Indexation woefully inadequate and unsustainable: peak body

 

Aged & Community Services Australia (ACSA) says the recent indexation increase for home and residential aged care funding will be inadequate and services for older Australians will suffer as a result.

“The situation facing aged care is very serious. The response from government is still woefully inadequate and services will suffer,” said ACSA chief Patricia Sparrow.

“These increases simply aren’t enough. In aged care we have more providers operating at a loss than ever before, more complex health and care needs than ever before, unprecedented demand and rising costs.

“As a nation we need a better plan for our own ageing and for the ageing population so that everyone is treated with respect. Providers need to own up to failures when they occur, and improvements need to be made, but ultimately it is the responsibility of everyone to ensure we have a sustainable system that provides people with a high quality of care, dignity and respect.

“The minor gain of a 1.4 per cent indexation increase in residential aged care is hardly a compensation for the fact that the 9.5 per cent temporary funding increase is about to cease. This level of indexation increase for home care packages further erodes their value to clients and families.

“The Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP), the largest of the support programs, is the building block for keeping older people well and independent. But it is struggling with demand whilst also being expected to maintain services with annual indexation increases of just over a  per cent. Providers are being squeezed at both ends.

“Wages in the award system have been boosted by a 3 per cent annual increase which clearly displays the inadequacy of the 1.4 per cent indexation to support our staff in aged care.

“These rates will widen the gap between the funding and services available and the costs needed to provide appropriate care for our ageing population.

“Currently, 45 per cent of aged care facilities are operating at a loss and this figure rises to 67 per cent for outer regional, rural and remote services.

“As we live longer, our healthcare needs are more complex. It’s clear that the costs are increasing faster than the amount of funding the sector has been allocated.

“The government has provided stop gap measures such as the short-term funding increase, but these temporary measures are about to cease. Providers will struggle but ultimately it is our clients and residents who will feel the pinch.

“Our ageing population can’t wait any longer. The Royal Commission can’t be used as an excuse to delay urgent actions that can be taken now,” said Ms Sparrow.

For the full list of aged care subsidies and supplements, visit www.agedcare.health.gov.au

5 comments

We sure need a Royal Commission into these places AND also more dedicated workers for staff these poor souls are at the mercy of some of the worst so-called "carers"   and are suffering dreadfully surely the last time on earth can be made pleasant as possible?

As the costs rise and government funding doesn’t it will be the users who have to pay more. Enter the Pension Loan Scheme which may be the only way some people will be able to afford aged care.

I think I would do myself in if I had to go into aged care

I'm with Plan B - horrendous treatment of the elderly.

Because they have worked and contributed via paying income taxes.

Many having lived through WW2 and served either in the forces or kept the home fires burning.

Our generation and those who came before us,  always worked and contributed to society.

Not like today,  far too many came to be paid not to work.  

Whether people served in WW2 is beside the point. The simple fact is that the government can't afford the increasing costs of the elderly - hospitals, prescriptions, pensions, aged care - so, as Sunday has observed, people older people who have income and assets will have to pay more. I don't see any other solution.

We should remember that it's younger taxpayers who have to pay for the elderly, and with the oldest baby boomers now 73, these costs are going to increase dramatically over the next 30 years.

Maybe the younger generations didn't experience WW2, but a lot of them experienced Iran and Afganistan. A lot of them (especially in Sydney and Melbourne) can't afford a house, so I don't see why they should have to pay higher taxes so that older peoole with $1 million plus houses can stay on the full pension and have free aged care.

Whether people served in WW2 is beside the point. The simple fact is that the government can't afford the increasing costs of the elderly - hospitals, prescriptions, pensions, aged care - so, as Sunday has observed, people older people who have income and assets will have to pay more. I don't see any other solution.

We should remember that it's younger taxpayers who have to pay for the elderly, and with the oldest baby boomers now 73, these costs are going to increase dramatically over the next 30 years.

Maybe the younger generations didn't experience WW2, but a lot of them experienced Iran and Afganistan. A lot of them (especially in Sydney and Melbourne) can't afford a house, so I don't see why they should have to pay higher taxes so that older peoole with $1 million plus houses can stay on the full pension and have free aged care.

5 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment