operations.
There are issues for the current system of unit pricing for both consumers and providers, Mr Coates told Community Care Review.
“Providers get an average of $35, no matter how long the trip is, or who the client is,” Mr Coates told CCR.
“The best example I can give is in a regional area if you had to travel a long distance – and some of the trips that we collected data on were up to 400 kilometres long to get to a hospital – the provider gets [on] average $35 for that.
“Or if you’ve got a client who requires significant support, maybe due to their physical or their mental health, then again, you get $35. So, the report clearly indicated that that’s not a sustainable way forward.”
This unit pricing method also impacts on the level of service quality, Mr Coates added, having perverse incentives that see people only engage in short trips or with people who have lower support needs.
“We didn’t see that in the not-for-profit sector, and I guess that probably leads to another finding… that it’s the culture that you set up around these services that’s important, and it’s how you communicate them to the people who are using them that’s the most important thing, rather than just throwing into the market and saying, ‘oh, the market will fix everything,’ because clearly that’s not happening,” he told CCR.
“We’ve got several royal commissions that say that.”
ACTA suggests that funding to providers should instead be based on the actual distance and cost completed. Passengers should continue to be charged based on a unit of service – regardless of distance travelled, to ensure equitable service for those in rural and remote areas.
The pilot also found some good efficiency gains in the first 12 months of the project, which Mr Coates said UniSA attributed to collaboration between the 31 providers. Technology also played a role in boosting the efficiency.
“So one of the things ACTA had to do to get this pilot to be accurate was we had to bring everybody on to a tech platform, and that platform allowed things like scheduling. We had things like texting the client 10 minutes before their vehicle arrived – so they could prepare themselves,” he said to CCR.
“There was a whole range of things that technology offered in terms of a smooth service, a better-quality service, but also a more efficient service.”
For example, the pilot showed Victorian provider EV Strengthening Communities increased trips from 100 to 180 per day by using a transport management system, while Queensland provider Burnie Brae cut scheduling time by 80 per cent.
Changes to the funding model are becoming increasingly more critical as the population ages, and ACTA hopes the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing will work with them to use the solutions found in the pilot to enhance the sector, Mr Coates told CCR.
Further findings will be released in August at the ACTA 2025 National Community Transport Conference. ACTA also has plans to share the findings with the Independent Hospital and Aged Care Pricing Authority.
Follow Community Care Review on Facebook and LinkedIn and sign up to our newsletter.
It would be fair to say that many of the government funded programmes have to constantly evaluate funding, but as a feature of all funded programmes the government could do their background work long before funding is due and allow organisation continue their work with confidence. As part of their funding review, they understand where the need for increased funding is better understood.