From January to June 2026, we conducted a prudential review on Support at Home with 25 providers.
Our focus areas were pricing transparency, service agreements, financial reporting and the Financial and Prudential Management Standard.
Four providers were fully compliant, and 18 providers had compliance issues. These 18 providers worked with us to fix the non-compliance.
Three non-compliant providers are being case managed, and we will take regulatory action if needed.
We found the most common areas of non-compliance were service agreements and the Financial and Prudential Management Standard.
About the review
From January to June 2026, we undertook a prudential review of 25 Support at Home providers. We did this review to protect the interests of older people and to help providers comply with the Aged Care Act 2024 (Aged Care Act), Aged Care Rules 2025 (Aged Care Rules) and the Financial and Prudential Standards 2025.
The review was about:
- how providers set prices
- how providers communicate prices to older people
- making sure providers weren’t charging separately for package management and travel costs
- making sure providers had clear, written consent to charge prices differently to what was agreed with older people in the service agreement
- providers submitting the Aged Care Financial Report (ACFR) and Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) on time
- providers in registration categories 4 and 5 complying with the Financial and Prudential Management Standard.
Our findings
Of the 25 providers, 4 were fully compliant. These providers had:
- strong governance and financial management
- effective monitoring and reporting processes
- older people at the centre of their decision-making.
Of the remaining 21 providers, 18 had compliance issues. We have worked with them to achieve compliance.
Three providers didn’t achieve compliance within the agreed time. Of these 3:
- one provider was non-compliant in all areas of the review. They didn’t provide the information we asked for, even after repeated requests.
- one provider was non-compliant in almost all areas, and didn’t provide the information we asked for, even after multiple extensions in time
- one provider worked with us through the process but couldn’t fix their non-compliance within the agreed time. We also found they didn’t fully understand their obligations.
We're currently investigating one of the providers. The second provider was referred to our compliance team and has now fixed their non-compliance issues. We are working with the third provider to get more evidence and information to help them achieve compliance. We'll take further regulatory action if needed.
Good practices and non-compliance issues
At the time of the review:
- 32% of providers complied with price publishing requirements
- 36% of providers complied with requirements for service agreements, budgets and monthly statements
- 72% of providers complied with financial reporting requirements
- 36% of providers complied with the Financial and Prudential Management Standard requirements.
We noted examples of good practice among providers and reasons for non-compliance in 4 key areas.
1. Process for setting and communicating prices
Good practice included:
- good governance and oversight, including having clear roles and responsibilities, policies and procedures for publishing and reviewing pricing information
- making sure pricing information was complete and consistent across websites, service agreements and My Aged Care.
Non-compliance included:
- incorrect or missing pricing information, mainly for allied health, meal delivery, indirect transport and required non-standard pricing
- not publishing prices on My Aged Care, making it hard for older people to find information they needed
- prices on My Aged Care different to website
- charging travel separately.
2. Service agreements
Good practice included:
- planning and preparing for Support at Home
- setting clear prices for agreed services
- including price lists in the agreement.
Non-compliance included:
- service agreements were:
- missing, incomplete or out-of-date
- missing information on agreed prices, funding classification, service names, associated provider names and mandatory participant details
- made using non-compliant templates
- monthly statements were incorrect, incomplete or issued late
- budget documents weren’t always current, correct or transparent (open and clear).
3. Financial reporting
Good practice included:
- working with external bookkeepers or financial specialists.
- using reporting calendars and reminder systems.
- training more staff to support financial reporting.
Non-compliance included:
Submitting ACFR and QFR late due to:
- weak governance
- poor contingency planning, reporting processes and compliance supervision
- lack of staff training led to reporting delays when key personnel were away
- limited understanding of financial reporting obligations
- operational and systems challenges.
4. Financial and Prudential Management Standard
Good practice included:
- defining clear financial roles and responsibility
- strong monitoring and reporting systems with Board oversight.
Non-compliance included:
- the financial and prudential management system:
- wasn't documented
- wasn't updated in line with the new Aged Care Act and Aged Care Rules
- didn't show how the provider was implementing the requirements. For example, monitoring and review activities weren’t documented
- no formal process to find, record, investigate and respond to non-compliance with the Standard.
- weak governance, including unclear financial roles and responsibilities and lack of supervision of financial roles and responsibilities.
What providers said
Through the review, providers told us about challenges they're having with compliance.
Some of these included:
- the need for practical examples and clearer guidance on compliance requirements
- older people often relying on providers to explain pricing, fees and complex government changes
- challenges with hardship arrangements
- difficulty with pricing models and travel charges for rural and remote providers.
Overall, providers told us the review was helpful. They said it helped them find gaps in their operations and improve financial management, governance, reporting capability and compliance frameworks. They also gave us positive feedback about clear communication and timeframes.
Impact of the review
Our reviews aim to improve providers’ understanding of and compliance with their obligations. This, in turn, helps improve the quality of care for older people.
In this review, we found various non-compliance issues related to pricing transparency, service agreements, budgets, monthly statements, financial reporting and prudential management.
The providers worked with us to achieve compliance in these areas. For older people, this means:
- accountability from providers
- better understanding of the services they receive and the prices they pay
- transparency of how their Support at Home funding is being used.
How we will use these findings
We’ll use the findings from this review to inform our activities including:
- provider education
- engagement
- monitoring
- regulatory activities.
Based on the findings, we know it’s important to keep improving the sector’s understanding of financial, prudential and governance obligations.
We may take a more targeted approach for future reviews to:
- to assess a larger number of providers
- identify new issues
- support compliance through education, guidance and regulatory engagement.
More information
Financial and Prudential Standards
Support at Home Regulatory Bulletin
Prudential and targeted reviews
Financial and Prudential Management Standard fact sheet
If you have any questions or feedback, please email us at F&P.reviews&audits@agedcarequality.gov.au