The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner has faced tough questions at the latest sitting of the Senate enquiry into the Government’s COVID response after a series of media stories that have portrayed the regulator as a “toothless” watchdog (see the 7.30 Report story).
The enquiry’s Chair, Labor Senator Katy Gallagher, noted that The Australian has found there were 2,000 complaints made to the Quality and Safety Commission between April and June this year – but Ms Anderson couldn’t say how many were connected to aged care homes that had COVID outbreaks.
The Commissioner maintained that the regulator does their best to resolve any issue and also uses complaints to inform their other regulatory activities.
Asked why the Commission has not fined any operators for non-compliance – a major point in The Australian article – Ms Anderson replied that her organisation does not issue fines.
“It misconceives what we do when we resolve complaints,” she said, adding that their goal is not to punish the provider in every case.
Ms Gallagher questioned this assessment however, saying that there must have been a role of some kind of sanction or penalty for serious complaints.
The Commissioner agreed that only one notice had been issued by the regulator in the January quarter – and none in the second quarter – but attributed this to her organisation’s consistently high rate of resolution.
Appearing under pressure, Ms Anderson said: “It is a mistake to assume our only tool is to issue some regulatory response.”
She added that “hundreds” of those complaints would have been passed onto quality assessors to be used in their assessments.
“Do you think it’s reasonable there is not one concrete response that you can demonstrate today?” Ms Gallagher asked bluntly.
“I don’t think that’s a fair characterisation of what I said,” Ms Anderson threw back.
The Commissioner maintained that the Commission does not have a “one-for-one” response to complaints – and some of the complaints would have led to regulatory action.
However, she couldn’t say put a number on this figure, taking the question on notice.
In relation to the ABC’s report and its criticism of the regulator’s failure to sanction providers, Ms Anderson said that the Quality and Safety Commission defines itself as a “risk-based regulator” with more weight given to education and guidance than on sanctions.
“Most providers get their major benefit as they are relatively compliant,” she said. “As they move further way from compliance, we move further up our regulatory pyramid.”
The Commissioner added that sanctions are a “very serious response” that the regulator only uses in cases where there is significant non-compliance and typically, immediate and severe risk of harm to residents.
The responses again raise the question: is the role of the regulator to be a friend or foe – and can it fulfil both?