A referral issued. A plan approved. A budget allocated. Still no care.https://www.myagedcare.gov.au/

My Aged Care is structured as a compliance marketplace, not a capacity marketplace.

Australia now spends more than $30 billion each year on aged care. On paper, this represents one of the most significant social investments in the federal budget. Yet for many families, approval does not translate into access.

Recently, my partner and I began navigating the system on behalf of her parents. The early stages felt orderly: assessment completed, funding allocated, reference number issued. It looked like progress—until we attempted to secure a provider.

Calls went unanswered. Emails disappeared. When responses did arrive, they were consistent:

• “We don’t have capacity.”

• “We’re not taking new Home Care Package clients.”

The directory suggested supply. Reality revealed scarcity. When approval does not convert into care, the problem is not paperwork. It is market design. A marketplace without suppliers is merely a mirage.

To close this blind spot, we must move from documenting process to delivering outcomes.

---

1. The Illusion of Supply

Administratively, the system is coherent. It follows a clean sequence: Participant identified → Plan allocated → Services approved → Providers searched.

On paper, it is elegant. The breakdown occurs at the final step. The system records approvals beautifully, but it does not guarantee provider acceptance.

There is a crucial distinction between recording a step and delivering an outcome.

Compliance System	Outcome System
Referral issued	Provider accepted
Plan approved	Appointment booked
Budget allocated	Care delivered

To a system administrator, a 'Referral Issued' status code looks like success. It turns a dashboard light green. But at the kitchen table, that status code is just a string of numbers that doesn't answer the phone.

It doesn’t cook a meal, it doesn’t help with a shower, and it certainly doesn’t provide relief to an exhausted 88-year-old partner. When the system celebrates 'allocation' while the family is still experiencing 'isolation,' the metric isn't just wrong—it’s insulting.

The UX of Friction

After more than 30 years in IT and change management, one principle repeatedly proves decisive: Make the right thing to do the easiest thing to do.

If users must hunt for capacity, call multiple suppliers, and interpret ambiguity, the system is misaligned. In e-commerce, 'friction' usually results in a lost sale. In aged care, friction looks like a daughter making her twentieth call during a lunch break, apologising to yet another provider for bothering them, only to be told 'try again next month.'

This isn't just a failure of user interface design; it is an emotional tax levied on families who are often already in crisis. The system effectively outsources its administration to the people least capable of doing it.

The problem is not merely that the system measures the wrong signals. It is that it cannot see its own inventory.

---

2. A Marketplace That Cannot See Its Own Inventory

My Aged Care operates as a managed marketplace: Government funds, private providers deliver, consumers choose.

Markets rely on signals. But in this market, capacity is invisible. The platform shows who is registered, but it does not show who is available.

Modern digital governance frameworks are clear: systems must surface constraints in real time. The Digital Service Standard requires agencies to design around user needs and measurable performance. In high-reliability systems, observability is not optional—it is foundational.

Currently, My Aged Care operates with less transparency than a ride-share app. When you open Uber, you see the cars. You see the wait time. You see the surge. In Aged Care, you see a static list that offers no clue as to whether the service actually exists.

---

3. What Observable Capacity Looks Like

If we want to fix the blind spot, we must visualise the inventory. A traffic-light capacity model would transform the user experience immediately.

• 🟢 Green: Accepting clients within 2 weeks

• 🟡 Amber: Limited capacity (2–8 weeks)

• 🔴 Red: No capacity / Closed books

• ⚫ Black: Regional shortage (none within 30 km)

The Local Capacity Index

Families should see an honest signal about local conditions. A simple display could include a Local Capacity Score (0–100).

If a postcode scores 25, families should know they are entering a shortage environment. That is not discouraging; it is respectful. It allows them to plan for a wait, rather than assuming they are simply failing to find the right number.

What the CEO Should See

Leadership visibility should focus on where conversion fails, not how many referrals were issued.

An executive dashboard must track:

• Approval-to-acceptance conversion rates.

• Time from allocation to first appointment.

• Persistent shortage regions.

Until conversion is measured, failure remains invisible.

---

4. Governance Levers That Matter

Visualising the problem is step one. The system must then act on it.

Scarcity Should Trigger Escalation

If no provider is accepting clients within 30 kilometres, that is not a minor inconvenience. It is a structural signal.

Without this automated escalation, the silence of the system feels personal. Families are left wondering, 'Did I call the wrong number? Did I miss a step?' They do not realise that no one in their postcode is getting care.

By hiding the shortage behind a directory of 'available' providers who are anything but, the system effectively gaslights the user—masking a structural failure as bad luck.

 

Systems often optimise for what is easiest to measure, not what matters most.

When Friction Repeats, It Is Data

If ten families in the same postcode receive approval, contact multiple providers, and receive "no capacity" responses, that is a pattern.

Modern digital systems do not treat repeated failure as anecdote; they treat it as a signal.

When rejection rates exceed a defined threshold, that signal should automatically escalate to:

• Workforce planning models.

• Migration priority lists.

• Targeted regional subsidies.

Capacity invisibility reduces political pressure. If shortage is not visible on dashboards, it does not trigger intervention. Systems tend to optimise for administrative completion rather than public discomfort.

Carrots and Sticks

The Royal Commission was explicit: workforce shortages are structural. If providers wish to remain listed in a publicly funded directory, participation should carry expectations.

• Carrots: Travel loadings and rural attraction subsidies for providers in "Red" zones.

• Sticks: Mandatory live capacity reporting. If you don't update your availability, you drop off the list.

 

---

Conclusion: From Compliance to Outcomes

Australia has digitised the paperwork of aged care. It now needs to digitise the truth of capacity.

The argument advanced here is not merely a critique of user experience. It reflects established principles in systems design and organisational governance. Modern digital platforms are expected to incorporate observability and feedback loops that surface failure conditions before they become systemic crises.

The design discipline required here is not unique to aged care. Any publicly funded marketplace must distinguish between allocation and delivery. When systems reward administrative completion rather than human outcomes, trust erodes quietly.

A publicly funded aged care marketplace—responsible for dignity, health, and social trust—should be governed by the same design discipline.

• Capacity should be visible.

• Scarcity should trigger a response.

• Conversion from approval to appointment should be measurable.

This is not a question of technology capacity. It is a question of whether we choose to design for detection or for denial.