Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 239

Home care: the good, the bad, and the ugly

The Good

In February 2017, Home Care Packages underwent major reform, giving consumers the ability to choose their home care provider, direct funds to the services they want and need, and wield the ultimate consumer power – the ability to move from one provider to another.

Without a doubt, the best thing about Home Care Packages is that they enable people to stay in their own home and community, whether that is a family home, an apartment, a caravan park, a retirement community, a granny flat, or other living arrangement.

For the most part, Home Care Packages are affordable. The Basic Daily Fee is set at 17.5% of the age pension, or $10 per day. The need to contribute beyond this amount is based on the person’s income with the fee calculated at 50c per dollar in excess of the threshold and capped at $10,627 per year. For people of limited means (or good negotiating skills), the Basic Daily Fee can be negotiated with the provider.

(For more details on the fees applicable to Home Care, see ‘Home is where the care is’).

The Bad

With the increase in choice and control comes an increase in responsibility to understand the fees and charges that apply, potentially negotiate some of them, and pick a provider. While this may seem fair and reasonable, the fee schedules can be mind-boggling with call out fees, different rates for the same service at different times of the week or day, and minimum periods. The fees and charges vary from one provider to the next, and for consumers who want to compare one provider with another, it can be an almost impossible task.

In addition to the cost of their ongoing care, consumers need to be aware of and factor in the cost of an exit fee if they move from one provider to another. Many providers don’t charge exit fees. Some providers, however, charge an amount that covers the cost of the administration involved usually around $500, while at least one has an exit fee in excess of $4,000.

The funding provided through a Home Care Package is based on the level of the package the consumer receives, as shown in the table below.

Home Care Subsidy Daily Rates (1 July 2017 – 30 June 2018)

Additional supplements are paid for people with special care needs such as oxygen and enteral feeding.

Home Care Funding is simply an allocation of monies, but the money may not cover the cost of care. In many cases, people find that they need to ‘top up’ their package with private care.

The Ugly

Unfortunately, many consumers still view Home Care as a ‘slippery slope into a nursing home’ and delay accessing services. The expectation is they will get it when they really need it. The reality is that demand is increasing and the number of people waiting for a package is greater than those receiving one.

Between March and September 2017, the average number of approvals jumped from 401 to 497 per day. The majority of approvals are for people with higher care needs (Levels 3 and 4).

These approvals are adding to the growing number of people on the national prioritisation queue, which was up from 88,904 on 30 June 2017 to 101,508 on 30 September 2017.

Of the 101,000 in the queue, around 41,000 have an interim package which is below their assessed care needs. The other 60,000 are waiting with no interim package at all.

While 101,000 people are waiting, only 72,000 are actually getting a package and the queue is growing (data from the Reference Home Care Packages Program Report, Department of Health).

The bottom line is that the wheels turn but in some cases, they turn very slowly. Consumers can expect to wait for the ACAT assessment (to determine eligibility and package level), wait for the approval, and then wait for the Home Care Package. At the end of it all, maybe a Home Care Package lower than the assessed need may be made available.

The role of the adviser has never been so broad or so valuable. Crunching the numbers on the contribution to the Home Care Package is possibly the least valuable component. The real value is in the knowledge the adviser has of the system and helping the client navigate the various aspects and to come out the other end with access to the care they need that is also affordable.

 

Rachel Lane is the Principal of Aged Care Gurus and has co-authored a number of books including ‘Aged Care, Who Cares?’ with Noel Whittaker. This article is general information only.

4 Comments
Kristin Robb
October 15, 2021

Some companies are taking as much as 30% of government funds for admin costs. They charge the client travel cost of up to $1.10 per km and only pay their employee $0.79 per km. Even the providers that claim to be non profit are paying their ceo an obscene amount of money. They offer no job advancement to their employees who often quit due to burn out, lack of training to cope with things they need to deal with, lack of fair pay, weak management and isolation. It’s 100% all about profits, many concerns about clients that are raised by care workers go overlooked. Because the management feel the care workers are not qualified to make any changes to a clients care. They want their employees unskilled because if they offered them qualifications they’re have to pay more. Many clients start on chsp packages which = about 6 hrs cleaning a fortnight at $10 per hr and when their package becomes available they refuse it because in there eyes why pay $70 a week for the same thing u been getting for $60 a fortnight. They just clog up the system even further

Steph
September 01, 2021

I noticed this is from a while back, but if anyone is presently looking into home care, The CareSide is one provider out there that won't bombard you with absurd and unexpected fees. They have a great story about one of their clients' journeys to choosing them (but also heartbreaking when you see what was gone through at the beginning before he came across The CareSide): https://www.thecareside.com.au/post/case-study-saying-goodbye-to-hidden-fees

Felix
February 09, 2018

I had a recent experience with a Home Care Package with my mother. It was great overall, as it allowed my mum to live with us for two years before it was no longer workable due to her worsening dementia.

However, a big negative about them is that they don't provide the ongoing monitoring and medical assessment that you get in a nursing home. In my mum's case, with severe Diabetes as well as Dementia, the at home workers would visit, give her medication, make her a cup of coffee then leave. There was no blood sugar monitoring, etc. During this time she deteriorated and it was only when she went into full time care at the nursing home where she is monitored every day that we realised how bad it was and how badly managed her diabetes was during the Home Care period.

With my partner and I working full time we really hoped the Home Care package could take care of my mum medically, but apart from some social interaction and keeping an eye on her, this achieved very little.

Anon
February 10, 2018

Glucose monitoring, BP checks, wound care, insulin injections etc is available if requested by GP or carers. The issue here is that your mother may not have had sufficiently detailed GP supervision to look after her and guide you through this care maze.

The sequence of events is:
1. Medical mishap causing disability and need for care
2. See GP to assess. Fix it or refer for ACAT help.
3. ACAT assessment to provide a funding letter.
4. Use funding letter to pick a provider with the help of a Social worker
5. Wait for care provider to become available.
6. When available, access help from provider.

Then wait for next medical mishap/disability. Start from above all over again until uo die or get admitted to a nursing home.

Waiting is inevitable and there is no way to skip the queue except to get yourself admitted to hospital on the grounds that you are unable to look after yourself without help at home. This way it costs the State hospitals a massive amount of money and forces the Hospital to put you in a facility called Rehabilitation or Care Awaiting Placement until a Care provider is available.

Just providing the stark reality.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Overdue overhaul of Australia’s aged care system

Lessons from my Dad, in and out of aged care

Why the poor will pay more for aged care next year

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.