Support at Home Funding: Turning Technology Opportunities into Sustainable Care Outcomes
Why funding technology is not enough - and how the gap between participant funding, organisational capability and benefits realisation affects the future of home care.
Australia's Support at Home program creates opportunities for older Australians to access assistive technology that supports independence, safety and wellbeing.
But there is an important distinction between funding technology and delivering better care.
Selecting, purchasing and deploying technology represents an implementation output. It does not, by itself, demonstrate that a participant is safer, a care worker is more effective or a provider is delivering services more efficiently.
Technology deployment is an output. Better care and measurable improvements are the outcomes that matter.
Achieving these outcomes requires organisational capabilities that connect technology with care delivery. Yet participant-directed technology funding does not necessarily support the shared capabilities providers need to deliver technology-enabled care sustainably and at scale.
The Structural Gap in Support at Home Funding
Support at Home provides eight classifications of ongoing support, with separate funding for eligible assistive technology and home modifications through the Assistive Technology and Home Modifications (AT-HM) scheme.
From 1 October 2026, AT-HM provides three funding tiers: Low ($513), Medium ($2,052) and High ($15,390), with additional funding potentially available for assessed needs.
These arrangements support eligible participant needs. However, they are not a general investment mechanism for enterprise technology platforms, integrated care processes or workforce capabilities.
Technology-enabled care rarely operates as an isolated product. Its effectiveness depends on how technology interacts with care planning, workforce processes, information systems and service coordination.
Providers may need to invest in technology assessment, systems integration, workforce training, governance and benefits evaluation. Some activities may be covered through existing care management arrangements or other eligible funding, while others require separate organisational investment.
The structural gap emerges when funding enables individual technology solutions without adequately supporting the shared capabilities needed to turn them into sustainable care services.
This is not simply a technology funding problem. It raises a broader question about how the aged care system supports providers to develop the capabilities required for modern care delivery.
Technology Deployed Does Not Mean Benefits Delivered
Consider a home care provider introducing proactive wellbeing monitoring for older people living independently.
The solution might use connected sensors and digital information to identify meaningful changes in daily routines, mobility or wellbeing.
The provider assesses the technology, establishes funding arrangements and deploys the solution across a group of participants.
The equipment is operational, information is being collected and notifications are generated. From an implementation perspective, the project appears successful.
But what has actually improved?
For participants, the intended benefits might include greater confidence, independence or earlier identification of changing support needs.
For care workers and coordinators, better information could support more effective prioritisation and care coordination.
For the organisation, benefits might include improved service efficiency, workforce utilisation and risk management.
None of these benefits is guaranteed simply because technology has been deployed.
Information must be interpreted, responsibilities established and appropriate action incorporated into care processes. Without these capabilities, monitoring technology may generate additional information and workload without delivering meaningful improvements.
The same principle applies to medication support, digital assessments and other connected care solutions.
Technology creates opportunities for better care. Organisational capability determines whether those opportunities become measurable benefits.
The Unequal Capacity to Invest
The structural funding gap also raises questions about equity across the aged care sector.
Larger providers may have greater capacity to invest in digital infrastructure, specialist expertise and workforce development. Smaller and standalone home care providers may face similar requirements without comparable resources.
When funding is primarily linked to individual participants and immediate service delivery, establishing shared digital capabilities can be difficult.
Providers with limited investment capacity may struggle to evaluate solutions, establish sustainable operating arrangements or demonstrate the benefits of innovation.
This risks creating uneven access to technology-enabled care, influenced not only by participant needs but also by the financial capacity and capabilities of their provider.
The challenge is whether the funding environment adequately supports sustainable technology-enabled care across the sector, rather than favouring organisations with greater investment capacity.
From Funding Products to Sustainable Services
Addressing this challenge requires a shift from focusing primarily on eligible products towards recognising the capabilities needed to deliver complete technology-enabled care services.
For example, supporting people with dementia, frailty or multiple chronic conditions may require monitoring, care coordination, information sharing, workforce response arrangements and periodic reassessment.
The value lies in the combined service and the outcomes it achieves, not simply the technologies involved.
This raises the potential for more integrated, needs-based or condition-based funding approaches that recognise the complete cost of technology-enabled care. Such approaches would require careful consideration of assessment, accountability and funding sustainability.
In the meantime, providers must work within existing arrangements while making informed decisions about organisational investment.
Targeted initiatives may offer additional opportunities. For example, the Support at Home Thin Markets 2026-27 (Round 3) grants include certain eligible business systems, ICT hardware and software, and workforce training expenditure related to qualifying Support at Home services.
However, these grants have specific eligibility conditions and do not resolve the broader structural funding challenge.
Turning Technology Opportunities into Care Outcomes
Providers should assess technology investments against the capabilities and benefits required for sustainable service delivery.
Five questions can guide these decisions:
What care outcome are we seeking? Define the intended improvement for participants, carers or service delivery.
What will the technology deliver? Distinguish implementation outputs from measurable benefits.
What organisational capabilities are required? Identify the processes, workforce skills, information flows and governance needed.
How will the complete service be funded? Consider participant funding alongside implementation and ongoing operating costs.
How will we demonstrate value? Establish meaningful measures of care outcomes and operational improvement.
These questions shift investment decisions from technology acquisition towards service design and benefits realisation.
They also reflect the NASSS framework, which recognises that sustainable technology adoption depends on interactions between technology, users, organisations and the wider care system.
The measure of success should not be how much technology has been deployed, but what has improved because of it.
NEED HELP TURNING TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT INTO SUSTAINABLE CARE OUTCOMES?
Support at Home creates opportunities to improve care through technology. Realising those opportunities requires informed decisions about funding, organisational capability and long-term sustainability.
eHomeCare provides independent digital strategy, governance and technology advisory services, helping aged care providers assess technology opportunities, identify investment priorities and establish the capabilities required to achieve measurable care and operational benefits.
We help providers look beyond technology selection and deployment to ensure digital investments support better care, more effective workforces and sustainable service delivery.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Hubert van Dalen is the founder of eHomeCare, an independent digital strategy, governance and technology advisory business supporting Australian aged care and disability providers. His work focuses on helping organisations make informed technology decisions and translate digital investments into meaningful operational and care outcomes.
REFERENCES
Van Dalen, H. (2025). Why Support at Home Funding Leaves a Systemic Gap. LinkedIn, 10 July 2025.
Australian Government, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (2026). Support at Home Program Manual - A Guide for Registered Providers.
Australian Government, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (2026). Assistive Technology and Home Modifications Scheme. Program guidance and eligibility requirements.
Australian Government, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (2026). Support at Home Thin Markets 2026-27 (Round 3): Grant Opportunity Guidelines. GO8502.
Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, et al. (2017). Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(11), e367.
Comments