Care cut after complaint
‘No reason’ for removal
A TOOWOOMBA stroke survivor believes his home care services were cut by provider Churches of Christ Care after he and his wife made a complaint to the organisation about a breach of confidentiality.
It was August 9, the day after their nephew’s funeral, and the house of Shane and Christine Matveyeff was in mourning.
Around lunch time, carers
❝
“There is no reason for them not to continue the services,”
— Christine Matveyeff
arrived and busied themselves with their regular duties for Mr Matveyeff– a stroke survivor who developed ‘Locked-in Syndrome’ six years ago – as they had done countless times, before leaving.
The next day a confidential and disparaging note written by a carer made its way back to Mrs Matveyeff from a source outside the organisation.
After making a complaint about the breach of confidentiality, Churches of Christ Care found the
Matveyeff’s concerns were “unable to be substantiated”.
Then came the real kick to the face, as Mrs Matveyeff put it.
Two weeks after Churches of Christ Care found there had been “no breach of confidentiality”, the couple received another letter.
After six years of caring for Mr Matveyeff, Churches of Christ Care was cutting their services and would be transitioning him to another
provider under the National Disability Insurance Scheme from October 6.
Mr Matveyeff’s care was setup so that his personal hygiene was looked after through a Level 4 Home Care Package with Churches of Christ, and the rest of his needs met by a NDIS package with several other providers.
Despite Mr Matveyeff successfully transitioning to an NDIS package on
January 6, Churches of Christ Care was now arguing - nine months later - that Mr Matveyeff was ineligible to receive both streams of funding.
The Matveyeffs say they were dumfounded.
They had made sure that all their providers were kept in the loop when Mr Matveyeff transitioned to the NDIS package earlier in the year, and Churches of Christ Care had billed Medicare
almost $50,000 for services throughout the course of the year.
“There is no reason for them not to continue the services under the Medicare subsidy that Shane gets,” Mrs Matveyeff said.
“The only thing that’s changed in the last 10 months is the breach.
“In my mind it’s black and white,” she said, suggesting his care was cut because they had complained.